diff options
| author | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-14 18:46:14 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-14 18:46:14 -0700 |
| commit | 5e6fc56759d7444dbb81667ef7956a42ab5c9675 (patch) | |
| tree | 063e3763cc3e4ed1812f0b42412bbe48bad14bfc /44555-0.txt | |
Diffstat (limited to '44555-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 44555-0.txt | 34652 |
1 files changed, 34652 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/44555-0.txt b/44555-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..529d0c1 --- /dev/null +++ b/44555-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,34652 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of Systematic Theology (Volume 2 of 3) by +Augustus Hopkins Strong + + + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no +restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under +the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or +online at http://www.gutenberg.org/license + + + +Title: Systematic Theology (Volume 2 of 3) + +Author: Augustus Hopkins Strong + +Release Date: December 31, 2013 [Ebook #44555] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: UTF‐8 + + +***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY (VOLUME 2 OF 3)*** + + + + + + Systematic Theology + + A Compendium and Commonplace-Book + + Designed For The Use Of Theological Students + + By + + Augustus Hopkins Strong, D.D., LL.D. + +President and Professor of Biblical Theology in the Rochester Theological + Seminary + + Revised and Enlarged + + In Three Volumes + + Volume 2 + + The Doctrine of Man + + The Judson Press + + Philadelphia + + 1907 + + + + + +CONTENTS + + +Part IV. The Nature, Decrees, And Works of God. (Continued) + Chapter IV. The Works Of God; Or The Execution Of The Decrees. + Section I.—Creation. + I. Definition Of Creation. + II. Proof of the Doctrine of Creation. + 1. Direct Scripture Statements. + 2. Indirect evidence from Scripture. + III. Theories which oppose Creation. + 1. Dualism. + 2. Emanation. + 3. Creation from eternity. + 4. Spontaneous generation. + IV. The Mosaic Account of Creation. + 1. Its twofold nature,—as uniting the ideas of creation and of + development. + 2. Its proper interpretation. + V. God’s End in Creation. + 1. The testimony of Scripture. + 2. The testimony of reason. + VI. Relation of the Doctrine of Creation to other Doctrines. + 1. To the holiness and benevolence of God. + 2. To the wisdom and free-will of God. + 3. To Christ as the Revealer of God. + 4. To Providence and Redemption. + 5. To the Observance of the Sabbath. + Section II.—Preservation. + I. Definition of Preservation. + II. Proof of the Doctrine of Preservation. + 1. From Scripture. + 2. From Reason. + III. Theories which virtually deny the doctrine of Preservation. + 1. Deism. + 2. Continuous Creation. + IV. Remarks upon the Divine Concurrence. + Section III.—Providence. + I. Definition of Providence. + II. Proof of the Doctrine of Providence. + 1. Scriptural Proof. + 2. Rational proof. + III. Theories opposing the Doctrine of Providence. + 1. Fatalism. + 2. Casualism. + 3. Theory of a merely general providence. + IV. Relations of the Doctrine of Providence. + 1. To miracles and works of grace. + 2. To prayer and its answer. + 3. To Christian activity. + 4. To the evil acts of free agents. + Section IV.—Good And Evil Angels. + I. Scripture Statements and Imitations. + 1. As to the nature and attributes of angels. + 2. As to their number and organization. + 3. As to their moral character. + 4. As to their employments. + A. The employments of good angels. + B. The employments of evil angels. + II. Objections to the Doctrine of Angels. + 1. To the doctrine of angels in general. + 2. To the doctrine of evil angels in particular. + III. Practical uses of the Doctrine of Angels. + A. Uses of the doctrine of good angels. + B. Uses of the doctrine of evil angels. +Part V. Anthropology, Or The Doctrine Of Man. + Chapter I. Preliminary. + I. Man a Creation of God and a Child of God. + II. Unity of the Human Race. + 1. The argument from history. + 2. The argument from language. + 3. The argument from psychology. + 4. The argument from physiology. + III. Essential Elements of Human Nature. + 1. The Dichotomous Theory. + 2. The Trichotomous Theory. + IV. Origin of the Soul. + 1. The Theory of Preëxistence. + 2. The Creatian Theory. + 3. The Traducian Theory. + V. The Moral Nature of Man. + 1. Conscience. + 2. Will. + Chapter II. The Original State Of Man. + I. Essentials of Man’s Original State. + 1. Natural likeness to God, or personality. + 2. Moral likeness to God, or holiness. + A. The image of God as including only personality. + B. The image of God as consisting simply in man’s natural + capacity for religion. + II. Incidents of Man’s Original State. + 1. Results of man’s possession of the divine image. + 2. Concomitants of man’s possession of the divine image. + Chapter III. Sin, Or Man’s State Of Apostasy. + Section I.—The Law Of God. + I. Law in General. + II. The Law of God in Particular. + III. Relation of the Law to the Grace of God. + Section II.—Nature Of Sin. + I. Definition of Sin. + 1. Proof. + 2. Inferences. + II. The Essential Principle of Sin. + 1. Sin as Sensuousness. + 2. Sin as Finiteness. + 3. Sin as Selfishness. + Section III.—Universality Of Sin. + I. Every human being who has arrived at moral consciousness has + committed acts, or cherished dispositions, contrary to the divine + law. + II. Every member of the human race, without exception, possesses + a corrupted nature, which is a source of actual sin, and is + itself sin. + Section IV.—Origin Of Sin In The Personal Act Of Adam. + I. The Scriptural Account of the Temptation and Fall in Genesis + 3:1-7. + 1. Its general, character not mythical or allegorical, but + historical. + 2. The course of the temptation, and the resulting fall. + II. Difficulties connected with the Fall considered as the + personal Act of Adam. + 1. How could a holy being fall? + 2. How could God justly permit Satanic temptation? + 3. How could a penalty so great be justly connected with + disobedience to so slight a command? + III. Consequences of the Fall, so far as respects Adam. + 1. Death. + 2. Positive and formal exclusion from God’s presence. + Section V.—Imputation Of Adam’s Sin To His Posterity. + I. Theories of Imputation. + 1. The Pelagian Theory, or Theory of Man’s natural Innocence. + 2. The Arminian Theory, or Theory of voluntarily appropriated + Depravity. + 3. The New School Theory, or Theory of uncondemnable + Vitiosity. + 4. The Federal Theory, or Theory of Condemnation by Covenant. + 5. Theory of Mediate Imputation, or Theory of Condemnation for + Depravity. + 6. The Augustinian Theory, or Theory of Adam’s Natural + Headship. + II.—Objections to the Augustinian Doctrine of Imputation. + Section VI.—Consequences Of Sin To Adam’s Posterity. + I. Depravity. + 1. Depravity partial or total? + 2. Ability or inability? + II. Guilt. + 1. Nature of guilt. + 2. Degrees of guilt. + III. Penalty. + 1. Idea of penalty. + 2. The actual penalty of sin. + Section VII.—The Salvation Of Infants. +Part VI. Soteriology, Or The Doctrine Of Salvation Through The Work Of +Christ And Of The Holy Spirit. + Chapter I. Christology, Or The Redemption Wrought By Christ. + Section I.—Historical Preparation For Redemption. + I. Negative Preparation,—in the history of the heathen world. + II. Positive Preparation,—in the history of Israel. + Section II.—The Person Of Christ. + I. Historical Survey of Views Respecting the Person of Christ. + II. The two Natures of Christ,—their Reality and Integrity. + 1. The Humanity of Christ. + 2. The Deity of Christ. + III. The Union of the two Natures in one Person. + 1. Proof of this Union. + 2. Modern misrepresentations of this Union. + 3. The real nature of this Union. + Section III.—The Two States Of Christ. + I. The State of Humiliation. + 1. The nature of this humiliation. + 2. The stages of Christ’s humiliation. + II. The State of Exaltation. + 1. The nature of this exaltation. + 2. The stages of Christ’s exaltation. + Section IV.—The Offices Of Christ. + I. The Prophetic Office of Christ. + 1. The nature of Christ’s prophetic work. + 2. The stages of Christ’s prophetic work. + II. The Priestly Office of Christ. + 1. Christ’s Sacrificial Work, or the Doctrine of the + Atonement. + A. Scripture Methods of Representing the Atonement. + B. The Institution of Sacrifice, more especially as found + in the Mosaic system. + C. Theories of the Atonement. + 1st. The Socinian, or Example Theory of the Atonement. + 2nd. The Bushnellian, or Moral Influence Theory of the + Atonement. + 3d. The Grotian, or Governmental Theory of the + Atonement. + 4th. The Irvingian Theory, or Theory of Gradually + Extirpated Depravity. + 5th. The Anselmic, or Commercial Theory of the + Atonement. + 6th. The Ethical Theory of the Atonement. + D. Objections to the Ethical Theory of the Atonement. + E. The Extent of the Atonement. + 2. Christ’s Intercessory Work. + III. The Kingly Office of Christ. + + + + + + + [Cover Art] + +[Transcriber’s Note: The above cover image was produced by the submitter +at Distributed Proofreaders, and is being placed into the public domain.] + + + + + +Christo Deo Salvatori. + +“THE EYE SEES ONLY THAT WHICH IT BRINGS WITH IT THE POWER OF +SEEING.”—_Cicero._ + +“OPEN THOU MINE EYES, THAT I MAY BEHOLD WONDROUS THINGS OUT OF THY +LAW.”—_Psalm 119:18._ + +“FOR WITH THEE IS THE FOUNTAIN OF LIFE: IN THY LIGHT SHALL WE SEE +LIGHT.”—_Psalm 36:9._ + +“FOR WE KNOW IN PART, AND WE PROPHESY IN PART; BUT WHEN THAT WHICH IS +PERFECT IS COME, THAT WHICH IS IN PART SHALL BE DONE AWAY.”—_1 Cor. 13:9, +10._ + + + + + +PART IV. THE NATURE, DECREES, AND WORKS OF GOD. (CONTINUED) + + + + +Chapter IV. The Works Of God; Or The Execution Of The Decrees. + + + +Section I.—Creation. + + +I. Definition Of Creation. + + +By creation we mean that free act of the triune God by which in the +beginning for his own glory he made, without the use of preëxisting +materials, the whole visible and invisible universe. + +Creation is designed origination, by a transcendent and personal God, of +that which itself is not God. The universe is related to God as our own +volitions are related to ourselves. They are not ourselves, and we are +greater than they. Creation is not simply the idea of God, or even the +plan of God, but it is the idea externalized, the plan executed; in other +words, it implied an exercise, not only of intellect, but also of will, +and this will is not an instinctive and unconscious will, but a will that +is personal and free. Such exercise of will seems to involve, not +self-development, but self-limitation, on the part of God; the +transformation of energy into force, and so a beginning of time, with its +finite successions. But, whatever the relation of creation to time, +creation makes the universe wholly dependent upon God, as its originator. + + + F. H. Johnson, in Andover Rev., March, 1891:280, and What is + Reality, 285—“Creation is designed origination.... Men never could + have thought of God as the Creator of the world, were it not that + they had first known themselves as creators.” We agree with the + doctrine of Hazard, Man a Creative First Cause. Man creates ideas + and volitions, without use of preëxisting material. He also + indirectly, through these ideas and volitions, creates + brain-modifications. This creation, as Johnson has shown, is + without hands, yet elaborate, selective, progressive. + Schopenhauer: “Matter is nothing more than causation; its true + being is its action.” + + Prof. C. L. Herrick, Denison Quarterly, 1896:248, and + Psychological Review, March, 1899, advocates what he calls + _dynamism_, which he regards as the only alternative to a + materialistic dualism which posits matter, and a God above and + distinct from matter. He claims that the predicate of reality can + apply only to energy. To speak of energy as _residing in_ + something is to introduce an entirely incongruous concept, for it + continues our guest _ad infinitum_. “Force,” he says, “is energy + under resistance, or self-limited energy, for all parts of the + universe are derived from the energy. Energy manifesting itself + under self-conditioning or differential forms is force. The change + of pure energy into force is creation—the introduction of + resistance. The progressive complication of this interference is + evolution—a form of orderly resolution of energy. Substance is + pure spontaneous energy. God’s substance is his energy—the + infinite and inexhaustible store of spontaneity which makes up his + being. The form which self-limitation impresses upon substance, in + revealing it in force, is not God, because it no longer possesses + the attributes of spontaneity and universality, though it emanates + from him. When we speak of energy as self-limited, we simply imply + that spontaneity is intelligent. The sum of God’s acts is his + being. There is no _causa posterior_ or _extranea_, which spurs + him on. We must recognize in the source what appears in the + outcome. We can speak of _absolute_, but not of _infinite_ or + _immutable_, substance. The Universe is but the partial expression + of an infinite God.” + + Our view of creation is so nearly that of Lotze, that we here + condense Ten Broeke’s statement of his philosophy: “Things are + concreted laws of action. If the idea of being must include + permanence as well as activity, we must say that only the personal + truly is. All else is flow and process. We can interpret ontology + only from the side of personality. Possibility of interaction + requires the dependence of the mutually related many of the system + upon an all-embracing, coördinating One. The finite is a mode or + phenomenon of the One Being. Mere things are only modes of + energizing of the One. Self-conscious personalities are created, + posited, and depend on the One in a different way. Interaction of + things is immanent action of the One, which the perceiving mind + interprets as causal. Real interaction is possible only between + the Infinite and the created finite, _i. e._, self-conscious + persons. The finite is not a part of the Infinite, nor does it + partly exhaust the stuff of the Infinite. The One, by an act of + freedom, posits the many, and the many have their ground and unity + in the Will and Thought of the One. Both the finite and the + Infinite are free and intelligent. + + “Space is not an extra-mental reality, _sui generis_, nor an order + of relations among realities, but a form of dynamic appearance, + the ground of which is the fixed orderly changes in reality. So + time is the form of change, the subjective interpretation of + timeless yet successive changes in reality. So far as God is the + ground of the world-process, he is in time. So far as he + transcends the world-process in his self-conscious personality, he + is not in time. Motion too is the subjective interpretation of + changes in things, which changes are determined by the demands of + the world-system and the purpose being realized in it. Not + atomism, but dynamism, is the truth. Physical phenomena are + referable to the activity of the Infinite, which activity is given + a substantive character because we think under the form of + substance and attribute. Mechanism is compatible with teleology. + Mechanism is universal and is necessary to all system. But it is + limited by purpose, and by the possible appearance of any new law, + force, or act of freedom. + + “The soul is not a function of material activities, but is a true + reality. The system is such that it can admit new factors, and the + soul is one of these possible new factors. The soul is created as + substantial reality, in contrast with other elements of the + system, which are only phenomenal manifestations of the One + Reality. The relation between soul and body is that of interaction + between the soul and the universe, the body being that part of the + universe which stands in closest relation with the soul (_versus_ + Bradley, who holds that ‘body and soul alike are phenomenal + arrangements, neither one of which has any title to fact which is + not owned by the other’). Thought is a knowledge of reality. We + must assume an adjustment between subject and object. This + assumption is founded on the postulate of a morally perfect God.” + To Lotze, then, the only real creation is that of finite + personalities,—matter being only a mode of the divine activity. + See Lotze, Microcosmos, and Philosophy of Religion. Bowne, in his + Metaphysics and his Philosophy of Theism, is the best expositor of + Lotze’s system. + + +In further explanation of our definition we remark that + +(_a_) Creation is not “production out of nothing,” as if “nothing” were a +substance out of which “something” could be formed. + + + We do not regard the doctrine of Creation as bound to the use of + the phrase “creation out of nothing,” and as standing or falling + with it. The phrase is a philosophical one, for which we have no + Scriptural warrant, and it is objectionable as intimating that + “nothing” can itself be an object of thought and a source of + being. The germ of truth intended to be conveyed in it can better + be expressed in the phrase “without use of preëxisting materials.” + + +(_b_) Creation is not a fashioning of preëxisting materials, nor an +emanation from the substance of Deity, but is a making of that to exist +which once did not exist, either in form or substance. + + + There is nothing divine in creation but the origination of + substance. Fashioning is competent to the creature also. Gassendi + said to Descartes that God’s creation, if he is the author of + forms but not of substances, is only that of the tailor who + clothes a man with his apparel. But substance is not necessarily + material. We are to conceive of it rather after the analogy of our + own ideas and volitions, and as a manifestation of spirit. + Creation is not simply the thought of God, nor even the plan of + God, but rather the externalization of that thought and the + execution of that plan. Nature is “a great sheet let down from God + out of heaven,” and containing “nothing that is common or + unclean;” but nature is not God nor a part of God, any more than + our ideas and volitions are ourselves or a part of ourselves. + Nature is a partial manifestation of God, but it does not exhaust + God. + + +(_c_) Creation is not an instinctive or necessary process of the divine +nature, but is the free act of a rational will, put forth for a definite +and sufficient end. + + + Creation is different in kind from that eternal process of the + divine nature in virtue of which we speak of generation and + procession. The Son is begotten of the Father, and is of the same + essence; the world is created without preëxisting material, is + different from God, and is made by God. Begetting is a necessary + act; creation is the act of God’s free grace. Begetting is + eternal, out of time; creation is in time, or with time. + + Studia Biblica, 4:148—“Creation is the voluntary limitation which + God has imposed on himself.... It can only be regarded as a + Creation of free spirits.... It is a form of almighty power to + submit to limitation. Creation is not a development of God, but a + circumscription of God.... The world is not the expression of God, + or an emanation from God, but rather his self-limitation.” + + +(_d_) Creation is the act of the triune God, in the sense that all the +persons of the Trinity, themselves uncreated, have a part in it—the Father +as the originating, the Son as the mediating, the Spirit as the realizing +cause. + + + That all of God’s creative activity is exercised through Christ + has been sufficiently proved in our treatment of the Trinity and + of Christ’s deity as an element of that doctrine (see pages 310, + 311). We may here refer to the texts which have been previously + considered, namely, _John 1:3, 4_—“_All things were made through + him, and without him was not anything made. That which hath been + made was life in him_”; _1 Cor. 8:6_—“_one Lord, Jesus Christ, + through whom are all things_”; _Col. 1:16_—“_all things have been + created through him, and unto him_”; _Heb. 1:10_—“_Thou, Lord, in + the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the + heavens are the works of thy hands._” + + The work of the Holy Spirit seems to be that of completing, + bringing to perfection. We can understand this only by remembering + that our Christian knowledge and love are brought to their + consummation by the Holy Spirit, and that he is also the principle + of our natural self-consciousness, uniting subject and object in a + subject-object. If matter is conceived of as a manifestation of + spirit, after the idealistic philosophy, then the Holy Spirit may + be regarded as the perfecting and realizing agent in the + externalization of the divine ideas. While it was the Word though + whom all things were made, the Holy Spirit was the author of life, + order, and adornment. Creation is not a mere manufacturing,—it is + a spiritual act. + + John Caird, Fundamental Ideas of Christianity, 1:120—“The creation + of the world cannot be by a Being who is external. Power + presupposes an object on which it is exerted. 129—There is in the + very nature of God a reason why he should reveal himself in, and + communicate himself to, a world of finite existences, or fulfil + and realize himself in the being and life of nature and man. His + nature would not be what it is if such a world did not exist; + something would be lacking to the completeness of the divine being + without it. 144—Even with respect to human thought or + intelligence, it is mind or spirit which creates the world. It is + not a ready-made world on which we look; in perceiving our world + we make it. 152-154—We make progress as we cease to think our own + thoughts and become media of the universal Intelligence.” While we + accept Caird’s idealistic interpretation of creation, we dissent + from his intimation that creation is a necessity to God. The + trinitarian being of God renders him sufficient to himself, even + without creation. Yet those very trinitarian relations throw light + upon the method of creation, since they disclose to us the order + of all the divine activity. On the definition of Creation, see + Shedd, History of Doctrine, 1:11. + + +II. Proof of the Doctrine of Creation. + + +Creation is a truth of which mere science or reason cannot fully assure +us. Physical science can observe and record changes, but it knows nothing +of origins. Reason cannot absolutely disprove the eternity of matter. For +proof of the doctrine of Creation, therefore, we rely wholly upon +Scripture. Scripture supplements science, and renders its explanation of +the universe complete. + + + Drummond, in his Natural Law in the Spiritual World, claims that + atoms, as “manufactured articles,” and the dissipation of energy, + prove the creation of the visible from the invisible. See the same + doctrine propounded in “The Unseen Universe.” But Sir Charles + Lyell tells us: “Geology is the autobiography of the earth,—but + like all autobiographies, it does not go back to the beginning.” + Hopkins, Yale Lectures on the Scriptural View of Man: “There is + nothing _a priori_ against the eternity of matter.” Wardlaw, Syst. + Theol., 2:65—“We cannot form any distinct conception of creation + out of nothing. The very idea of it might never have occurred to + the mind of man, had it not been traditionally handed down as a + part of the original revelation to the parents of the race.” + + Hartmann, the German philosopher, goes back to the original + elements of the universe, and then says that science stands + petrified before the question of their origin, as before a + Medusa’s head. But in the presence of problems, says Dorner, the + duty of science is not petrifaction, but solution. This is + peculiarly true, if science is, as Hartmann thinks, a complete + explanation of the universe. Since science, by her own + acknowledgment, furnishes no such explanation of the origin of + things, the Scripture revelation with regard to creation meets a + demand of human reason, by adding the one fact without which + science must forever be devoid of the highest unity and + rationality. For advocacy of the eternity of matter, see + Martineau, Essays, 1:157-169. + + E. H. Johnson, in Andover Review, Nov. 1891:505 sq., and Dec. + 1891:592 sq., remarks that evolution can be traced backward to + more and more simple elements, to matter without motion and with + no quality but being. Now make it still more simple by divesting + it of existence, and you get back to the necessity of a Creator. + An infinite number of past stages is impossible. There is no + infinite number. Somewhere there must be a beginning. We grant to + Dr. Johnson that the only alternative to creation is a + materialistic dualism, or an eternal matter which is the product + of the divine mind and will. The theories of dualism and of + creation from eternity we shall discuss hereafter. + + +1. Direct Scripture Statements. + + +A. Genesis 1:1—“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” To +this it has been objected that the verb ברא does not necessarily denote +production without the use of preexisting materials (see Gen. 1:27 “God +created man in his own image”; _cf._ 2:7—“the Lord God formed man of the +dust of the ground”; also Ps. 51:10—“Create in me a clean heart”). + + + “In the first two chapters of Genesis ברא is used (1) of the + creation of the universe (_1:1_); (2) of the creation of the great + sea monsters (_1:21_); (3) of the creation of man (_1:27_). + Everywhere else we read of God’s _making_, as from an already + created substance, the firmament (_1:7_), the sun, moon and stars + (_1:16_), the brute creation (_1:25_); or of his _forming_ the + beasts of the field out of the ground (_2:19_); or, lastly, of his + _building up_ into a woman the rib he had taken from man (_2:22_, + margin)”—quoted from Bible Com., 1:31. Guyot, Creation, 30—“_Bara_ + is thus reserved for marking the first introduction of each of the + three great spheres of existence—the world of matter, the world of + life, and the spiritual world represented by man.” + + +We grant, in reply, that the argument for absolute creation derived from +the mere word ברא is not entirely conclusive. Other considerations in +connection with the use of this word, however, seem to render this +interpretation of Gen. 1:1 the most plausible. Some of these +considerations we proceed to mention. + +(_a_) While we acknowledge that the verb ברא “does not necessarily or +invariably denote production without the use of preëxisting materials, we +still maintain that it signifies the production of an effect for which no +natural antecedent existed before, and which can be only the result of +divine agency.” For this reason, in the Kal species it is used only of +God, and is never accompanied by any accusative denoting material. + + + No accusative denoting material follows _bara_, in the passages + indicated, for the reason that all thought of material was absent. + See Dillmann, Genesis, 18; Oehler, Theol. O. T., 1:177. The + quotation in the text above is from Green, Hebrew Chrestomathy, + 67. But E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 88, remarks: “Whether + the Scriptures teach the absolute origination of matter—its + creation out of nothing—is an open question.... No decisive + evidence is furnished by the Hebrew word _bara_.” + + A moderate and scholarly statement of the facts is furnished by + Professor W. J. Beecher, in S. S. Times, Dec. 23, 1893:807—“To + create is to originate divinely.... Creation, in the sense in + which the Bible uses the word, does not exclude the use of + materials previously existing; for man was taken from the ground + (_Gen. 2:7_), and woman was builded from the rib of a man + (_2:22_). Ordinarily God brings things into existence through the + operation of second causes. But it is possible, in our thinking, + to withdraw attention from the second causes, and to think of + anything as originating simply from God, apart from second causes. + To think of a thing thus is to think of it as created. The Bible + speaks of Israel as created, of the promised prosperity of + Jerusalem as created, of the Ammonite people and the king of Tyre + as created, of persons of any date in history as created (_Is. + 43:1-15_; _65:18_; _Ez. 21:30_; _28:13, 15_; _Ps. 102:18_; _Eccl. + 12:1_; _Mal. 2:10_). Miracles and the ultimate beginnings of + second causes are necessarily thought of as creative acts; all + other originating of things may be thought of, according to the + purpose we have in mind, either as creation or as effected by + second causes.” + + +(_b_) In the account of the creation, ברא seems to be distinguished from +עשה, “to make” either with or without the use of already existing material +(ברא לעשות, “created in making” or “made by creation,” in 2:3; and ויעש, +of the firmament, in 1:7), and from יצר, “to form” out of such material. +(See ויברא, of man regarded as a spiritual being, in 1:27; but ויצר, of +man regarded as a physical being, in 2:7.) + + + See Conant, Genesis, 1; Bible Com., 1:37—“ ‘created to make’ (in + _Gen. 2:3_) = created out of nothing, in order that he might make + out of it all the works recorded in the six days.” Over against + these texts, however, we must set others in which there appears no + accurate distinguishing of these words from one another. _Bara_ is + used in _Gen. 1:1_, _asah_ in _Gen. 2:4_, of the creation of the + heaven and earth. Of earth, both _yatzar_ and _asah_ are used in + _Is. 45:18_. In regard to man, in _Gen. 1:27_ we find _bara_; in + _Gen. 1:26_ and _9:6_, _asah_; and in _Gen. 2:7_, _yatzar_. In + _Is. 43:7_, all three are found in the same verse: “_whom I have_ + _bara_ _for my glory, I have_ _yatzar_, _yea, I have_ _asah_ + _him_.” In _Is. 45:12_, “_asah_ _the earth, and_ _bara_ _man upon + it_”; but in _Gen. 1:1_ we read: “_God_ _bara_ _the earth_,” and + in _9:6_ “_asah_ _man_.” _Is. 44:2—__“__the Lord that_ _asah_ + _thee_ (_i. e._, man) and _yatzar_ _thee_”; but in _Gen. 1:27_, + God “_bara_ _man_.” _Gen. 5:2_—“_male and female_ _bara_ _he + them_.” _Gen. 2:22_—“_the rib_ _asah_ _he a woman_”; _Gen. + 2:7_—“_he_ _yatzar_ _man_”; _i. e._, _bara_ male and female, yet + _asah_ the woman and _yatzar_ the man. _Asah_ is not always used + for _transform_: _Is. 41:20_—“_fir-tree, pine, box-tree_” in + nature—_bara_; _Ps. 51:10_—“_bara_ _in me a clean heart_”; _Is. + 65:18_—God “_bara_ _Jerusalem into a rejoicing_.” + + +(_c_) The context shows that the meaning here is a making without the use +of preëxisting materials. Since the earth in its rude, unformed, chaotic +condition is still called “the earth” in verse 2, the word ברא in verse 1 +cannot refer to any shaping or fashioning of the elements, but must +signify the calling of them into being. + + + Oehler, Theology of O.T., 1:177—“By the absolute _berashith_, ‘_in + the beginning_,’ the divine creation is fixed as an absolute + beginning, not as a working on something that already existed.” + _Verse 2_ cannot be the beginning of a history, for it begins with + “_and_.” Delitzsch says of the expression “_the earth was without + form and void_”: “From this it is evident that the void and + formless state of the earth was not uncreated or without a + beginning. ... It is evident that ‘_the heaven and earth_’ as God + created them in the beginning were not the well-ordered universe, + but the world in its elementary form.” + + +(_d_) The fact that ברא may have had an original signification of +“cutting,” “forming,” and that it retains this meaning in the Piel +conjugation, need not prejudice the conclusion thus reached, since terms +expressive of the most spiritual processes are derived from sensuous +roots. If ברא does not signify absolute creation, no word exists in the +Hebrew language that can express this idea. + +(_e_) But this idea of production without the use of preëxisting materials +unquestionably existed among the Hebrews. The later Scriptures show that +it had become natural to the Hebrew mind. The possession of this idea by +the Hebrews, while it is either not found at all or is very dimly and +ambiguously expressed in the sacred books of the heathen, can be best +explained by supposing that it was derived from this early revelation in +Genesis. + + + E. H. Johnson, Outline of Syst. Theol., 94—“_Rom. 4:17_ tells us + that the faith of Abraham, to whom God had promised a son, grasped + the fact that God calls into existence ‘_the things that are + not_.’ This may be accepted as Paul’s interpretation of the first + verse of the Bible.” It is possible that the heathen had + occasional glimpses of this truth, though with no such clearness + as that with which it was held in Israel. Perhaps we may say that + through the perversions of later nature-worship something of the + original revelation of absolute creation shines, as the first + writing of a palimpsest appears faintly through the subsequent + script with which it has been overlaid. If the doctrine of + absolute creation is found at all among the heathen, it is greatly + blurred and obscured. No one of the heathen books teaches it as do + the sacred Scriptures of the Hebrews. Yet it seems as if this “One + accent of the Holy Ghost The heedless world has never lost.” + + Bib. Com., 1:31—“Perhaps no other ancient language, however + refined and philosophical, could have so dearly distinguished the + different acts of the Maker of all things [as the Hebrew did With + its four different words], and that because all heathen philosophy + esteemed matter to be eternal and uncreated.” Prof. E. D. Burton: + “Brahmanism, and the original religion of which Zoroastrianism was + a reformation, were Eastern and Western divisions of a primitive + Aryan, and probably monotheistic, religion. The Vedas, which + represented the Brahmanism, leave it a question whence the world + came, whether from God by emanation, or by the shaping of material + eternally existent. Later Brahmanism is pantheistic, and Buddhism, + the Reformation of Brahmanism, is atheistic.” See Shedd, Dogm. + Theol., 1:471, and Mosheim’s references in Cudworth’s Intellectual + System, 3:140. + + We are inclined still to hold that the doctrine of absolute + creation was known to no other ancient nation besides the Hebrews. + Recent investigations, however, render this somewhat more doubtful + than it once seemed to be. Sayce, Hibbert Lectures, 142, 143, + finds creation among the early Babylonians. In his Religions of + Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, 372-397, he says: “The elements of + Hebrew cosmology are all Babylonian; even the creative word itself + was a Babylonian conception; but the spirit which inspires the + cosmology is the antithesis to that which inspired the cosmology + of Babylonia. Between the polytheism of Babylonia and the + monotheism of Israel a gulf is fixed which cannot be spanned. So + soon as we have a clear monotheism, absolute creation is a + corollary. As the monotheistic idea is corrupted, creation gives + place to pantheistic transformation.” + + It is now claimed by others that Zoroastrianism, the Vedas, and + the religion of the ancient Egyptians had the idea of absolute + creation. On creation in the Zoroastrian system, see our treatment + of Dualism, page 382. Vedic hymn in Rig Veda, 10:9, quoted by J. + F. Clarke, Ten Great Religions, 2:205—“Originally this universe + was soul only; nothing else whatsoever existed, active or + inactive. He thought: ‘I will create worlds’; thus he created + these various worlds: earth, light, mortal being, and the waters.” + Renouf, Hibbert Lectures, 216-222, speaks of a papyrus on the + staircase of the British Museum, which reads: “The great God, the + Lord of heaven and earth, who made all things which are ... the + almighty God, self-existent, who made heaven and earth; ... the + heaven was yet uncreated, uncreated was the earth; thou hast put + together the earth; ... who made all things, but was not made.” + + But the Egyptian religion in its later development, as well as + Brahmanism, was pantheistic, and it is possible that all the + expressions we have quoted are to be interpreted, not as + indicating a belief in creation out of nothing, but as asserting + emanation, or the taking on by deity of new forms and modes of + existence. On creation in heathen systems, see Pierret, + Mythologie, and answer to it by Maspero; Hymn to Amen-Rha, in + “Records of the Past”; G. C. Müller, Literature of Greece, 87, 88; + George Smith, Chaldean Genesis, chapters 1, 3, 5 and 6; Dillmann, + Com. on Genesis, 6th edition, Introd., 5-10; LeNormant, Hist. + Ancienne de l’Orient, 1:17-26; 5:238; Otto Zöckler, art.: + Schöpfung, in Herzog and Plitt, Encyclop.; S. B. Gould, Origin and + Devel. of Relig. Beliefs, 281-292. + + +B. Hebrews 11:3—“By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed +by the word of God, so that what is seen hath not been made out of things +which appear” = the world was not made out of sensible and preëxisting +material, but by the direct fiat of omnipotence (see Alford, and Lünemann, +Meyer’s Com. _in loco_). + + + Compare 2 Maccabees 7:28—ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐποίησεν αὐτὰ ὁ Θεός. This + the Vulgate translated by “quia ex nihilo fecit illa Deus,” and + from the Vulgate the phrase “creation out of nothing” is derived. + Hedge, Ways of the Spirit, points out that Wisdom 11:17 has ἐξ + ἀμόρφου ὕλης, interprets by this the ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων in 2 Maccabees, + and denies that this last refers to creation out of nothing. But + we must remember that the later Apocryphal writings were composed + under the influence of the Platonic philosophy; that the passage + in Wisdom may be a rationalistic interpretation of that in + Maccabees; and that even if it were independent, we are not to + assume a harmony of view in the Apocrypha. 2 Maccabees 7:28 must + stand by itself as a testimony to Jewish belief in creation + without use of preëxisting material,—belief which can be traced to + no other source than the Old Testament Scriptures. Compare _Ex. + 34:10_—“_I will do marvels such as have not been wrought_ [marg. + “_created_”] _in all the earth_”; _Num. 16:30_—“_if Jehovah make a + new thing_” [marg. “_create a creation_”]; _Is. 4:5_—“_Jehovah + will create ... a cloud and smoke_”; _41:20_—“_the Holy One of + Israel hath created it_”; _45:7, 8_—“_I form the light, and create + darkness_”; _57:19_—“_I create the fruit of the lips_”; + _65:17_—“_I create new heavens and a new earth_”; _Jer. + 31:22_—“_Jehovah hath created a new thing._” + + _Rom. 4:17_—“_God, who giveth life to the dead, and calleth the + things that are not, as though they were_”; _1 Cor. 1:28_—“_things + that are not_” [did God choose] “_that he might bring to naught + the things that are_”; _2 Cor. 4:6_—“_God, that said, Light shall + shine out of darkness_”—created light without preëxisting + material,—for darkness is no material; _Col. 1:16, 17_—“_in him + were all things created ... and he is before all things_”; so also + _Ps. 33:9_—“_he spake, and it was done_”; _148:5_—“_he commanded, + and they were created._” See Philo, Creation of the World, chap. + 1-7, and Life of Moses, book 3, chap. 36—“He produced the most + perfect work, the Cosmos, out of non-existence (τοῦ μὴ ὄντος) into + being (εἰς τὸ εἶναι).” E. H. Johnson, Syst. Theol., 94—“We have no + reason to believe that the Hebrew mind had the idea of creation + out of _invisible_ materials. But creation out of _visible_ + materials is in _Hebrews 11:3_ expressly denied. This text is + therefore equivalent to an assertion that the universe was made + without the use of _any_ preëxisting materials.” + + +2. Indirect evidence from Scripture. + + +(_a_) The past duration of the world is limited; (_b_) before the world +began to be, each of the persons of the Godhead already existed; (_c_) the +origin of the universe is ascribed to God, and to each of the persons of +the Godhead. These representations of Scripture are not only most +consistent with the view that the universe was created by God without use +of preëxisting material, but they are inexplicable upon any other +hypothesis. + + + (_a_) _Mark 13:19_—“_from the beginning of the creation which God + created until now_”; _John 17:5_—“_before the world was_”; _Eph. + 1:4_—“_before the foundation of the world._” (_b_) _Ps. + 90:2_—“_Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever thou + hadst formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to + everlasting thou art God_”; _Prov. 8:23_—“_I was set up from + everlasting, from the beginning, Before the earth was_”; _John + 1:1_—“_In the beginning was the Word_”; _Col. 1:17_—“_he is before + all things_”; _Heb. 9:14_—“_the eternal Spirit_” (see Tholuck, + Com. _in loco_). (_c_) _Eph. 3:9_—“_God who created all things_”; + _Rom. 11:36_—“_of him ... are all things_”; _1 Cor. 8:6_—“_one + God, the Father, of whom we are all things ... one Lord, Jesus + Christ, through whom are all things_”; _John 1:3_—“_all things + were made through him_”; _Col 1:16_—“_in him were all things + created ... all things have been created through him, and unto + him_”; _Heb. 1:2_—“_through whom also he made the worlds_”; _Gen. + 1:2_—“_and the Spirit of God moved_ [marg. “_was brooding_”] _upon + the face of the waters._” From these passages we may also infer + that (1) all things are absolutely dependent upon God; (2) God + exercises supreme control over all things; (3) God is the only + infinite Being; (4) God alone is eternal; (5) there is no + substance out of which God creates; (6) things do not proceed from + God by necessary emanation; the universe has its source and + originator in God’s transcendent and personal will. See, on this + indirect proof of creation, Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 2:231. Since + other views, however, have been held to be more rational, we + proceed to the examination of + + +III. Theories which oppose Creation. + + +1. Dualism. + + +Of dualism there are two forms: + +A. That which holds to two self-existent principles, God and matter. These +are distinct from and coëternal with each other. Matter, however, is an +unconscious, negative, and imperfect substance, which is subordinate to +God and is made the instrument of his will. This was the underlying +principle of the Alexandrian Gnostics. It was essentially an attempt to +combine with Christianity the Platonic or Aristotelian conception of the +ὕλη. In this way it was thought to account for the existence of evil, and +to escape the difficulty of imagining a production without use of +preëxisting material. Basilides (flourished 125) and Valentinus (died +160), the representatives of this view, were influenced also by Hindu +philosophy, and their dualism is almost indistinguishable from pantheism. +A similar view has been held in modern times by John Stuart Mill and +apparently by Frederick W. Robertson. + + + Dualism seeks to show how the One becomes the many, how the + Absolute gives birth to the relative, how the Good can consist + with evil. The ὕλη of Plato seems to have meant nothing but empty + space, whose not-being, or merely negative existence, prevented + the full realization of the divine ideas. Aristotle regarded the + ὕλη as a more positive cause of imperfection,—it was like the hard + material which hampers the sculptor in expressing his thought. The + real problem for both Plato and Aristotle was to explain the + passage from pure spiritual existence to that which is phenomenal + and imperfect, from the absolute and unlimited to that which + exists in space and time. Finiteness, instead of being created, + was regarded as having eternal existence and as limiting all + divine manifestations. The ὕλη, from being a mere abstraction, + became either a negative or a positive source of evil. The + Alexandrian Jews, under the influence of Hellenic culture, sought + to make this dualism explain the doctrine of creation. + + Basilides and Valentinus, however, were also under the influence + of a pantheistic philosophy brought in from the remote East—the + philosophy of Buddhism, which taught that the original Source of + all was a nameless Being, devoid of all qualities, and so, + indistinguishable from Nothing. From this Being, which is + Not-being, all existing things proceed. Aristotle and Hegel + similarly taught that pure Being = Nothing. But inasmuch as the + object of the Alexandrian philosophers was to show how something + could be originated, they were obliged to conceive of the + primitive Nothing as capable of such originating. They, moreover, + in the absence of any conception of absolute creation, were + compelled to conceive of a material which could be fashioned. + Hence the Void, the Abyss, is made to take the place of matter. If + it be said that they did not conceive of the Void or the Abyss as + substance, we reply that they gave it just as substantial + existence as they gave to the first Cause of things, which, in + spite of their negative descriptions of it, involved Will and + Design. And although they do not attribute to this secondary + substance a positive influence for evil, they notwithstanding see + in it the unconscious hinderer of all good. + + Principal Tulloch, in Encyc. Brit., 10:704—“In the Alexandrian + Gnosis ... the stream of being in its ever outward flow at length + comes in contact with dead matter which thus receives animation + and becomes a living source of evil.” Windelband, Hist. + Philosophy, 129, 144, 239—“With Valentinus, side by side with the + Deity poured forth into the Pleroma or Fulness of spiritual forms, + appears the Void, likewise original and from eternity; beside Form + appears matter; beside the good appears the evil.” Mansel, Gnostic + Heresies, 139—“The Platonic theory of an inert, semi-existent + matter, ... was adopted by the Gnosis of Egypt.... 187—Valentinus + does not content himself, like Plato, ... with assuming as the + germ of the natural world an unformed matter existing from all + eternity.... The whole theory may be described as a development, + in allegorical language of the pantheistic hypothesis which in its + outline had been previously adopted by Basilides.” A. H. Newman, + Ch. History, 1:181-192, calls the philosophy of Basilides + “fundamentally pantheistic.” “Valentinus,” he says, “was not so + careful to insist on the original non-existence of God and + everything.” We reply that even to Basilides the Non-existent One + is endued with power; and this power accomplishes nothing until it + comes in contact with things non-existent, and out of them + fashions the seed of the world. The things non-existent are as + substantial as is the Fashioner, and they imply both objectivity + and limitation. + + Lightfoot, Com. on Colossians, 76-113, esp. 82, has traced a + connection between the Gnostic doctrine, the earlier Colossian + heresy, and the still earlier teaching of the Essenes of + Palestine. All these were characterized by (1) the spirit of caste + or intellectual exclusiveness; (2) peculiar tenets as to creation + and as to evil; (3) practical asceticism. Matter is evil and + separates man from God; hence intermediate beings between man and + God as objects of worship; hence also mortification of the body as + a means of purifying man from sin. Paul’s antidote for both errors + was simply the person of Christ, the true and only Mediator and + Sanctifier. See Guericke, Church History, 1:161. + + Harnack, Hist. Dogma, 1:128—“The majority of Gnostic undertakings + may be viewed as attempts to transform Christianity into a + theosophy.... In Gnosticism the Hellenic spirit desired to make + itself master of Christianity, or more correctly, of the Christian + communities.”... 232—Harnack represents one of the fundamental + philosophic doctrines of Gnosticism to be that of the Cosmos as a + mixture of matter with divine sparks, which has arisen from a + descent of the latter into the former [Alexandrian Gnosticism], + or, as some say, from the perverse, or at least merely permitted + undertaking of a subordinate spirit [Syrian Gnosticism]. We may + compare the Hebrew Sadducee with the Greek Epicurean; the Pharisee + with the Stoic; the Essene with the Pythagorean. The Pharisees + overdid the idea of God’s transcendence. Angels must come in + between God and the world. Gnostic intermediaries were the logical + outcome. External works of obedience were alone valid. Christ + preached, instead of this, a religion of the heart. Wendt, + Teaching of Jesus, 1:52—“The rejection of animal sacrifices and + consequent abstaining from temple-worship on the part of the + Essenes, which seems out of harmony with the rest of their legal + obedience, is most simply explained as the consequence of their + idea that to bring to God a bloody animal offering was derogatory + to his transcendental character. Therefore they interpreted the O. + T. command in an allegorizing way.” + + Lyman Abbott: “The Oriental dreams; the Greek defines; the Hebrew + acts. All these influences met and intermingled at Alexandria. + Emanations were mediations between the absolute, unknowable, + all-containing God, and the personal, revealed and holy God of + Scripture. Asceticism was one result: matter is undivine, + therefore get rid of it. License was another result: matter is + undivine, therefore disregard it—there is no disease and there is + no sin—the modern doctrine of Christian Science.” Kedney, + Christian Doctrine, 1:360-373; 2:354, conceives of the divine + glory as an eternal material environment of God, out of which the + universe is fashioned. + + The author of “The Unseen Universe” (page 17) wrongly calls John + Stuart Mill a Manichæan. But Mill disclaims belief in the + _personality_ of this principle that resists and limits God,—see + his posthumous Essays on Religion, 176-195. F. W. Robertson, + Lectures on Genesis, 4-16—“Before the creation of the world all + was chaos ... but with the creation, order began.... God did not + cease from creation, for creation is going on every day. Nature is + God at work. Only after surprising changes, as in spring-time, do + we say figuratively, ‘God rests.’ ” See also Frothingham, + Christian Philosophy. + + +With regard to this view, we remark: + +(_a_) The maxim _ex nihilo nihil fit_, upon which it rests, is true only +in so far as it asserts that no event takes place without a cause. It is +false, if it mean that nothing can ever be made except out of material +previously existing. The maxim is therefore applicable only to the realm +of second causes, and does not bar the creative power of the great first +Cause. The doctrine of creation does not dispense with a cause; on the +other hand, it assigns to the universe a sufficient cause in God. + + + Lucretius: “Nihil posse creari De nihilo, neque quod genitum est + ad nihil revocari.” Persius: “Gigni De nihilo nihil, in nihilum + nil posse reverti.” Martensen, Dogmatics, 116—“The nothing, out of + which God creates the world, is the eternal possibilities of his + will, which are the sources of all the actualities of the world.” + Lewes, Problems of Life and Mind, 2:292—“When therefore it is + argued that the creation of something from nothing is unthinkable + and is therefore peremptorily to be rejected, the argument seems + to me to be defective. The process is thinkable, but not + imaginable, conceivable but not probable.” See Cudworth, + Intellectual System, 3:81 _sq._ Lipsius, Dogmatik, 288, remarks + that the theory of dualism is quite as difficult as that of + absolute creation. It holds to a point of time when God began to + fashion preëxisting material, and can give no reason why God did + not do it before, since there must always have been in him an + impulse toward this fashioning. + + +(_b_) Although creation without the use of preëxisting material is +inconceivable, in the sense of being unpicturable to the imagination, yet +the eternity of matter is equally inconceivable. For creation without +preëxisting material, moreover, we find remote analogies in our own +creation of ideas and volitions, a fact as inexplicable as God’s bringing +of new substances into being. + + + Mivart, Lessons from Nature, 371, 372—“We have to a certain extent + an aid to the thought of absolute creation in our own free + volition, which, as absolutely originating and determining, may be + taken as the type to us of the creative act.” We speak of “the + creative faculty” of the artist or poet. We cannot give reality to + the products of our imaginations, as God can to his. But if + thought were only substance, the analogy would be complete. Shedd, + Dogm. Theol., 1:467—“Our thoughts and volitions are created ex + nihilo, in the sense that one thought is not made out of another + thought, nor one volition out of another volition.” So created + substance may be only the mind and will of God in exercise, + automatically in matter, freely in the case of free beings (see + pages 90, 105-110, 383, and in our treatment of Preservation). + + Beddoes: “I have a bit of _Fiat_ in my soul, And can myself create + my little world.” Mark Hopkins: “Man is an image of God as a + creator.... He can purposely create, or cause to be, a future + that, but for him, would not have been.” E. C. Stedman, Nature of + Poetry, 223—“So far as the Poet, the artist, is creative, he + becomes a sharer of the divine imagination and power, and even of + the divine responsibility.” Wordsworth calls the poet a “serene + creator of immortal things.” Imagination, he says, is but another + name for “clearest insight, amplitude of mind, And reason in her + most exalted mood.” “If we are ‘_gods_’ (_Ps. 82:6_), that part of + the Infinite which is embodied in us must partake to a limited + extent of his power to create.” Veitch, Knowing and Being, + 289—“Will, the expression of personality, both as originating + resolutions and moulding existing material into form, is the + nearest approach in thought which we can make to divine creation.” + + Creation is not simply the thought of God,—it is also the will of + God—thought in expression, reason externalized. Will is creation + out of nothing, in the sense that there is no use of preëxisting + material. In man’s exercise of the creative imagination there is + will, as well as intellect. Royce, Studies of Good and Evil, 256, + points out that we can be original in (1) the style or form of our + work; (2) in the selection of the objects we imitate; (3) in the + invention of relatively novel combinations of material. Style, + subject, combination, then, comprise the methods of our + originality. Our new conceptions of nature as the expression of + the divine mind and will bring creation more within our + comprehension than did the old conception of the world as + substance capable of existing apart from God. Hudson, Law of + Psychic Phenomena, 294, thinks that we have power to create + visible phantasms, or embodied thoughts, that can be subjectively + perceived by others. See also Hudson’s Scientific Demonstration of + Future Life, 153. He defines genius as the result of the + synchronous action of the objective and subjective faculties. + Jesus of Nazareth, in his judgment, was a wonderful psychic. + Intuitive perception and objective reason were with him always in + the ascendant. His miracles were misinterpreted psychic phenomena. + Jesus never claimed that his works were outside of natural law. + All men have the same intuitional power, though in differing + degrees. + + We may add that the begetting of a child by man is the giving of + substantial existence to another. Christ’s creation of man may be + like his own begetting by the Father. Behrends: “The relation + between God and the universe is more intimate and organic than + that between an artist and his work. The marble figure is + independent of the sculptor the moment it is completed. It + remains, though he die. But the universe would vanish in the + withdrawal of the divine presence and indwelling. If I were to use + any figure, it would be that of generation. The immanence of God + is the secret of natural permanence and uniformity. Creation is + primarily a spiritual act. The universe is not what we see and + handle. The real universe is an empire of energies, a hierarchy of + correlated forces, whose reality and unity are rooted in the + rational will of God perpetually active in preservation. But there + is no identity of substance, nor is there any division of the + divine substance.” + + Bowne, Theory of Thought and Knowledge, 36—“A mind is conceivable + which should create its objects outright by pure self-activity and + without dependence on anything beyond itself. Such is our + conception of the Creator’s relation to his objects. But this is + not the case with us except to a very slight extent. Our mental + life itself begins, and we come only gradually to a knowledge of + things, and of ourselves. In some sense our objects are given; + that is, we cannot have objects at will or vary their properties + at our pleasure. In this sense we are passive in knowledge, and no + idealism can remove this fact. But in some sense also our objects + are our own products; for an existing object becomes an object for + us only as we think it, and thus make it our object. In this + sense, knowledge is an active process, and not a passive reception + of readymade information from without.” Clarke, Self and the + Father, 38—“Are we humiliated by having data for our imaginations + to work upon? by being unable to create material? Not unless it be + a shame to be second to the Creator.” Causation is as mysterious + as Creation. Balzac lived with his characters as actual beings. On + the Creative Principle, see N. R. Wood, The Witness of Sin, + 114-135. + + +(_c_) It is unphilosophical to postulate two eternal substances, when one +self-existent Cause of all things will account for the facts. (_d_) It +contradicts our fundamental notion of God as absolute sovereign to suppose +the existence of any other substance to be independent of his will. (_e_) +This second substance with which God must of necessity work, since it is, +according to the theory, inherently evil and the source of evil, not only +limits God’s power, but destroys his blessedness. (_f_) This theory does +not answer its purpose of accounting for moral evil, unless it be also +assumed that spirit is material,—in which case dualism gives place to +materialism. + + + Martensen, Dogmatics, 121—“God becomes a mere demiurge, if nature + existed before spirit. That spirit only who in a perfect sense is + able to commence his work of creation can have power to complete + it.” If God does not create, he must use what material he finds, + and this working with intractable material must be his perpetual + sorrow. Such limitation in the power of the deity seemed to John + Stuart Mill the best explanation of the existing imperfections of + the universe. + + +The other form of dualism is: + +B. That which holds to the eternal existence of two antagonistic spirits, +one evil and the other good. In this view, matter is not a negative and +imperfect substance which nevertheless has self-existence, but is either +the work or the instrument of a personal and positively malignant +intelligence, who wages war against all good. This was the view of the +Manichæans. Manichæanism is a compound of Christianity and the Persian +doctrine of two eternal and opposite intelligences. Zoroaster, however, +held matter to be pure, and to be the creation of the good Being. Mani +apparently regarded matter as captive to the evil spirit, if not +absolutely his creation. + + + The old story of Mani’s travels in Greece is wholly a mistake. + Guericke, Church History, 1:185-187, maintains that Manichæanism + contains no mixture of Platonic philosophy, has no connection with + Judaism, and as a sect came into no direct relations with the + Catholic church. Harnoch, Wegweiser, 22, calls Manichæanism a + compound of Gnosticism and Parseeism. Herzog, Encyclopädie, art.: + Mani und die Manichäer, regards Manichæanism as the fruit, acme, + and completion of Gnosticism. Gnosticism was a heresy in the + church; Manichæanism, like New Platonism, was an anti-church. J. + P. Lange: “These opposing theories represent various pagan + conceptions of the world, which, after the manner of palimpsests, + show through Christianity.” Isaac Taylor speaks of “the creator of + the carnivora”; and some modern Christians practically regard + Satan as a second and equal God. + + On the Religion of Zoroaster, see Haug, Essays on Parsees, + 139-161, 302-309; also our quotations on pp. 347-349; Monier + Williams, in 19th Century, Jan. 1881:155-177—Ahura Mazda was the + creator of the universe. Matter was created by him, and was + neither identified with him nor an emanation from him. In the + divine nature there were two opposite, but not opposing, + principles or forces, called “twins”—the one constructive, the + other destructive; the one beneficent, the other maleficent. + Zoroaster called these “twins” also by the name of “spirits,” and + declared that “these two spirits created, the one the reality, the + other the non-reality.” Williams says that these two principles + were conflicting only in name. The only antagonism was between the + resulting good and evil brought about by the free agent, man. See + Jackson, Zoroaster. + + We may add that in later times this personification of principles + in the deity seems to have become a definite belief in two + opposing personal spirits, and that Mani, Manes, or Manichæus + adopted this feature of Parseeism, with the addition of certain + Christian elements. Hagenbach, History of Doctrine, 1:470—“The + doctrine of the Manichæans was that creation was the work of + Satan.” See also Gieseler, Church History, 1:203; Neander, Church + History, 1:478-505; Blunt, Dict. Doct. and Hist. Theology, art.: + Dualism; and especially Baur, Das manichäische Religionssystem. A. + H. Newman, Ch. History, 1:194—“Manichæism is Gnosticism, with its + Christian elements reduced to a minimum, and the Zoroastrian, old + Babylonian, and other Oriental elements raised to the maximum. + Manichæism is Oriental dualism under Christian names, the + Christian names employed retaining scarcely a trace of their + proper meaning. The most fundamental thing in Manichæism is its + absolute dualism. The kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness + with their rulers stand eternally opposed to each other.” + + +Of this view we need only say that it is refuted (_a_) by all the +arguments for the unity, omnipotence, sovereignty, and blessedness of God; +(_b_) by the Scripture representations of the prince of evil as the +creature of God and as subject to God’s control. + + + Scripture passages showing that Satan is God’s creature or subject + are the following: _Col. 1:16_—“_for in him were all things + created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and + things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities + or powers_”; _cf._ _Eph. 6:12_—“_our wrestling is not against + flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the + powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the + spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places_”; _2 Pet. + 2:4_—“_God spared not the angels when they sinned, but cast them + down to hell, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be + reserved unto judgment_”; _Rev. 20:2_—“_laid hold on the dragon, + the old serpent, which is the Devil and Satan_”; _10_—“_and the + devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and + brimstone._” + + The closest analogy to Manichæan dualism is found in the popular + conception of the devil held by the mediæval Roman church. It is a + question whether he was regarded as a rival or as a servant of + God. Matheson, Messages of Old Religions, says that Parseeism + recognizes an obstructive element in the nature of God himself. + Moral evil is reality, and there is that element of truth in + Parseeism. But there is no reconciliation, nor is it shown that + all things work together for good. E. H. Johnson: “This theory + sets up matter as a sort of deity, a senseless idol endowed with + the truly divine attribute of self-existence. But we can + acknowledge but one God. To erect matter into an eternal Thing, + independent of the Almighty but forever beside him, is the most + revolting of all theories.” Tennyson, Unpublished Poem (Life, + 1:314)—“Oh me! for why is all around us here As if some lesser God + had made the world, But had not force to shape it as he would Till + the high God behold it from beyond, And enter it and make it + beautiful?” + + E. G. Robinson: “Evil is not eternal; if it were, we should be + paying our respects to it.... There is much Manichæanism in modern + piety. We would influence soul through the body. Hence + sacramentarianism and penance. Puritanism is theological + Manichæanism. Christ recommended fasting because it belonged to + his age. Christianity came from Judaism. Churchism comes largely + from reproducing what Christ did. Christianity is not perfunctory + in its practices. We are to fast only when there is good reason + for it.” L. H. Mills, New World, March, 1895:51, suggests that + Phariseeism may be the same with Farseeism, which is but another + name for Parseeism. He thinks that Resurrection, Immortality, + Paradise, Satan, Judgment, Hell, came from Persian sources, and + gradually drove out the old Sadduceean simplicity. Pfleiderer, + Philos, Religion, 1:206—“According to the Persian legend, the + first human pair was a good creation of the all-wise Spirit, + Ahura, who had breathed into them his own breath. But soon the + primeval men allowed themselves to be seduced by the hostile + Spirit Angromainyu into lying and idolatry, whereby the evil + spirits obtained power over them and the earth and spoiled the + good creation.” + + Disselhoff, Die klassische Poesie und die göttliche Offenbarung, + 13-25—“The Gathas of Zoroaster are the first poems of humanity. In + them man rouses himself to assert his superiority to nature and + the spirituality of God. God is not identified with nature. The + impersonal nature-gods are vain idols and are causes of + corruption. Their worshippers are servants of falsehood. + Ahura-Mazda (living-wise) is a moral and spiritual personality. + Ahriman is equally eternal but not equally powerful. Good has not + complete victory over evil. Dualism is admitted and unity is lost. + The conflict of faiths leads to separation. While one portion of + the race remains in the Iranian highlands to maintain man’s + freedom and independence of nature, another portion goes + South-East to the luxuriant banks of the Ganges to serve the + deified forces of nature. The East stands for unity, as the West + for duality. Yet Zoroaster in the Gathas is almost deified; and + his religion, which begins by giving predominance to the good + Spirit, ends by being honey-combed with nature-worship.” + + +2. Emanation. + + +This theory holds that the universe is of the same substance with God, and +is the product of successive evolutions from his being. This was the view +of the Syrian Gnostics. Their system was an attempt to interpret +Christianity in the forms of Oriental theosophy. A similar doctrine was +taught, in the last century, by Swedenborg. + +We object to it on the following grounds: (_a_) It virtually denies the +infinity and transcendence of God,—by applying to him a principle of +evolution, growth, and progress which belongs only to the finite and +imperfect. (_b_) It contradicts the divine holiness,—since man, who by the +theory is of the substance of God, is nevertheless morally evil. (_c_) It +leads logically to pantheism,—since the claim that human personality is +illusory cannot be maintained without also surrendering belief in the +personality of God. + + + Saturninus of Antioch, Bardesanes of Edessa, Tatian of Assyria, + Marcion of Sinope, all of the second century, were representatives + of this view. Blunt, Dict. of Doct. and Hist. Theology, art.: + Emanation: “The divine operation was symbolized by the image of + the rays of light proceeding from the sun, which were most intense + when nearest to the luminous substance of the body of which they + formed a part, but which decreased in intensity as they receded + from their source, until at last they disappeared altogether in + darkness. So the spiritual effulgence of the Supreme Mind formed a + world of spirit, the intensity of which varied inversely with its + distance from its source, until at length it vanished in matter. + Hence there is a chain of ever expanding Æons which are increasing + attenuations of his substance and the sum of which constitutes his + fulness, _i. e._, the complete revelation of his hidden being.” + Emanation, from _e_, and _manare_, to flow forth. Guericke, Church + History, 1:160—“many flames from one light ... the direct contrary + to the doctrine of creation from nothing.” Neander, Church + History, 1:372-74. The doctrine of emanation is distinctly + materialistic. We hold, on the contrary, that the universe is an + expression of God, but not an emanation from God. + + On the difference between Oriental emanation and eternal + generation, see Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 1:470, and History Doctrine, + 1:11-18, 318, note—“1. That which is eternally generated is + infinite, not finite; it is a divine and eternal person who is not + the world or any portion of it. In the Oriental schemes, emanation + is a mode of accounting for the origin of the finite. But eternal + generation still leaves the finite to be originated. The begetting + of the Son is the generation of an infinite person who afterwards + creates the finite universe _de nihilo_. 2. Eternal generation has + for its result a subsistence or personal hypostasis totally + distinct from the world; but emanation In relation to the deity + yields only an impersonal or at most a personified energy or + effluence which is one of the powers or principles of nature—a + mere _anima mundi_.” The truths of which emanation was the + perversion and caricature were therefore the generation of the Son + and the procession of the Spirit. + + Principal Tulloch, in Encyc. Brit., 10:704—“All the Gnostics agree + in regarding this world as not proceeding immediately from the + Supreme Being.... The Supreme Being is regarded as wholly + inconceivable and indescribable—as the unfathomable Abyss + (Valentinus)—the Unnameable (Basilides). From this transcendent + source existence springs by emanation in a series of spiritual + powers.... The passage from the higher spiritual world to the + lower material one is, on the one hand, apprehended as a mere + continued degeneracy from the Source of Life, at length + terminating in the kingdom of darkness and death—the bordering + chaos surrounding the kingdom of light. On the other hand the + passage is apprehended in a more precisely dualistic form, as a + positive invasion of the kingdom of light by a self-existent + kingdom of darkness. According as Gnosticism adopted one or other + of these modes of explaining the existence of the present world, + it fell into the two great divisions which, from their places of + origin, have received the respective names of the Alexandrian and + Syrian Gnosis. The one, as we have seen, presents more a Western, + the other more an Eastern type of speculation. The dualistic + element in the one case scarcely appears beneath the pantheistic, + and bears resemblance to the Platonic notion of the ὕλη, a mere + blank necessity, a limitless void. In the other case, the + dualistic element is clear and prominent, corresponding to the + Zarathustrian doctrine of an active principle of evil as well as + of good—of a kingdom of Ahriman, as well as a kingdom of Ormuzd. + In the Syrian Gnosis ... there appears from the first a hostile + principle of evil in collision with the good.” + + We must remember that dualism is an attempt to substitute for the + doctrine of absolute creation, a theory that matter and evil are + due to something negative or positive outside of God. Dualism is a + theory of origins, not of results. Keeping this in mind, we may + call the Alexandrian Gnostics dualists, while we regard emanation + as the characteristic teaching of the Syrian Gnostics. These + latter made matter to be only an efflux from God and evil only a + degenerate form of good. If the Syrians held the world to be + independent of God, this independence was conceived of only as a + later result or product, not as an original fact. Some like + Saturninus and Bardesanes verged toward Manichæan doctrine; others + like Tatian and Marcion toward Egyptian dualism; but all held to + emanation as the philosophical explanation of what the Scriptures + call creation. These remarks will serve as qualification and + criticism of the opinions which we proceed to quote. + + Sheldon, Ch. Hist., 1:206—“The Syrians were in general more + dualistic than the Alexandrians. Some, after the fashion of the + Hindu pantheists, regarded the material realm as the region of + emptiness and illusion, the void opposite of the Pleroma, that + world of spiritual reality and fulness; others assigned a more + positive nature to the material, and regarded it as capable of an + evil aggressiveness even apart from any quickening by the incoming + of life from above.” Mansel, Gnostic Heresies, 139—“Like + Saturninus, Bardesanes is said to have combined the doctrine of + the malignity of matter with that of an active principle of evil; + and he connected together these two usually antagonistic theories + by maintaining that the inert matter was co-eternal with God, + while Satan as the active principle of evil was produced from + matter (or, according to another statement, co-eternal with it), + and acted in conjunction with it. 142—The feature which is usually + selected as characteristic of the Syrian Gnosis is the doctrine of + dualism; that is to say, the assumption of the existence of two + active and independent principles, the one of good, the other of + evil. This assumption was distinctly held by Saturninus and + Bardesanes ... in contradistinction to the Platonic theory of an + inert semi-existent matter, which was adopted by the Gnosis of + Egypt. The former principle found its logical development in the + next century in Manichæaism; the latter leads with almost equal + certainty to Pantheism.” + + A. H. Newman, Ch. History, 1:192—“Marcion did not speculate as to + the origin of evil. The Demiurge and his kingdom are apparently + regarded as existing from eternity. Matter he regarded as + intrinsically evil, and he practised a rigid asceticism.” Mansel, + Gnostic Heresies, 210—“Marcion did not, with the majority of the + Gnostics, regard the Demiurge as a derived and dependent being, + whose imperfection is due to his remoteness from the highest + Cause; nor yet, according to the Persian doctrine, did he assume + an eternal principle of pure malignity. His second principle is + independent of and co-eternal with, the first; opposed to it + however, not as evil to good, but as imperfection to perfection, + or, as Marcion expressed it, as a just to a good being. + 218—Non-recognition of any principle of pure evil. Three + principles only: the Supreme God, the Demiurge, and the eternal + Matter, the two latter being imperfect but not necessarily evil. + Some of the Marcionites seem to have added an evil spirit as a + fourth principle.... Marcion is the least Gnostic of all the + Gnostics.... 31—The Indian influence may be seen in Egypt, the + Persian in Syria.... 32—To Platonism, modified by Judaism, + Gnosticism owed much of its philosophical form and tendencies. To + the dualism of the Persian religion it owed one form at least of + its speculations on the origin and remedy of evil, and many of the + details of its doctrine of emanations. To the Buddhism of India, + modified again probably by Platonism, it was indebted for the + doctrines of the antagonism between spirit and matter and the + unreality of derived existence (the germ of the Gnostic Docetism), + and in part at least for the theory which regards the universe as + a series of successive emanations from the absolute Unity.” + + Emanation holds that some stuff has proceeded from the nature of + God, and that God has formed this stuff into the universe. But + matter is not composed of stuff at all. It is merely an activity + of God. Origen held that ψυχή etymologically denotes a being + which, struck off from God the central source of light and warmth, + has cooled in its love for the good, but still has the possibility + of returning to its spiritual origin. Pfleiderer, Philosophy of + Religion, 2:271, thus describes Origen’s view: “As our body, while + consisting of many members, is yet an organism which is held + together by one soul, so the universe is to be thought of as an + immense living being, which is held together by one soul, the + power and the Logos of God.” Palmer, Theol. Definition, 63, + note—“The evil of Emanationism is seen in the history of + Gnosticism. An emanation is a portion of the divine essence + regarded as separated from it and sent forth as independent. + Having no perpetual bond of connection with the divine, it either + sinks into degradation, as Basilides taught, or becomes actively + hostile to the divine, as the Ophites believed.... In like manner + the Deists of a later time came to regard the laws of nature as + having an independent existence, _i. e._, as emanations.” + + John Milton, Christian Doctrine, holds this view. Matter is an + efflux from God himself, not intrinsically bad, and incapable of + annihilation. Finite existence is an emanation from God’s + substance, and God has loosened his hold on those living portions + or centres of finite existence which he has endowed with free + will, so that these independent beings may originate actions not + morally referable to himself. This doctrine of free will relieves + Milton from the charge of pantheism; see Masson, Life of Milton, + 6:824-826. Lotze, Philos. Religion, xlviii, li, distinguishes + creation from emanation by saying that creation necessitates a + divine Will, while emanation flows by natural consequence from the + being of God. God’s motive in creation is love, which urges him to + communicate his holiness to other beings. God creates individual + finite spirits, and then permits the thought, which at first was + only his, to become the thought of these other spirits. This + transference of his thought by will is the creation of the world. + F. W. Farrar, on _Heb. 1:2_—“The word _Æon_ was used by the + Gnostics to describe the various emanations by which they tried at + once to widen and to bridge over the gulf between the human and + the divine. Over that imaginary chasm John threw the arch of the + Incarnation, when he wrote: ‘_The Word became flesh_’ (_John + 1:14_).” + + Upton, Hibbert Lectures, chap. 2—“In the very making of souls of + his own essence and substance, and in the vacating of his own + causality in order that men may be free, God already dies in order + that they may live. God withdraws himself from our wills, so as to + make possible free choice and even possible opposition to himself. + Individualism admits dualism but not complete division. Our + dualism holds still to underground connections of life between man + and man, man and nature, man and God. Even the physical creation + is ethical at heart: each thing is dependent on other things, and + must serve them, or lose its own life and beauty. The branch must + abide in the vine, or it withers and is cut off and burned” (275). + + Swedenborg held to emanation,—see Divine Love and Wisdom, 283, + 303, 905—“Every one who thinks from clear reason sees that the + universe is not created from nothing.... All things were created + out of a substance.... As God alone is substance in itself and + therefore the real _esse_, it is evidence that the existence of + things is from no other source.... Yet the created universe is not + God, because God is not in time and space.... There is a creation + of the universe, and of all things therein, by continual + mediations from the First.... In the substances and matters of + which the earths consist, there is nothing of the Divine in + itself, but they are deprived of all that is divine in itself.... + Still they have brought with them by continuation from the + substance of the spiritual sum that which was there from the + Divine.” Swedenborgianism is “materialism driven deep and clinched + on the inside.” This system reverses the Lord’s prayer; it should + read: “As on earth, so in heaven.” He disliked certain sects, and + he found that all who belonged to those sects were in the hells, + condemned to everlasting punishment. The truth is not + materialistic emanation, as Swedenborg imagined, but rather divine + energizing in space and time. The universe is God’s system of + graded self-limitation, from matter up to mind. It has had a + beginning, and God has instituted it. It is a finite and partial + manifestation of the infinite Spirit. Matter is an expression of + spirit, but not an emanation from spirit, any more than our + thoughts and volitions are. Finite spirits, on the other hand, are + differentiations within the being of God himself, and so are not + emanations from him. + + Napoleon asked Goethe what matter was. “_Esprit gelé_,”—frozen + spirit was the answer Schelling wished Goethe had given him. But + neither is matter spirit, nor are matter and spirit together mere + natural effluxes from God’s substance. A divine institution of + them is requisite (quoted substantially from Dorner, System of + Doctrine, 2:40). Schlegel in a similar manner called architecture + “frozen music,” and another writer calls music “dissolved + architecture.” There is a “psychical automatism,” as Ladd says, in + his Philosophy of Mind, 169; and Hegel calls nature “the corpse of + the understanding—spirit to alienation from itself.” But spirit is + the Adam, of which nature is the Eve; and man says to nature: + “_This is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh_,” as Adam did + in _Gen. 2:23_. + + +3. Creation from eternity. + + +This theory regards creation as an act of God in eternity past. It was +propounded by Origen, and has been held in recent times by Martensen, +Martineau, John Caird, Knight, and Pfleiderer. The necessity of supposing +such creation from eternity has been argued from God’s omnipotence, God’s +timelessness, God’s immutability, and God’s love. We consider each of +these arguments in their order. + + + Origen held that God was from eternity the creator of the world of + spirits. Martensen, in his Dogmatics, 114, shows favor to the + maxims: “Without the world God is not God.... God created the + world to satisfy a want in himself.... He cannot but constitute + himself the Father of spirits.” Schiller, Die Freundschaft, last + stanza, gives the following popular expression to this view: + “Freundlos war der grosse Weltenmeister; Fühlte Mangel, darum + schuf er Geister, Sel’ge Spiegel seiner Seligkeit. Fand das + höchste Wesen schon kein Gleiches; Aus dem Kelch des ganzen + Geisterreiches Schäumt ihm die Unendlichkeit.” The poet’s thought + was perhaps suggested by Goethe’s Sorrows of Werther: “The flight + of a bird above my head inspired me with the desire of being + transported to the shores of the immeasurable waters, there to + quaff the pleasures of life from the foaming goblet of the + infinite.” Robert Browning, Rabbi Ben Ezra, 31—“But I need now as + then, Thee, God, who mouldest men. And since, not even when the + whirl was worst, Did I—to the wheel of life With shapes and colors + rife, Bound dizzily—mistake my end, To slake thy thirst.” But this + regards the Creator as dependent upon, and in bondage to, his own + world. + + Pythagoras held that nature’s substances and laws are eternal. + Martineau, Study of Religion, 1:144; 2:250, seems to make the + creation of the world an eternal process, conceiving of it as a + self-sundering of the Deity, in whom in some way the world was + always contained (Schurman, Belief in God, 140). Knight, Studies + in Philos. and Lit., 94, quotes from Byron’s Cain, I:1—“Let him + Sit on his vast and solitary throne, Creating worlds, to make + eternity Less burdensome to his immense existence And + unparticipated solitude.... He, so wretched in his height, So + restless in his wretchedness, must still Create and recreate.” + Byron puts these words into the mouth of Lucifer. Yet Knight, in + his Essays in Philosophy, 143, 247, regards the universe as the + everlasting effect of an eternal Cause. Dualism, he thinks, is + involved in the very notion of a search for God. + + W. N. Clarke, Christian Theology, 117—“God is the source of the + universe. Whether by immediate production at some point of time, + so that after he had existed alone there came by his act to be a + universe, or by perpetual production from his own spiritual being, + so that his eternal existence was always accompanied by a universe + in some stage of being, God has brought the universe into + existence.... Any method in which the independent God could + produce a universe which without him could have had no existence, + is accordant with the teachings of Scripture. Many find it easier + philosophically to hold that God has eternally brought forth + creation from himself, so that there has never been a time when + there was not a universe in some stage of existence, than to think + of an instantaneous creation of all existing things when there had + been nothing but God before. Between these two views theology is + not compelled to decide, provided we believe that God is a free + Spirit greater than the universe.” We dissent from this conclusion + of Dr. Clarke, and hold that Scripture requires us to trace the + universe back to a beginning, while reason itself is better + satisfied with this view than it can be with the theory of + creation from eternity. + + +(_a_) Creation from eternity is not necessitated by God’s omnipotence. +Omnipotence does not necessarily imply actual creation; it implies only +power to create. Creation, moreover, is in the nature of the case a thing +begun. Creation from eternity is a contradiction in terms, and that which +is self-contradictory is not an object of power. + + + The argument rests upon a misconception of eternity, regarding it + as a prolongation of time into the endless past. We have seen in + our discussion of eternity as an attribute of God, that eternity + is not endless time, or time without beginning, but rather + superiority to the law of time. Since eternity is no more past + than it is present, the idea of creation from eternity is an + irrational one. We must distinguish _creation in eternity past_ (= + God and the world coëternal, yet God the cause of the world, as he + is the begetter of the Son) from _continuous creation_ (which is + an explanation of preservation, but not of creation at all). It is + this latter, not the former, to which Rothe holds (see under the + doctrine of Preservation, pages 415, 416). Birks, Difficulties of + Belief, 81, 82—“Creation is not from eternity, since past eternity + cannot be actually traversed any more than we can reach the bound + of an eternity to come. There was no _time_ before creation, + because there was no _succession_.” + + Birks, Scripture Doctrine of Creation, 78-105—“The first verse of + Genesis excludes five speculative falsehoods: 1. that there is + nothing but uncreated matter; 2. that there is no God distinct + from his creatures; 3. that creation is a series of acts without a + beginning; 4. that there is no real universe; 5. that nothing can + be known of God or the origin of things.” Veitch, Knowing and + Being, 22—“The ideas of creation and creative energy are emptied + of meaning, and for them is substituted the conception or fiction + of an eternally related or double-sided world, not of what has + been, but of what always is. It is another form of the see-saw + philosophy. The eternal Self only is, if the eternal manifold is; + the eternal manifold is, if the eternal Self is. The one, in being + the other, is or makes itself the one; the other, in being the + one, is or makes itself the other. This may be called a unity; it + is rather, if we might invent a term suited to the new and + marvellous conception, an unparalleled and unbegotten twinity.” + + +(_b_) Creation from eternity is not necessitated by God’s timelessness. +Because God is free from the law of time it does not follow that creation +is free from that law. Rather is it true that no eternal creation is +conceivable, since this involves an infinite number. Time must have had a +beginning, and since the universe and time are coëxistent, creation could +not have been from eternity. + + + _Jude 25_—“_Before all time_”—implies that time had a beginning, + and _Eph. 1:4_—“_before the foundation of the world_”—implies that + creation itself had a beginning. Is creation infinite? No, says + Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 1:459, because to a perfect creation unity + is as necessary as multiplicity. The universe is an organism, and + there can be no organism without a definite number of parts. For a + similar reason Dorner, System Doctrine, 2:28, denies that the + universe can be eternal. Granting on the one hand that the world + though eternal might be dependent upon God and as soon as the plan + was evolved there might be no reason why the execution should be + delayed, yet on the other hand the absolutely limitless is the + imperfect and no universe with an infinite number of parts is + conceivable or possible. So Julius Müller, Doctrine of Sin, + 1:220-225—“What has a goal or end must have a beginning; history, + as teleological, implies creation.” + + Lotze, Philos. Religion, 74—“The world, with respect to its + existence as well as its content, is completely dependent on the + will of God, and not as a mere involuntary development of his + nature.... The word ‘creation’ ought not to be used to designate a + deed of God so much as the absolute dependence of the world on his + will.” So Schurman, Belief in God, 146, 156, 225—“Creation is the + eternal dependence of the world on God.... Nature is the + externalization of spirit.... Material things exist simply as + modes of the divine activity; they have no existence for + themselves.” On this view that God is the Ground but not the + Creator of the world, see Hovey, Studies in Ethics and Religion, + 23-56—“Creation is no more of a mystery than is the causal action” + in which both Lotze and Schurman believe. “To deny that divine + power can originate real being—can add to the sum total of + existence—is much like saying that such power is finite.” No one + can prove that “it is of the essence of spirit to reveal itself,” + or if so, that it must do this by means of an organism or + externalization. Eternal succession of changes in nature is no + more comprehensible than are a creating God and a universe + originating in time. + + +(_c_) Creation from eternity is not necessitated by God’s immutability. +His immutability requires, not an eternal creation, but only an eternal +plan of creation. The opposite principle would compel us to deny the +possibility of miracles, incarnation, and regeneration. Like creation, +these too would need to be eternal. + + + We distinguish between idea and plan, between plan and execution. + Much of God’s plan is not yet executed. The beginning of its + execution is as easy to conceive as is the continuation of its + execution. But the beginning of the execution of God’s plan is + creation. Active will is an element in creation. God’s will is not + always active. He waits for “_the fulness of the time_” (_Gal. + 4:4_) before he sends forth his Son. As we can trace back Christ’s + earthly life to a beginning, so we can trace back the life of the + universe to a beginning. Those who hold to creation from eternity + usually interpret _Gen. 1:1_—“_In the beginning God created the + heavens and the earth,_” and _John 1:1_—“_In the beginning was the + Word,_” as both and alike meaning “in eternity.” But neither of + these texts has this meaning. In each we are simply carried back + to the beginning of the creation, and it is asserted that God was + its author and that the Word already was. + + +(_d_) Creation from eternity is not necessitated by God’s love. Creation +is finite and cannot furnish perfect satisfaction to the infinite love of +God. God has moreover from eternity an object of love infinitely superior +to any possible creation, in the person of his Son. + + + Since all things are created in Christ, the eternal Word, Reason, + and Power of God, God can “_reconcile all things to himself_” in + Christ (_Col. 1:20_). Athanasius called God κτίστης, ού + τεχνίτης—Creator, not Artisan. By this he meant that God is + immanent, and not the God of deism. But the moment we conceive of + God as _revealing_ himself in Christ, the idea of creation as an + eternal satisfaction of his love vanishes. God can have a plan + without executing his plan. Decree can precede creation. Ideas of + the universe may exist in the divine mind before they are realized + by the divine will. There are purposes of salvation in Christ + which antedate the world (_Eph. 1:4_). The doctrine of the + Trinity, once firmly grasped, enables us to see the fallacy of + such views as that of Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 1:286—“A + beginning and ending in time of the creating of God are not + thinkable. That would be to suppose a change of creating and + resting in God, which would equalize God’s being with the + changeable course of human life. Nor could it be conceived what + should have hindered God from creating the world up to the + beginning of his creating.... We say rather, with Scotus Erigena, + that the divine creating is equally eternal with God’s being.” + + +(_e_) Creation from eternity, moreover, is inconsistent with the divine +independence and personality. Since God’s power and love are infinite, a +creation that satisfied them must be infinite in extent as well as eternal +in past duration—in other words, a creation equal to God. But a God thus +dependent upon external creation is neither free nor sovereign. A God +existing in necessary relations to the universe, if different in substance +from the universe, must be the God of dualism; if of the same substance +with the universe, must be the God of pantheism. + + + Gore, Incarnation, 136, 137—“Christian theology is the harmony of + pantheism and deism.... It enjoys all the riches of pantheism + without its inherent weakness on the moral side, without making + God dependent on the world, as the world is dependent on God. On + the other hand, Christianity converts an unintelligible deism into + a rational theism. It can explain how God became a creator in + time, because it knows how creation has its eternal analogue in + the uncreated nature; it was God’s nature eternally to produce, to + communicate itself, to live.” In other words, it can explain how + God can be eternally alive, independent, self-sufficient, since he + is Trinity. Creation from eternity is a natural and logical + outgrowth of Unitarian tendencies in theology. It is of a piece + with the Stoic monism of which we read in Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, + 177—“Stoic monism conceived of the world as a self-evolution of + God. Into such a conception the idea of a beginning does not + necessarily enter. It is consistent with the idea of an eternal + process of differentiation. That which is always has been under + changed and changing forms. The theory is cosmological rather than + cosmogonical. It rather explains the world as it is, than gives an + account of its origin.” + + +4. Spontaneous generation. + + +This theory holds that creation is but the name for a natural process +still going on,—matter itself having in it the power, under proper +conditions, of taking on new functions, and of developing into organic +forms. This view is held by Owen and Bastian. We object that + +(_a_) It is a pure hypothesis, not only unverified, but contrary to all +known facts. No credible instance of the production of living forms from +inorganic material has yet been adduced. So far as science can at present +teach us, the law of nature is “omne vivum e vivo,” or “ex ovo.” + + + Owen, Comparative Anatomy of the Vertebrates, 3:814-818—on + Monogeny or Thaumatogeny; quoted in Argyle, Reign of Law, 281—“We + discern no evidence of a pause or intromission in the creation or + coming-to-be of new plants and animals.” So Bastian, Modes of + Origin of Lowest Organisms, Beginnings of Life, and articles on + Heterogeneous Evolution of Living Things, in Nature, 2:170, 193, + 219, 410, 431. See Huxley’s Address before the British + Association, and Reply to Bastian, in Nature, 2:400, 473; also + Origin of Species, 69-79, and Physical Basis of Life, in Lay + Sermons, 142. Answers to this last by Stirling, in Half-hours with + Modern Scientists, and by Beale, Protoplasm or Life, Matter, and + Mind, 73-75. + + In favor of Redi’s maxim, “omne vivum e vivo,” see Huxley, in + Encyc. Britannica, art.: Biology, 689—“At the present moment there + is not a shadow of trustworthy direct evidence that abiogenesis + does take place or has taken place within the period during which + the existence of the earth is recorded”; Flint, Physiology of Man, + 1:263-265—“As the only true philosophic view to take of the + question, we shall assume in common with nearly all the modern + writers on physiology that there is no such thing as spontaneous + generation,—admitting that the exact mode of production of the + infusoria lowest in the scale of life is not understood.” On the + Philosophy of Evolution, see A. H. Strong, Philosophy and + Religion, 39-57. + + +(_b_) If such instances could be authenticated, they would prove nothing +as against a proper doctrine of creation,—for there would still exist an +impossibility of accounting for these vivific properties of matter, except +upon the Scriptural view of an intelligent Contriver and Originator of +matter and its laws. In short, evolution implies previous involution,—if +anything comes out of matter, it must first have been put in. + + + Sully: “Every doctrine of evolution must assume some definite + initial arrangement which is supposed to contain the possibilities + of the order which we find to be evolved and no other + possibility.” Bixby, Crisis of Morals, 258—“If no creative fiat + can be believed to create something out of nothing, still less is + evolution able to perform such a contradiction.” As we can get + morality only out of a moral germ, so we can get vitality only out + of a vital germ. Martineau, Seat of Authority, 14—“By brooding + long enough on an egg that is next to nothing, you can in this way + hatch any universe actual or possible. Is it not evident that this + is a mere trick of imagination, concealing its thefts of causation + by committing them little by little, and taking the heap from the + divine storehouse grain by grain?” + + Hens come before eggs. Perfect organic forms are antecedent to all + life-cells, whether animal or vegetable. “Omnis cellula e cellula, + sed primaria cellula ex organismo.” God created first the tree, + and its seed was in it when created (_Gen. 1:12_). Protoplasm is + not _proton_, but _deuteron_; the elements are antecedent to it. + It is not true that man was never made at all but only “growed” + like Topsy; see Watts, New Apologetic, xvi, 312. Royce, Spirit of + Modern Philosophy, 273—“Evolution is the attempt to comprehend the + world of experience in terms of the fundamental idealistic + postulates: (1) without ideas, there is no reality; (2) rational + order requires a rational Being to introduce it; (3) beneath our + conscious self there must be an infinite Self. The question is: + Has the world a meaning? It is not enough to refer ideas to + mechanism. Evolution, from the nebula to man, is only the + unfolding of the life of a divine Self.” + + +(_c_) This theory, therefore, if true, only supplements the doctrine of +original, absolute, immediate creation, with another doctrine of mediate +and derivative creation, or the development of the materials and forces +originated at the beginning. This development, however, cannot proceed to +any valuable end without guidance of the same intelligence which initiated +it. The Scriptures, although they do not sanction the doctrine of +spontaneous generation, do recognize processes of development as +supplementing the divine fiat which first called the elements into being. + + + There is such a thing as free will, and free will does not, like + the deterministic will, run in a groove. If there be free will in + man, then much more is there free will in God, and God’s will does + not run in a groove. God is not bound by law or to law. Wisdom + does not imply monotony or uniformity. God can do a thing once + that is never done again. Circumstances are never twice alike. + Here is the basis not only of creation but of new creation, + including miracle, incarnation, resurrection, regeneration, + redemption. Though will both in God and in man is for the most + part automatic and acts according to law, yet the power of new + beginnings, of creative action, resides in will, wherever it is + free, and this free will chiefly makes God to be God and man to be + man. Without it life would be hardly worth the living, for it + would be only the life of the brute. All schemes of evolution + which ignore this freedom of God are pantheistic in their + tendencies, for they practically deny both God’s transcendence and + his personality. + + Leibnitz declined to accept the Newtonian theory of gravitation + because it seemed to him to substitute natural forces for God. In + our own day many still refuse to accept the Darwinian theory of + evolution because it seems to them to substitute natural forces + for God; see John Fiske, Idea of God, 97-102. But law is only a + method; it presupposes a lawgiver and requires an agent. + Gravitation and evolution are but the habitual operations of God. + If spontaneous generation should be proved true, it would be only + God’s way of originating life. E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, + 91—“Spontaneous generation does not preclude the idea of a + creative will working by natural law and secondary causes.... Of + beginnings of life physical science knows nothing.... Of the + processes of nature science is competent to speak and against its + teachings respecting these there is no need that theology should + set itself in hostility.... Even if man were derived from the + lower animals, it would not prove that God did not create and + order the forces employed. It may be that God bestowed upon animal + life a plastic power.” + + Ward, Naturalism and Agnosticism, 1:180—“It is far truer to say + that the universe is a life, than to say that it is a + mechanism.... We can never get to God through a mere mechanism.... + With Leibnitz I would argue that absolute passivity or inertness + is not a reality but a limit. 269—Mr. Spencer grants that to + interpret spirit in terms of matter is impossible. 302—Natural + selection without teleological factors is not adequate to account + for biological evolution, and such teleological factors imply a + psychical something endowed with feelings and will, _i. e._, Life + and Mind. 2:130-135—Conation is more fundamental than cognition. + 149-151—Things and events precede space and time. There is no + empty space or time. 252-257—Our assimilation of nature is the + greeting of spirit by spirit. 259-267—Either nature is itself + intelligent, or there is intelligence beyond it. + 274-276—Appearances do not veil reality. 274—The truth is not God + _and_ mechanism, but God _only_ and no mechanism. 283—Naturalism + and Agnosticism, in spite of themselves, lead us to a world of + Spiritualistic Monism.” Newman Smyth, Christian Ethics, + 36—“Spontaneous generation is a fiction in ethics, as it is in + psychology and biology. The moral cannot be derived from the + non-moral, any more than consciousness can be derived from the + unconscious, or life from the azoic rocks.” + + +IV. The Mosaic Account of Creation. + + +1. Its twofold nature,—as uniting the ideas of creation and of +development. + + +(_a_) Creation is asserted.—The Mosaic narrative avoids the error of +making the universe eternal or the result of an eternal process. The +cosmogony of Genesis, unlike the cosmogonies of the heathen, is prefaced +by the originating act of God, and is supplemented by successive +manifestations of creative power in the introduction of brute and of human +life. + + + All nature-worship, whether it take the form of ancient polytheism + or modern materialism, looks upon the universe only as a birth or + growth. This view has a basis of truth, inasmuch as it regards + natural forces as having a real existence. It is false in + regarding these forces as needing no originator or upholder. + Hesiod taught that in the beginning was formless matter. Genesis + does not begin thus. God is not a demiurge, working on eternal + matter. God antedates matter. He is the creator of matter at the + first (_Gen. 1:1_—_bara_) and he subsequently created animal life + (_Gen. 1:21_—“_and God created_”—_bara_) and the life of man + (_Gen. 1:27_—“_and God create man_”—_bara_ again). + + Many statements of the doctrine of evolution err by regarding it + as an eternal or self-originated process. But the process requires + an originator, and the forces require an upholder. Each forward + step implies increment of energy, and progress toward a rational + end implies intelligence and foresight in the governing power. + Schurman says well that Darwinism explains the _survival_ of the + fittest, but cannot explain the _arrival_ of the fittest. + Schurman, Agnosticism and Religion, 34—“A primitive chaos of + star-dust which held in its womb not only the cosmos that fills + space, not only the living creatures that teem upon it, but also + the intellect that interprets it, the will that confronts it, and + the conscience that transfigures it, must as certainly have God at + the centre, as a universe mechanically arranged and periodically + adjusted must have him at the circumference.... There is no real + antagonism between creation and evolution. 59—Natural causation is + the expression of a supernatural Mind in nature, and man—a being + at once of sensibility and of rational and moral self-activity—is + a signal and ever-present example of the interfusion of the + natural with the supernatural in that part of universal existence + nearest and best known to us.” + + Seebohm, quoted in J. J. Murphy, Nat. Selection and Spir. Freedom, + 76—“When we admit that Darwin’s argument in favor of the theory of + evolution proves its truth, we doubt whether natural selection can + be in any sense the _cause_ of the origin of species. It has + probably played an important part in the history of evolution; its + rôle has been that of increasing the rapidity with which the + process of development has proceeded. Of itself it has probably + been powerless to originate a species; the machinery by which + species have been evolved has been completely independent of + natural selection and could have produced all the results which we + call the evolution of species without its aid; though the process + would have been slow had there been no struggle of life to + increase its pace.” New World, June, 1896:237-262, art. by Howison + on the Limits of Evolution, finds limits in (1) the noumenal + Reality; (2) the break between the organic and the inorganic; (3) + break between physiological and logical genesis; (4) inability to + explain the great fact on which its own movement rests; (5) the _a + priori_ self-consciousness which is the essential being and true + person of the mind. + + Evolution, according to Herbert Spencer, is “an integration of + matter and concomitant dissipation of motion, during which the + matter passes from an indefinite incoherent homogeneity to a + definite coherent heterogeneity, and during which the retained + motion goes through a parallel transformation.” D. W. Simon + criticizes this definition as defective “because (1) it omits all + mention both of energy and its differentiations; and (2) because + it introduces into the definition of the process one of the + phenomena thereof, namely, motion. As a matter of fact, both + energy or force, and law, are subsequently and illicitly + introduced as distinct factors of the process; they ought + therefore to have found recognition in the definition or + description.” Mark Hopkins, Life, 189—“God: what need of him? Have + we not force, uniform force, and do not all things continue as + they were from the beginning of the creation, if it ever had a + beginning? Have we not the τὸ πᾶν, the universal All, the Soul of + the universe, working itself up from unconsciousness through + molecules and maggots and mice and marmots and monkeys to its + highest culmination in man?” + + +(_b_) Development is recognized.—The Mosaic account represents the present +order of things as the result, not simply of original creation, but also +of subsequent arrangement and development. A fashioning of inorganic +materials is described, and also a use of these materials in providing the +conditions of organized existence. Life is described as reproducing +itself, after its first introduction, according to its own laws and by +virtue of its own inner energy. + + + Martensen wrongly asserts that “Judaism represented the world + exclusively as _creatura_, not _natura_; as κτίσις, not φύσις.” + This is not true. Creation is represented as the bringing forth, + not of something dead, but of something living and capable of + self-development. Creation lays the foundation for cosmogony. Not + only is there a fashioning and arrangement of the material which + the original creative act has brought into being (see Gen. 1:2, 4, + 6, 7, 9, 16, 17; 2:2, 6, 7, 8—Spirit brooding; dividing light from + darkness, and waters from waters; dry land appearing; setting + apart of sun, moon, and stars; mist watering; forming man’s body; + planting garden) but there is also an imparting and using of the + productive powers of the things and beings created (_Gen. 1:12, + 22, 24, 28_—earth brought forth grass; trees yielding fruit whose + seed was in itself; earth brought forth the living creatures; man + commanded to be fruitful and multiply). + + The tendency at present among men of science is to regard the + whole history of life upon the planet as the result of evolution, + thus excluding creation, both at the beginning of the history and + along its course. On the progress from the Orohippus, the lowest + member of the equine series, an animal with four toes, to + Anchitherium with three, then to Hipparion, and finally to our + common horse, see Huxley, in Nature for May 11, 1873:33, 34. He + argues that, if a complicated animal like the horse has arisen by + gradual modification of a lower and less specialized form, there + is no reason to think that other animals have arisen in a + different way. Clarence King, Address at Yale College, 1877, + regards American geology as teaching the doctrine of sudden yet + natural modification of species. “When catastrophic change burst + in upon the ages of uniformity and sounded in the ear of every + living thing the words: ‘Change or die!’ plasticity became the + sole principle of action.” Nature proceeded then by leaps, and + corresponding to the leaps of geology we find leaps of biology. + + We grant the probability that the great majority of what we call + species were produced in some such ways. If science should render + it certain that all the present species of living creatures were + derived by natural descent from a few original germs, and that + these germs were themselves an evolution of inorganic forces and + materials, we should not therefore regard the Mosaic account as + proved untrue. We should only be required to revise our + interpretation of the word _bara_ in _Gen. 1:21, 27_, and to give + it there the meaning of mediate creation, or creation by law. Such + a meaning might almost seem to be favored by _Gen. 1:11_—“_let the + earth put forth grass_”; _20_—“_let the waters bring forth + abundantly __ the moving creature that hath life_”; _2:7_—“_the + Lord God formed man of the dust_”; _9_—“_out of the ground made + the Lord God to grow every tree_”; _cf._ _Mark 4:28_—αὐτομάτη ἣ γή + καρποφορεῖ—“_the earth brings forth fruit automatically_.” Goethe, + Sprüche in Reimen: “Was wär ein Gott der nur von aussen stiesse, + Im Kreis das All am Finger laufen liesse? Ihm ziemt’s die Welt im + Innern zu bewegen, Sich in Natur, Natur in sich zu hegen, So dass, + was in Ihm lebt und webt und ist, Nie seine Kraft, nie seinen + Geist vermisst”—“No, such a God my worship may not win, Who lets + the world about his finger spin, A thing eternal; God must dwell + within.” + + All the growth of a tree takes place in from four to six weeks in + May, June and July. The addition of woody fibre between the bark + and the trunk results, not by impartation into it of a new force + from without, but by the awakening of the life within. Environment + changes and growth begins. We may even speak of an immanent + transcendence of God—an unexhausted vitality which at times makes + great movements forward. This is what the ancients were trying to + express when they said that trees were inhabited by dryads and so + groaned and bled when wounded. God’s life is in all. In evolution + we cannot say, with LeConte, that the higher form of energy is + “derived from the lower.” Rather let us say that both the higher + and the lower are constantly dependent for their being on the will + of God. The lower is only God’s preparation for his higher + self-manifestation; see Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 165, 166. + + Even Haeckel, Hist. Creation, 1:38, can say that in the Mosaic + narrative “two great and fundamental ideas meet us—the idea of + separation or differentiation, and the idea of progressive + development or perfecting. We can bestow our just and sincere + admiration on the Jewish lawgiver’s grand insight into nature, and + his simple and natural hypothesis of creation, without discovering + in it a divine revelation.” Henry Drummond, whose first book, + Natural Law in the Spiritual World, he himself in his later days + regretted as tending in a deterministic and materialistic + direction, came to believe rather in “spiritual law in the natural + world.” His Ascent of Man regards evolution and law as only the + methods of a present Deity. Darwinism seemed at first to show that + the past history of life upon the planet was a history of + heartless and cruel slaughter. The survival of the fittest had for + its obverse side the destruction of myriads. Nature was “red in + tooth and claw with ravine.” But further thought has shown that + this gloomy view results from a partial induction of facts. + Palæontological life was not only a struggle for life, but a + struggle for the life of others. The beginnings of altruism are to + be seen in the instinct of reproduction and in the care of + offspring. In every lion’s den and tiger’s lair, in every + mother-eagle’s feeding of her young, there is a self-sacrifice + which faintly shadows forth man’s subordination of personal + interests to the interests of others. + + Dr. George Harris, in his Moral Evolution, has added to Drummond’s + doctrine the further consideration that the struggle for one’s own + life has its moral side as well as the struggle for the life of + others. The instinct of self-preservation is the beginning of + right, righteousness, justice and law upon earth. Every creature + owes it to God to preserve its own being. So we can find an + adumbration of morality even in the predatory and internecine + warfare of the geologic ages. The immanent God was even then + preparing the way for the rights, the dignity, the freedom of + humanity. B. P. Bowne, in the Independent, April 19, 1900—“The + Copernican system made men dizzy for a time, and they held on to + the Ptolemaic system to escape vertigo. In like manner the + conception of God, as revealing himself in a great historic + movement and process, in the consciences and lives of holy men, in + the unfolding life of the church, makes dizzy the believer in a + dictated book, and he longs for some fixed word that shall be sure + and stedfast.” God is not limited to creating from without: he can + also create from within; and development is as much a part of + creation as is the origination of the elements. For further + discussion of man’s origin, see section on Man a Creation of God, + in our treatment of Anthropology. + + +2. Its proper interpretation. + + +We adopt neither (_a_) the allegorical, or mythical, (_b_) the +hyperliteral, nor (_c_) the hyperscientific interpretation of the Mosaic +narrative; but rather (_d_) the pictorial-summary interpretation,—which +holds that the account is a rough sketch of the history of creation, true +in all its essential features, but presented in a graphic form suited to +the common mind and to earlier as well as to later ages. While conveying +to primitive man as accurate an idea of God’s work as man was able to +comprehend, the revelation was yet given in pregnant language, so that it +could expand to all the ascertained results of subsequent physical +research. This general correspondence of the narrative with the teachings +of science, and its power to adapt itself to every advance in human +knowledge, differences it from every other cosmogony current among men. + + + (_a_) The _allegorical_, or _mythical interpretation_, represents + the Mosaic account as embodying, like the Indian and Greek + cosmogonies, the poetic speculations of an early race as to the + origin of the present system. We object to this interpretation + upon the ground that the narrative of creation is inseparably + connected with the succeeding history, and is therefore most + naturally regarded as itself historical. This connection of the + narrative of creation with the subsequent history, moreover, + prevents us from believing it to be the description of a vision + granted to Moses. It is more probably the record of an original + revelation to the first man, handed down to Moses’ time, and used + by Moses as a proper introduction to his history. + + We object also to the view of some higher critics that the book of + Genesis contains two inconsistent stories. Marcus Dods, Book of + Genesis, 2—“The compiler of this book ... lays side by side two + accounts of man’s creation which no ingenuity can reconcile.” + Charles A. Briggs: “The doctrine of creation in Genesis 1 is + altogether different from that taught in Genesis 2.” W. N. Clarke, + Christian Theology, 199-201—“It has been commonly assumed that the + two are parallel, and tell one and the same story; but examination + shows that this is not the case.... We have here the record of a + tradition, rather than a revelation.... It cannot be taken as + literal history, and it does not tell by divine authority how man + was created.” To these utterances we reply that the two accounts + are not inconsistent but complementary, the first chapter of + Genesis describing man’s creation as the crown of God’s general + work, the second describing man’s creation with greater + particularity as the beginning of human history. + + Canon Rawlinson, in Aids to Faith, 275, compares the Mosaic + account with the cosmogony of Berosus, the Chaldean. Pfleiderer, + Philos. of Religion, 1:267-272, gives an account of heathen + theories of the origin of the universe. Anaxagoras was the first + who represented the chaotic first matter as formed through the + ordering understanding (νοῦς) of God, and Aristotle for that + reason called him “the first sober one among many drunken.” + Schurman, Belief in God, 138—“In these cosmogonies the world and + the gods grow up together; cosmogony is, at the same time, + theogony.” Dr. E. G. Robinson: “The Bible writers believed and + intended to state that the world was made in three literal days. + But, on the principle that God may have meant more than they did, + the doctrine of periods may not be inconsistent with their + account.” For comparison of the Biblical with heathen cosmogonies, + see Blackie in Theol. Eclectic, 1:77-87; Guyot, Creation, 58-63; + Pope, Theology, 1:401, 402; Bible Commentary, 1:36, 48; McIlvaine, + Wisdom of Holy Scripture, 1-54; J. F. Clarke, Ten Great Religions, + 2:193-221. For the theory of “prophetic vision,” see Kurtz, Hist. + of Old Covenant, Introd., i-xxxvii, civ-cxxx; and Hugh Miller, + Testimony of the Rocks, 179-210; Hastings, Dict. Bible, art.: + Cosmogony; Sayce, Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, + 372-397. + + (_b_) The _hyperliteral interpretation_ would withdraw the + narrative from all comparison with the conclusions of science, by + putting the ages of geological history between the first and + second verses of _Gen. 1_, and by making the remainder of the + chapter an account of the fitting up of the earth, or of some + limited portion of it, in six days of twenty-four hours each. + Among the advocates of this view, now generally discarded, are + Chalmers, Natural Theology, Works, 1:228-258, and John Pye Smith, + Mosaic Account of Creation, and Scripture and Geology. To this + view we object that there is no indication, in the Mosaic + narrative, of so vast an interval between the first and the second + verses; that there is no indication, in the geological history, of + any such break between the ages of preparation and the present + time (see Hugh Miller, Testimony of the Rocks, 141-178); and that + there are indications in the Mosaic record itself that the word + “_day_” is not used in its literal sense; while the other + Scriptures unquestionably employ it to designate a period of + indefinite duration (_Gen. 1:5_—“_God called the light Day_”—a day + before there was a sun; _8_—“_there was evening and there was + morning, a second day_”; _2:2_—God “_rested on the seventh day_”; + _cf._ _Heb. 4:3-10_—where God’s day of rest seems to continue, and + his people are exhorted to enter into it; _Gen. 2:4_—“_the day + that Jehovah made earth and heaven_”—“_day_” here covers all the + seven days; _cf._ _Is. 2:12_—“_a day of Jehovah of hosts_”; _Zech. + 14:7_—“_it shall be one day which is known unto Jehovah; not day, + and not night_”; _2 Pet. 3:8_—“_one day is with the Lord as __ a + thousand years, and a thousand years as one day_”). Guyot, + Creation, 34, objects also to this interpretation, that the + narrative purports to give a history of the making of the heavens + as well as of the earth (_Gen. 2:4_—“_these are the generations of + the heaven and of the earth_”), whereas this interpretation + confines the history to the earth. On the meaning of the word + “_day_,” as a period of indefinite duration, see Dana, Manual of + Geology, 744; LeConte, Religion and Science, 262. + + (_c_) The _hyperscientific interpretation_ would find in the + narrative a minute and precise correspondence with the geological + record. This is not to be expected, since it is foreign to the + purpose of revelation to teach science. Although a general concord + between the Mosaic and geological histories may be pointed out, it + is a needless embarrassment to compel ourselves to find in every + detail of the former an accurate statement of some scientific + fact. Far more probable we hold to be + + (_d_) The _pictorial-summary interpretation_. Before explaining + this in detail, we would premise that we do not hold this or any + future scheme of reconciling Genesis and geology to be a finality. + Such a settlement of all the questions involved would presuppose + not only a perfected science of the physical universe, but also a + perfected science of hermeneutics. It is enough if we can offer + tentative solutions which represent the present state of thought + upon the subject. Remembering, then, that any such scheme of + reconciliation may speedily be outgrown without prejudice to the + truth of the Scripture narrative, we present the following as an + approximate account of the coincidences between the Mosaic and the + geological records. The scheme here given is a combination of the + conclusions of Dana and Guyot, and assumes the substantial truth + of the nebular hypothesis. It is interesting to observe that + Augustine, who knew nothing of modern science, should have + reached, by simple study of the text, some of the same results. + See his Confessions, 12:8—“First God created a chaotic matter, + which was _next_ to _nothing_. This chaotic matter was made from + nothing, before all days. Then this chaotic, amorphous matter was + subsequently arranged, in the succeeding six days”; De Genes. ad + Lit., 4:27—“The length of these days is not to be determined by + the length of our week-days. There is a series in both cases, and + that is all.” We proceed now to the scheme: + + 1. The earth, if originally in the condition of a gaseous fluid, + must have been void and formless as described in _Genesis 1:2_. + Here the earth is not yet separated from the condensing nebula, + and its fluid condition is indicated by the term “_waters_.” + + 2. The beginning of activity in matter would manifest itself by + the production of light, since light is a resultant of molecular + activity. This corresponds to the statement in _verse 3_. As the + result of condensation, the nebula becomes luminous, and this + process from darkness to light is described as follows: “_there + was evening and there was morning, one day_.” Here we have a day + without a sun—a feature in the narrative quite consistent with two + facts of science: first, that the nebula would naturally be + self-luminous, and, secondly, that the earth proper, which reached + its present form before the sun, would, when it was thrown off, be + itself a self-luminous and molten mass. The day was therefore + continuous—day without night. + + 3. The development of the earth into an independent sphere and its + separation from the fluid around it answers to the dividing of + “_the waters under the firmament from the waters above_,” in + _verse 7_. Here the word “_waters_” is used to designate the + “primordial cosmic material” (Guyot, Creation, 35-37), or the + molten mass of earth and sun united, from which the earth is + thrown off. The term “_waters_” is the best which the Hebrew + language affords to express this idea of a fluid mass. _Ps. 148_ + seems to have this meaning, where it speaks of the “_waters that + are above the heavens_” (_verse 4_)—waters which are distinguished + from the “_deeps_” below (_verse 7_), and the “_vapor_” above + (_verse 8_). + + 4. The production of the earth’s physical features by the partial + condensation of the vapors which enveloped the igneous sphere, and + by the consequent outlining of the continents and oceans, is next + described in _verse 9_ as the gathering of the waters into one + place and the appearing of the dry land. + + 5. The expression of the idea of life in the lowest plants, since + it was in type and effect the creation of the vegetable kingdom, + is next described in _verse 11_ as a bringing into existence of + the characteristic forms of that kingdom. This precedes all + mention of animal life, since the vegetable kingdom is the natural + basis of the animal. If it be said that our earliest fossils are + animal, we reply that the earliest vegetable forms, the _algæ_, + were easily dissolved, and might as easily disappear; that + graphite and bog-iron ore, appearing lower down than any animal + remains, are the result of preceding vegetation; that animal + forms, whenever and wherever existing, must subsist upon and + presuppose the vegetable. The Eozoön is of necessity preceded by + the Eophyte. If it be said that fruit-trees could not have been + created on the third day, we reply that since the creation of the + vegetable kingdom was to be described at one stroke and no mention + of it was to be made subsequently, this is the proper place to + introduce it and to mention its main characteristic forms. See + Bible Commentary, 1:36; LeConte, Elements of Geology, 136, 285. + + 6. The vapors which have hitherto shrouded the planet are now + cleared away as preliminary to the introduction of life in its + higher animal forms. The consequent appearance of solar light is + described in _verses 16_ and _17_ as a making of the sun, moon, + and stars, and a giving of them as luminaries to the earth. + Compare _Gen. 9:13_—“_I do set my bow in the cloud._” As the + rainbow had existed in nature before, but was now appointed to + serve a peculiar purpose, so in the record of creation sun, moon + and stars, which existed before, were appointed as visible lights + for the earth,—and that for the reason that the earth was no + longer self-luminous, and the light of the sun struggling through + the earth’s encompassing clouds was not sufficient for the higher + forms of life which were to come. + + 7. The exhibition of the four grand types of the animal kingdom + (radiate, molluscan, articulate, vertebrate), which characterizes + the next stage of geological progress, is represented in _verses + 20_ and _21_ as a creation of the lower animals—those that swarm + in the waters, and the creeping and flying species of the land. + Huxley, in his American Addresses, objects to this assigning of + the origin of birds to the fifth day, and declares that + terrestrial animals exist in lower strata than any form of + bird,—birds appearing only in the Oölitic, or New Red Sandstone. + But we reply that the fifth day is devoted to sea-productions, + while land-productions belong to the sixth. Birds, according to + the latest science, are sea-productions, not land-productions. + They originated from Saurians, and were, at the first, flying + lizards. There being but one mention of sea-productions, all + these, birds included, are crowded into the fifth day. Thus + Genesis anticipates the latest science. On the ancestry of birds, + see Pop. Science Monthly, March, 1884:606; Baptist Magazine, + 1877:505. + + 8. The introduction of mammals—viviparous species, which are + eminent above all other vertebrates for a quality prophetic of a + high moral purpose, that of suckling their young—is indicated in + _verses 24_ and _25_ by the creation, on the sixth day, of cattle + and beasts of prey. + + 9. Man, the first being of moral and intellectual qualities, and + the first in whom the unity of the great design has full + expression, forms in both the Mosaic and geologic record the last + step of progress in creation (see _verses 26-31_). With Prof. + Dana, we may say that “in this succession we observe not merely an + order of events like that deduced from science; there is a system + in the arrangement, and a far-reaching prophecy, to which + philosophy could not have attained, however instructed.” See Dana, + Manual of Geology, 741-746, and Bib. Sac., April, 1885:201-224. + Richard Owen: “Man from the beginning of organisms was ideally + present upon the earth”; see Owen, Anatomy of Vertebrates, 3:796; + Louis Agassiz: “Man is the purpose toward which the whole animal + creation tends from the first appearance of the first palæozoic + fish.” + + Prof. John M. Taylor: “Man is not merely a mortal but a moral + being. If he sinks below this plane of life he misses the path + marked out for him by all his past development. In order to + progress, the higher vertebrate had to subordinate everything to + mental development. In order to become human it had to develop the + rational intelligence. In order to become higher man, present man + must subordinate everything to moral development. This is the + great law of animal and human development clearly revealed in the + sequence of physical and psychical functions.” W. E. Gladstone in + S. S. Times, April 26, 1890, calls the Mosaic days “chapters in + the history of creation.” He objects to calling them epochs or + periods, because they are not of equal length, and they sometimes + overlap. But he defends the general correspondence of the Mosaic + narrative with the latest conclusions of science, and remarks: + “Any man whose labor and duty for several scores of years has + included as their central point the study of the means of making + himself intelligible to the mass of men, is in a far better + position to judge what would be the forms and methods of speech + proper for the Mosaic writer to adopt, than the most perfect + Hebraist as such, or the most consummate votary of physical + science as such.” + + On the whole subject, see Guyot, Creation; Review of Guyot, in N. + Eng., July, 1884:591-594; Tayler Lewis, Six Days of Creation; + Thompson, Man in Genesis and in Geology; Agassiz, in Atlantic + Monthly, Jan. 1874; Dawson, Story of the Earth and Man, 82, and in + Expositor, Apl. 1886; LeConte, Science and Religion, 264; Hill, in + Bib. Sac., April, 1875; Peirce, Ideality in the Physical Sciences, + 38-72; Boardman, The Creative Week; Godet, Bib. Studies of O. T., + 65-138; Bell, in Nature, Nov. 24 and Dec. 1, 1882; W. E. + Gladstone, in Nineteenth Century, Nov. 1885:685-707, Jan. 1886:1, + 176; reply by Huxley, in Nineteenth Century, Dec. 1885, and Feb. + 1886; Schmid, Theories of Darwin; Bartlett, Sources of History in + the Pentateuch, 1-35; Cotterill, Does Science Aid Faith in Regard + to Creation? Cox, Miracles, 1-39—chapter 1, on the Original + Miracle—that of Creation; Zöckler, Theologie und + Naturwissenschaft, and Urgeschichte, 1-77; Reusch, Bib. + Schöpfungsgeschichte. On difficulties of the nebular hypothesis, + see Stallo, Modern Physics, 277-293. + + +V. God’s End in Creation. + + +Infinite wisdom must, in creating, propose to itself the most +comprehensive and the most valuable of ends,—the end most worthy of God, +and the end most fruitful in good. Only in the light of the end proposed +can we properly judge of God’s work, or of God’s character as revealed +therein. + + + It would seem that Scripture should give us an answer to the + question: Why did God create? The great Architect can best tell + his own design. Ambrose: “To whom shall I give greater credit + concerning God than to God himself?” George A. Gordon, New Epoch + for Faith, 15—“God is necessarily a being of ends. Teleology is + the warp and woof of humanity; it must be in the warp and woof of + Deity. Evolutionary science has but strengthened this view. + Natural science is but a mean disguise for ignorance if it does + not imply cosmical purpose. The movement of life from lower to + higher is a movement upon ends. Will is the last account of the + universe, and will is the faculty for ends. The moment one + concludes that God is, it appears certain that he is a being of + ends. The universe is alive with desire and movement. + Fundamentally it is throughout an expression of will. And it + follows, that the ultimate end of God in human history must be + worthy of himself.” + + +In determining this end, we turn first to: + + +1. The testimony of Scripture. + + +This may be summed up in four statements. God finds his end (_a_) in +himself; (_b_) in his own will and pleasure; (_c_) in his own glory; (_d_) +in the making known of his power, his wisdom, his holy name. All these +statements may be combined in the following, namely, that God’s supreme +end in creation is nothing outside of himself, but is his own glory—in the +revelation, in and through creatures, of the infinite perfection of his +own being. + + + (_a_) _Rom. 11:36_—“_unto him are all things_”; _Col. 1:16_—“_all + things have been created ... unto him_” (Christ); compare _Is. + 48:11_—“_for mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it + ... and my glory will I not give to another_”; and _1 Cor. + 15:28_—“_subject all things unto him, that God may be all in + all._” _Proverbs 16:4_—not “The Lord hath made all things for + himself” (A. V.) but “_Jehovah hath made everything for its own + end_” (Rev. Vers.). + + (_b_) _Eph. 1:5, 6, 9_—“_having foreordained us ... according to + the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his + grace ... mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure + which he purposed in him_”; _Rev. 4:11_—“_thou didst create all + things, and because of thy will they were, and were created._” + + (_c_) _Is. 43:7_—“_whom I have created for my glory_”; _60:21_ and + _61:3_—the righteousness and blessedness of the redeemed are + secured, that “_he may be glorified_”; _Luke 2:14_—the angels’ + song at the birth of Christ expressed the design of the work of + salvation: “_Glory to God in the highest_,” and only through, and + for its sake, “_on earth peace among men in whom he is well + pleased_.” + + (_d_) _Ps. 143:11_—“_In thy righteousness bring my soul out of + trouble_”; _Ez. 36:21, 22_—“_I do not this for your sake ... but + for mine holy name_”; _39:7_—“_my holy name will I make known_”; + _Rom. 9:17_—to Pharaoh: “_For this very purpose did I raise thee + up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be + published abroad in all the earth_”; _22, 23_—“_riches of his + glory_” made known in vessels of wrath, and in vessels of mercy; + _Eph. 3:9, 10_—“_created all things; to the intent that now unto + the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places might be + made known through the church the manifold wisdom of God._” See + Godet, on Ultimate Design of Man; “God in man and man in God,” in + Princeton Rev., Nov. 1880; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 1:436, 535, 565, + 568. _Per contra_, see Miller, Fetich in Theology, 19, 39-45, + 88-98, 143-146. + + +Since holiness is the fundamental attribute in God, to make himself, his +own pleasure, his own glory, his own manifestation, to be his end in +creation, is to find his chief end in his own holiness, its maintenance, +expression, and communication. To make this his chief end, however, is not +to exclude certain subordinate ends, such as the revelation of his wisdom, +power, and love, and the consequent happiness of innumerable creatures to +whom this revelation is made. + + + God’s glory is that which makes him glorious. It is not something + without, like the praise and esteem of men, but something within, + like the dignity and value of his own attributes. To a noble man, + praise is very distasteful unless he is conscious of something in + himself that justifies it. We must be like God to be + self-respecting. Pythagoras said well: “Man’s end is to be like + God.” And so God must look within, and find his honor and his end + in himself. Robert Browning, Hohenstiel-Schwangau: “This is the + glory, that in all conceived Or felt or known, I recognize a Mind, + Not mine but like mine,—for the double joy Making all things for + me, and me for Him.” Schurman, Belief in God, 214-216—“God + glorifies himself in communicating himself.” The object of his + love is the exercise of his holiness. Self-affirmation conditions + self-communication. + + E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 94, 196—“Law and gospel are + only two sides of the one object, the highest glory of God in the + highest good of man.... Nor is it unworthy of God to make himself + his own end: (_a_) It is both unworthy and criminal for a finite + being to make himself his own end, because it is an end that can + be reached only by degrading self and wronging others; but (_b_) + For an infinite Creator not to make himself his own end would be + to dishonor himself and wrong his creatures; since, thereby, (_c_) + he must either act without an end, which is irrational, or from an + end which is impossible without wronging his creatures; because + (_d_) the highest welfare of his creatures, and consequently their + happiness, is impossible except through the subordination and + conformity of their wills to that of their infinitely perfect + Ruler; and (_e_) without this highest welfare and happiness of his + creatures God’s own end itself becomes impossible, for he is + glorified only as his character is reflected in, and recognized + by, his intelligent creatures.” Creation can add nothing to the + essential wealth or worthiness of God. If the end were outside + himself, it would make him dependent and a servant. The old + theologians therefore spoke of God’s “declarative glory,” rather + than God’s “essential glory,” as resulting from man’s obedience + and salvation. + + +2. The testimony of reason. + + +That his own glory, in the sense just mentioned, is God’s supreme end in +creation, is evident from the following considerations: + +(_a_) God’s own glory is the only end actually and perfectly attained in +the universe. Wisdom and omnipotence cannot choose an end which is +destined to be forever unattained; for _“__what his soul desireth, even +that he doeth__”__ (Job 23:13)_. God’s supreme end cannot be the happiness +of creatures, since many are miserable here and will be miserable forever. +God’s supreme end cannot be the holiness of creatures, for many are unholy +here and will be unholy forever. But while neither the holiness nor the +happiness of creatures is actually and perfectly attained, God’s glory is +made known and will be made known in both the saved and the lost. This +then must be God’s supreme end in creation. + + + This doctrine teaches us that none can frustrate God’s plan. God + will get glory out of every human life. Man may glorify God + voluntarily by love and obedience, but if he will not do this he + will be compelled to glorify God by his rejection and punishment. + Better be the molten iron that runs freely into the mold prepared + by the great Designer, than be the hard and cold iron that must be + hammered into shape. Cleanthes, quoted by Seneca: “Ducunt volentem + fata, nolentem trahunt.” W. C. Wilkinson, Epic of Saul, 271—“But + some are tools, and others ministers, Of God, who works his holy + will with all.” Christ baptizes _“__in the Holy Spirit and in + fire__”__ (Mat. 3:11)_. Alexander McLaren: “There are two fires, + to one or other of which we must be delivered. Either we shall + gladly accept the purifying fire of the Spirit which burns sin out + of us, or we shall have to meet the punitive fire which burns up + us and our sins together. To be cleansed by the one or to be + consumed by the other is the choice before each one of us.” Hare, + Mission of the Comforter, on _John 16:8_, shows that the Holy + Spirit either _convinces_ those who yield to his influence, or + _convicts_ those who resist—the word ἐλέγχω having this double + significance. + + +(_b_) God’s glory is the end intrinsically most valuable. The good of +creatures is of insignificant importance compared with this. Wisdom +dictates that the greater interest should have precedence of the less. +Because God can choose no greater end, he must choose for his end himself. +But this is to choose his holiness, and his glory in the manifestation of +that holiness. + + + _Is. 40:15, 16_—“_Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, + and are counted as the small dust of the balance_”—like the drop + that falls unobserved from the bucket, like the fine dust of the + scales which the tradesman takes no notice of in weighing, so are + all the combined millions of earth and heaven before God. He + created, and he can in an instant destroy. The universe is but a + drop of dew upon the fringe of his garment. It is more important + that God should be glorified than that the universe should be + happy. As we read in _Heb. 6:13_—“_since he could swear by none + greater, he sware by himself_”—so here we may say: Because he + could choose no greater end in creating, he chose himself. But to + swear by himself is to swear by his holiness (_Ps. 89:35_). We + infer that to find his end in himself is to find that end in his + holiness. See Martineau on Malebranche, in Types, 177. + + The stick or the stone does not exist for itself, but for some + consciousness. The soul of man exists in part for itself. But it + is conscious that in a more important sense it exists for God. + “Modern thought,” it is said, “worships and serves the creature + more than the Creator; indeed, the chief end of the Creator seems + to be to glorify man and to enjoy him forever.” So the small boy + said his Catechism: “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to + annoy him forever.” Prof. Clifford: “The kingdom of God is + obsolete; the kingdom of man has now come.” All this is the + insanity of sin. _Per contra_, see Allen, Jonathan Edwards, 329, + 330—“Two things are plain in Edwards’s doctrine: first, that God + cannot love anything other than himself: he is so great, so + preponderating an amount of being, that what is left is hardly + worth considering; secondly, so far as God has any love for the + creature, it is because he is himself diffused therein: the + fulness of his own essence has overflowed into an outer world, and + that which he loves in created beings is his essence imparted to + them.” But we would add that Edwards does not say they are + themselves of the essence of God; see his Works, 2:210, 211. + + +(_c_) His own glory is the only end which consists with God’s independence +and sovereignty. Every being is dependent upon whomsoever or whatsoever he +makes his ultimate end. If anything in the creature is the last end of +God, God is dependent upon the creature. But since God is dependent only +on himself, he must find in himself his end. + + + To create is not to increase his blessedness, but only to reveal + it. There is no need or deficiency which creation supplies. The + creatures who derive all from him can add nothing to him. All our + worship is only the rendering back to him of that which is his + own. He notices us only for his own sake and not because our + little rivulets of praise add anything to the ocean-like fulness + of his joy. For his own sake, and not because of our misery or our + prayers, he redeems and exalts us. To make our pleasure and + welfare his ultimate end would be to abdicate his throne. He + creates, therefore, only for his own sake and for the sake of his + glory. To this reasoning the London Spectator replies: “The glory + of God is the splendor of a manifestation, not the intrinsic + splendor manifested. The splendor of a manifestation, however, + consists in the effect of the manifestation on those to whom it is + given. Precisely because the manifestation of God’s goodness can + be useful to us and cannot be useful to him, must its + manifestation be intended for our sake and not for his sake. We + gain everything by it—he nothing, except so far as it is his own + will that we should gain what he desires to bestow upon us.” In + this last clause we find the acknowledgment of weakness in the + theory that God’s supreme end is the good of his creatures. God + does gain the fulfilment of his plan, the doing of his will, the + manifestation of himself. The great painter loves his picture less + than he loves his ideal. He paints in order to express himself. + God loves each soul which he creates, but he loves yet more the + expression of his own perfections in it. And this self-expression + is his end. Robert Browning, Paracelsus, 54—“God is the perfect + Poet, Who in creation acts his own conceptions.” Shedd, Dogm. + Theol., 1:357, 358; Shairp, Province of Poetry, 11, 12. + + God’s love makes him a self-expressing being. Self-expression is + an inborn impulse in his creatures. All genius partakes of this + characteristic of God. Sin substitutes concealment for outflow, + and stops this self-communication which would make the good of + each the good of all. Yet even sin cannot completely prevent it. + The wicked man is impelled to confess. By natural law the secrets + of all hearts will be made manifest at the judgment. Regeneration + restores the freedom and joy of self-manifestation. Christianity + and confession of Christ are inseparable. The preacher is simply a + Christian further advanced in this divine privilege. We need + utterance. Prayer is the most complete self-expression, and God’s + presence is the only land of perfectly free speech. + + The great poet comes nearest, in the realm of secular things, to + realizing this privilege of the Christian. No great poet ever + wrote his best work for money, or for fame, or even for the sake + of doing good. Hawthorne was half-humorous and only partially + sincere, when he said he would never have written a page except + for pay. The hope of pay may have set his pen a-going, but only + love for his work could have made that work what it is. Motley + more truly declared that it was all up with a writer when he began + to consider the money he was to receive. But Hawthorne needed the + money to live on, while Motley had a rich father and uncle to back + him. The great writer certainly absorbs himself in his work. With + him necessity and freedom combine. He sings as the bird sings, + without dogmatic intent. Yet he is great in proportion as he is + moral and religious at heart. “Arma virumque cano” is the only + first person singular in the Æneid in which the author himself + speaks, yet the whole Æneid is a revelation of Virgil. So we know + little of Shakespeare’s life, but much of Shakespeare’s genius. + + Nothing is added to the tree when it blossoms and bears fruit; it + only reveals its own inner nature. But we must distinguish in man + his true nature from his false nature. Not his private + peculiarities, but that in him which is permanent and universal, + is the real treasure upon which the great poet draws. Longfellow: + “He is the greatest artist then, Whether of pencil or of pen, Who + follows nature. Never man, as artist or as artizan, Pursuing his + own fantasies, Can touch the human heart or please, Or satisfy our + nobler needs.” Tennyson, after observing the subaqueous life of a + brook, exclaimed: “What an imagination God has!” Caird, Philos. + Religion, 245—“The world of finite intelligences, though distinct + from God, is still in its ideal nature one with him. That which + God creates, and by which he reveals the hidden treasures of his + wisdom and love, is still not foreign to his own infinite life, + but one with it. In the knowledge of the minds that know him, in + the self-surrender of the hearts that love him, it is no paradox + to affirm that he knows and loves himself.” + + +(_d_) His own glory is an end which comprehends and secures, as a +subordinate end, every interest of the universe. The interests of the +universe are bound up in the interests of God. There is no holiness or +happiness for creatures except as God is absolute sovereign, and is +recognized as such. It is therefore not selfishness, but benevolence, for +God to make his own glory the supreme object of creation. Glory is not +vain-glory, and in expressing his ideal, that is, in expressing himself, +in his creation, he communicates to his creatures the utmost possible +good. + + + This self-expression is not selfishness but benevolence. As the + true poet forgets himself in his work, so God does not manifest + himself for the sake of what he can make by it. Self-manifestation + is an end in itself. But God’s self-manifestation comprises all + good to his creatures. We are bound to love ourselves and our own + interests just in proportion to the value of those interests. The + monarch of a realm or the general of an army must be careful of + his life, because the sacrifice of it may involve the loss of + thousands of lives of soldiers or subjects. So God is the heart of + the great system. Only by being tributary to the heart can the + members be supplied with streams of holiness and happiness. And so + for only one Being in the universe is it safe to live for himself. + Man should not live for himself, because there is a higher end. + But there is no higher end for God. “Only one being in the + universe is excepted from the duty of subordination. Man must be + subject to the ‘_higher powers_’ (_Rom. 13:1_). But there are no + higher powers to God.” See Park, Discourses, 181-209. + + Bismarck’s motto: “Ohne Kaiser, kein Reich”—“Without an emperor, + there can be no empire”—applies to God, as Von Moltke’s motto: + “Erst wägen, dann wagen”—“First weigh, then dare”—applies to man. + Edwards, Works, 2:215—“Selfishness is no otherwise vicious or + unbecoming than as one is less than a multitude. The public weal + is of greater value than his particular interest. It is fit and + suitable that God should value himself infinitely more than his + creatures.” Shakespeare, Hamlet, 3:3—“The single and peculiar life + is bound With all the strength and armor of the mind To keep + itself from noyance; but much more That spirit upon whose weal + depends and rests The lives of many. The cease of majesty Dies not + alone, but like a gulf doth draw What’s near it with it: it is a + massy wheel Fixed on the summit of the highest mount, To whose + huge spokes ten thousand lesser things Are mortis’d and adjoined; + which, when it falls, Each small annexment, petty consequence, + Attends the boisterous ruin. Never alone did the king sigh, But + with a general groan.” + + +(_e_) God’s glory is the end which in a right moral system is proposed to +creatures. This must therefore be the end which he in whose image they are +made proposes to himself. He who constitutes the centre and end of all his +creatures must find his centre and end in himself. This principle of moral +philosophy, and the conclusion drawn from it, are both explicitly and +implicitly taught in Scripture. + + + The beginning of all religion is the choosing of God’s end as our + end—the giving up of our preference of happiness, and the entrance + upon a life devoted to God. That happiness is not the ground of + moral obligation, is plain from the fact that there is no + happiness in seeking happiness. That the holiness of God is the + ground of moral obligation, is plain from the fact that the search + after holiness is not only successful in itself, but brings + happiness also in its train. Archbishop Leighton, Works, 695—“It + is a wonderful instance of wisdom and goodness that God has so + connected his own glory with our happiness, that we cannot + properly intend the one, but that the other must follow as a + matter of course, and our own felicity is at last resolved into + his eternal glory.” That God will certainly secure the end for + which he created, his own glory, and that his end is our end, is + the true source of comfort in affliction, of strength in labor, of + encouragement in prayer. See _Psalm 25:11_—“_For thy name’s + sake.... Pardon mine iniquity, for it is great_”; _115:1_—“_Not + unto us, O Jehovah, not unto us, But unto thy name give glory_”; + _Mat. 6:33_—“_Seek ye first his kingdom, and his righteousness; + and all these things shall be added unto you_”; _1 Cor. + 10:31_—“_Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, + do all to the glory of God_”; _1 Pet. 2:9_—“_ye are an elect race + ... that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you + out of darkness into his marvelous light_”; _4:11_—speaking, + ministering, “_that in all things God may be glorified through + Jesus Christ, whose is the glory and the dominion for ever and + ever. Amen._” On the whole subject, see Edwards, Works, 2:193-257; + Janet, Final Causes, 443-455; Princeton Theol. Essays, 2:15-32; + Murphy, Scientific Bases of Faith, 358-362. + + It is a duty to make the most of ourselves, but only for God’s + sake. _Jer. 45:5_—“_seekest thou great things for thyself? seek + them not!_” But it is nowhere forbidden us to seek great things + for God. Rather we are to “_desire earnestly the greater gifts_” + (_1 Cor. 12:31_). Self-realization as well as self-expression is + native to humanity. Kant: “Man, and with him every rational + creature, is an end in himself.” But this seeking of his own good + is to be subordinated to the higher motive of God’s glory. The + difference between the regenerate and the unregenerate may consist + wholly in motive. The latter lives for self, the former for God. + Illustrate by the young man in Yale College who began to learn his + lessons for God instead of for self, leaving his salvation in + Christ’s hands. God requires self-renunciation, taking up the + cross, and following Christ, because the first need of the sinner + is to change his centre. To be self-centered is to be a savage. + The struggle for the life of others is better. But there is + something higher still. Life has dignity according to the worth of + the object we install in place of self. Follow Christ, make God + the center of your life,—so shall you achieve the best; see + Colestock, Changing Viewpoint, 113-123. + + George A. Gordon, The New Epoch for Faith, 11-13—“The ultimate + view of the universe is the religious view. Its worth is + ultimately worth for the supreme Being. Here is the note of + permanent value in Edwards’s great essay on The End of Creation. + The final value of creation is its value for God.... Men are men + in and through society—here is the truth which Aristotle + teaches—but Aristotle fails to see that society attains its end + only in and through God.” Hovey, Studies, 65—“To manifest the + glory or perfection of God is therefore the chief end of our + existence. To live in such a manner that his life is reflected in + ours; that his character shall reappear, at least faintly, in + ours; that his holiness and love shall be recognized and declared + by us, is to do that for which we are made. And so, in requiring + us to glorify himself, God simply requires us to do what is + absolutely right, and what is at the same time indispensable to + our highest welfare. Any lower aim could not have been placed + before us, without making us content with a character unlike that + of the First Good and the First Fair.” See statement and criticism + of Edwards’s view in Allen, Jonathan Edwards, 227-238. + + +VI. Relation of the Doctrine of Creation to other Doctrines. + + +1. To the holiness and benevolence of God. + + +Creation, as the work of God, manifests of necessity God’s moral +attributes. But the existence of physical and moral evil in the universe +appears, at first sight, to impugn these attributes, and to contradict the +Scripture declaration that the work of God’s hand was “very good” (Gen. +1:31). This difficulty may be in great part removed by considering that: + +(_a_) At its first creation, the world was good in two senses: first, as +free from moral evil,—sin being a later addition, the work, not of God, +but of created spirits; secondly, as adapted to beneficent ends,—for +example, the revelation of God’s perfection, and the probation and +happiness of intelligent and obedient creatures. + +(_b_) Physical pain and imperfection, so far as they existed before the +introduction of moral evil, are to be regarded: first, as congruous parts +of a system of which sin was foreseen to be an incident; and secondly, as +constituting, in part, the means of future discipline and redemption for +the fallen. + + + The coprolites of Saurians contain the scales and bones of fish + which they have devoured. _Rom. 8:20-22_—“_For the creation was + subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him who + subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also shall be + delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the + glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation_ + [the irrational creation] _groaneth and travaileth in pain + together until now_”; _23_—our mortal body, as a part of nature, + participates in the same groaning. _2 Cor. 4:17_—“_our light + affliction, which is for the moment, worketh for us more and more + exceedingly an eternal weight of glory._” Bowne, Philosophy of + Theism, 224-240—“How explain our rather shabby universe? Pessimism + assumes that perfect wisdom is compatible only with a perfect + work, and that we know the universe to be truly worthless and + insignificant.” John Stuart Mill, Essays on Religion, 29, brings + in a fearful indictment of nature, her storms, lightnings, + earthquakes, blight, decay, and death. Christianity however + regards these as due to man, not to God; as incidents of sin; as + the groans of creation, crying out for relief and liberty. Man’s + body, as a part of nature, waits for the adoption, and + resurrection of the body is to accompany the renewal of the world. + + It was Darwin’s judgment that in the world of nature and of man, + on the whole, “happiness decidedly prevails.” Wallace, Darwinism, + 36-40—“Animals enjoy all the happiness of which they are capable.” + Drummond, Ascent of Man, 203 _sq._—“In the struggle for life there + is no hate—only hunger.” Martineau, Study, 1:330—“Waste of life is + simply nature’s exuberance.” Newman Smyth, Place of Death in + Evolution, 44-56—“Death simply buries the useless waste. Death has + entered for life’s sake.” These utterances, however, come far + short of a proper estimate of the evils of the world, and they + ignore the Scriptural teaching with regard to the connection + between death and sin. A future world into which sin and death do + not enter shows that the present world is abnormal, and that + morality is the only cure for mortality. Nor can the imperfections + of the universe be explained by saying that they furnish + opportunity for struggle and for virtue. Robert Browning, Ring and + Book, Pope, 1875—“I can believe this dread machinery Of sin and + sorrow, would confound me else, Devised,—all pain, at most + expenditure Of pain by Who devised pain,—to evolve, By new + machinery in counterpart, The moral qualities of man—how else?—To + make him love in turn and be beloved, Creative and + self-sacrificing too, And thus eventually godlike.” This seems + like doing evil that good may come. We can explain mortality only + by immorality, and that not in God but in man. Fairbairn: + “Suffering is God’s protest against sin.” + + Wallace’s theory of the survival of the fittest was suggested by + the prodigal destructiveness of nature. Tennyson: “Finding that of + fifty seeds She often brings but one to bear.” William James: “Our + dogs are _in_ our human life, but not _of_ it. The dog, under the + knife of vivisection, cannot understand the purpose of his + suffering. For him it is only pain. So we may lie soaking in a + spiritual atmosphere, a dimension of Being which we have at + present no organ for apprehending. If we knew the purpose of our + life, all that is heroic in us would religiously acquiesce.” + Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 72—“Love is prepared to take deeper + and sterner measures than benevolence, which is by itself a + shallow thing.” The Lakes of Killarny in Ireland show what a + paradise this world might be if war had not desolated it, and if + man had properly cared for it. Our moral sense cannot justify the + evil in creation except upon the hypothesis that this has some + cause and reason in the misconduct of man. + + This is not a perfect world. It was not perfect even when + originally constituted. Its imperfection is due to sin. God made + it with reference to the Fall,—the stage was arranged for the + great drama of sin and redemption which was to be enacted thereon. + We accept Bushnell’s idea of “anticipative consequences,” and + would illustrate it by the building of a hospital-room while yet + no member of the family is sick, and by the salvation of the + patriarchs through a Christ yet to come. If the earliest + vertebrates of geological history were types of man and + preparations for his coming, then pain and death among those same + vertebrates may equally have been a type of man’s sin and its + results of misery. If sin had not been an incident, foreseen and + provided for, the world might have been a paradise. As a matter of + fact, it will become a paradise only at the completion of the + redemptive work of Christ. Kreibig, Versöhnung, 369—“The death of + Christ was accompanied by startling occurrences in the outward + world, to show that the effects of his sacrifice reached even into + nature.” Perowne refers _Ps. 96:10_—“_The world also is + established that it cannot be moved_”—to the restoration of the + inanimate creation; _cf._ _Heb. 12:27_—“_And this word, Yet once + more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as + of things that have been made, that those things which are not + shaken may remain_”; _Rev. 21:1, 5_—“_a new heaven and a new earth + ... Behold, I make all things new._” + + Much sport has been made of this doctrine of anticipative + consequences. James D. Dana: “It is funny that the sin of Adam + should have killed those old trilobites! The blunderbuss must have + kicked back into time at a tremendous rate to have hit those poor + innocents!” Yet every insurance policy, every taking out of an + umbrella, every buying of a wedding ring, is an anticipative + consequence. To deny that God made the world what it is in view of + the events that were to take place in it, is to concede to him + less wisdom than we attribute to our fellow-man. The most rational + explanation of physical evil in the universe is that of _Rom. + 8:20, 21_—“_the creation was subjected to vanity ... by reason of + him who subjected it_”—_i. e._, by reason of the first man’s + sin—“_in hope that the creation itself also shall be delivered_.” + + Martineau, Types, 2:151—“What meaning could Pity have in a world + where suffering was not meant to be?” Hicks, Critique of Design + Arguments, 386—“The very badness of the world convinces us that + God is good.” And Sir Henry Taylor’s words: “Pain in man Bears the + high mission of the flail and fan; In brutes ’tis surely + piteous”—receive their answer: The brute is but an appendage to + man, and like inanimate nature it suffers from man’s fall—suffers + not wholly in vain, for even pain in brutes serves to illustrate + the malign influence of sin and to suggest motives for resisting + it. Pascal: “Whatever virtue can be bought with pain is cheaply + bought.” The pain and imperfection of the world are God’s frown + upon sin and his warning against it. See Bushnell, chapter on + Anticipative Consequences, in Nature and the Supernatural, + 194-219. Also McCosh, Divine Government, 26-35, 249-261; Farrar, + Science and Theology, 82-105; Johnson, in Bap. Rev., 6:141-154; + Fairbairn, Philos. Christ. Religion, 94-168. + + +2. To the wisdom and free-will of God. + + +No plan whatever of a finite creation can fully express the infinite +perfection of God. Since God, however, is immutable, he must always have +had a plan of the universe; since he is perfect, he must have had the best +possible plan. As wise, God cannot choose a plan less good, instead of one +more good. As rational, he cannot between plans equally good make a merely +arbitrary choice. Here is no necessity, but only the certainty that +infinite wisdom will act wisely. As no compulsion from without, so no +necessity from within, moves God to create the actual universe. Creation +is both wise and free. + + + As God is both rational and wise, his having a plan of the + universe must be better than his not having a plan would be. But + the universe once was not; yet without a universe God was blessed + and sufficient to himself. God’s perfection therefore requires, + not that he have a universe, but that he have a plan of the + universe. Again, since God is both rational and wise, his actual + creation cannot be the worst possible, nor one arbitrarily chosen + from two or more equally good. It must be, all things considered, + the best possible. We are optimists rather than pessimists. + + But we reject that form of optimism which regards evil as the + indispensable condition of the good, and sin as the direct product + of God’s will. We hold that other form of optimism which regards + sin as naturally destructive, but as made, in spite of itself, by + an overruling providence, to contribute to the highest good. For + the optimism which makes evil the necessary condition of finite + being, see Leibnitz, Opera Philosophica, 468, 624; Hedge, Ways of + the Spirit, 241; and Pope’s Essay on Man. For the better form of + optimism, see Herzog, Encyclopädie, art.: Schöpfung, 13:651-653; + Chalmers, Works, 2:286; Mark Hopkins, in Andover Rev., March, + 1885:197-210; Luthardt, Lehre des freien Willens, 9, 10—“Calvin’s + _Quia voluit_ is not the last answer. We could have no heart for + such a God, for he would himself have no heart. Formal will alone + has no heart. In God real freedom controls formal, as in fallen + man, formal controls real.” + + Janet, in his Final Causes, 429 sq. and 490-503, claims that + optimism subjects God to fate. We have shown that this objection + mistakes the certainty which is consistent with freedom for the + necessity which is inconsistent with freedom. The opposite + doctrine attributes an irrational arbitrariness to God. We are + warranted in saying that the universe at present existing, + considered as a partial realization of God’s developing plan, is + the best possible for this particular point of time,—in short, + that all is for the best,—see _Rom. 8:28_—“_to them that love God + all things work together for good_”; _1 Cor. 3:21_—“_all things + are yours._” + + For denial of optimism in any form, see Watson, Theol. Institutes, + 1:419; Hovey, God with Us, 206-208; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 1:419, + 432, 566, and 2:145; Lipsius, Dogmatik, 234-255; Flint, Theism, + 227-256; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 397-409, and esp. 405—“A wisdom + the resources of which have been so expended that it cannot equal + its past achievements is a finite capacity, and not the boundless + depth of the infinite God.” But we reply that a wisdom which does + not do that which is best is not wisdom. The limit is not in God’s + abstract power, but in his other attributes of truth, love, and + holiness. Hence God can say in _Is. 5:4_—“_what could have been + done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?_” + + The perfect antithesis to an ethical and theistic optimism is + found in the non-moral and atheistic pessimism of Schopenhauer + (Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung) and Hartmann (Philosophie des + Unbewussten). “All life is summed up in effort, and effort is + painful; therefore life is pain.” But we might retort: “Life is + active, and action is always accompanied with pleasure; therefore + life is pleasure.” See Frances Power Cobbe, Peak in Darien, + 95-134, for a graphic account of Schopenhauer’s heartlessness, + cowardice and arrogance. Pessimism is natural to a mind soured by + disappointment and forgetful of God: _Eccl. 2:11_—“_all was vanity + and a striving after wind._” Homer: “There is nothing whatever + more wretched than man.” Seneca praises death as the best + invention of nature. Byron: “Count o’er the joys thine hours have + seen, Count o’er thy days from anguish free, And know, whatever + thou hast been, ’Tis something better not to be.” But it has been + left to Schopenhauer and Hartmann to define will as unsatisfied + yearning, to regard life itself as a huge blunder, and to urge + upon the human race, as the only measure of permanent relief, a + united and universal act of suicide. + + G. H. Beard, in Andover Rev., March, 1892—“Schopenhauer utters one + New Testament truth: the utter delusiveness of self-indulgence. + Life which is dominated by the desires, and devoted to mere + getting, is a pendulum swinging between pain and ennui.” Bowne, + Philos. of Theism, 124—“For Schopenhauer the world-ground is pure + will, without intellect or personality. But pure will is nothing. + Will itself, except as a function of a conscious and intelligent + spirit, is nothing.” Royce, Spirit of Mod. Philos., + 253-280—“Schopenhauer united Kant’s thought, ‘The inmost life of + all things is one,’ with the Hindoo insight, ‘The life of all + these things, That art Thou.’ To him music shows best what the + will is: passionate, struggling, wandering, restless, ever + returning to itself, full of longing, vigor, majesty, caprice. + Schopenhauer condemns individual suicide, and counsels + resignation. That I must ever desire yet never fully attain, leads + Hegel to the conception of the absolutely active and triumphant + spirit. Schopenhauer finds in it proof of the totally evil nature + of things. Thus while Hegel is an optimist, Schopenhauer is a + pessimist.” + + Winwood Reade, in the title of his book, The Martyrdom of Man, + intends to describe human history. O. W. Holmes says that Bunyan’s + Pilgrim’s Progress “represents the universe as a trap which + catches most of the human vermin that have its bait dangled before + them.” Strauss: “If the prophets of pessimism prove that man had + better never have lived, they thereby prove that themselves had + better never have prophesied.” Hawthorne, Note-book: “Curious to + imagine what mournings and discontent would be excited, if any of + the great so-called calamities of human beings were to be + abolished,—as, for instance, death.” + + On both the optimism of Leibnitz and the pessimism of + Schopenhauer, see Bowen, Modern Philosophy; Tulloch, Modern + Theories, 169-221; Thompson, on Modern Pessimism, in Present Day + Tracts, 6: no. 34; Wright, on Ecclesiastes, 141-216; Barlow, + Ultimatum of Pessimism: Culture tends to misery; God is the most + miserable of beings; creation is a plaster for the sore. See also + Mark Hopkins, in Princeton Review, Sept. 1882:197—“Disorder and + misery are so mingled with order and beneficence, that both + optimism and pessimism are possible.” Yet it is evident that there + must be more construction than destruction, or the world would not + be existing. Buddhism, with its Nirvana-refuge, is essentially + pessimistic. + + +3. To Christ as the Revealer of God. + + +Since Christ is the Revealer of God in creation as well as in redemption, +the remedy for pessimism is (1) the recognition of God’s transcendence—the +universe at present not fully expressing his power, his holiness or his +love, and nature being a scheme of progressive evolution which we +imperfectly comprehend and in which there is much to follow; (2) the +recognition of sin as the free act of the creature, by which all sorrow +and pain have been caused, so that God is in no proper sense its author; +(3) the recognition of Christ _for_ us on the Cross and Christ _in_ us by +his Spirit, as revealing the age-long sorrow and suffering of God’s heart +on account of human transgression, and as manifested, in self-sacrificing +love, to deliver men from the manifold evils in which their sins have +involved them; and (4) the recognition of present probation and future +judgment, so that provision is made for removing the scandal now resting +upon the divine government and for justifying the ways of God to men. + + + Christ’s Cross is the proof that God suffers more than man from + human sin, and Christ’s judgment will show that the wicked cannot + always prosper. In Christ alone we find the key to the dark + problems of history and the guarantee of human progress. _Rom. + 3:25_—“_whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in + his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over + of the sins done aforetime in the forbearance of God_”; + _8:32_—“_He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for + us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all + things?_” _Heb. 2:8, 9_—“_we see not yet all things subjected to + him. But we behold ... Jesus ... crowned with glory and honor_”; + _Acts 17:31_—“_he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the + earth in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained._” See + Hill, Psychology, 283; Bradford, Heredity and Christian Problems, + 240, 241; Bruce, Providential Order, 71-88; J. M. Whiton, in Am. + Jour. Theology, April, 1901:318. + + G. A. Gordon, New Epoch of Faith, 199—“The book of Job is called + by Huxley the classic of pessimism.” Dean Swift, on the successive + anniversaries of his own birth, was accustomed to read the third + chapter of Job, which begins with the terrible “_Let the day + perish wherein I was born_” (_3:3_). But predestination and + election are not arbitrary. Wisdom has chosen the best possible + plan, has ordained the salvation of all who could wisely have been + saved, has permitted the least evil that it was wise to permit. + _Rev. 4:11_—“_Thou didst create all things, and because of thy + will they were, and were created._” Mason, Faith of the Gospel, + 79—“All things were present to God’s mind because of his will, and + then, when it pleased him, had being given to them.” Pfleiderer, + Grundriss, 36, advocates a realistic idealism. Christianity, he + says, is not abstract optimism, for it recognizes the evil of the + actual and regards conflict with it as the task of the world’s + history; it is not pessimism, for it regards the evil as not + unconquerable, but regards the good as the end and the power of + the world. + + Jones, Robert Browning, 109, 311—“Pantheistic optimism asserts + that all things _are_ good; Christian optimism asserts that all + things are _working together_ for good. Reverie in Asolando: ‘From + the first Power was—I knew. Life has made clear to me That, strive + but for closer view, Love were as plain to see.’ Balaustion’s + Adventure: ‘Gladness be with thee, Helper of the world! I think + this is the authentic sign and seal Of Godship, that it ever waxes + glad, And more glad, until gladness blossoms, bursts Into a rage + to suffer for mankind And recommence at sorrow.’ Browning + endeavored to find God in man, and still to leave man free. His + optimistic faith sought reconciliation with morality. He abhorred + the doctrine that the evils of the world are due to merely + arbitrary sovereignty, and this doctrine he has satirized in the + monologue of Caliban on Setebos: ‘Loving not, hating not, just + choosing so.’ Pippa Passes: ‘God’s in his heaven—All’s right with + the world.’ But how is this consistent with the guilt of the + sinner? Browning does not say. He leaves the antinomy unsolved, + only striving to hold both truths in their fulness. Love demands + distinction between God and man, yet love unites God and man. + Saul: ‘All’s love, but all’s law.’ Carlyle forms a striking + contrast to Browning. Carlyle was a pessimist. He would renounce + happiness for duty, and as a means to this end would suppress, not + idle speech alone, but thought itself. The battle is fought + moreover in a foreign cause. God’s cause is not ours. Duty is a + menace, like the duty of a slave. The moral law is not a + beneficent revelation, reconciling God and man. All is fear, and + there is no love.” Carlyle took Emerson through the London slums + at midnight and asked him: “Do you believe in a devil now?” But + Emerson replied: “I am more and more convinced of the greatness + and goodness of the English people.” On Browning and Carlyle, see + A. H. Strong, Great Poets and their Theology, 373-447. + + Henry Ward Beecher, when asked whether life was worth living, + replied that that depended very much upon the liver. Optimism and + pessimism are largely matters of digestion. President Mark Hopkins + asked a bright student if he did not believe this the best + possible system. When the student replied in the negative, the + President asked him how he could improve upon it. He answered: “I + would kill off all the bed-bugs, mosquitoes and fleas, and make + oranges and bananas grow further north.” The lady who was bitten + by a mosquito asked whether it would be proper to speak of the + creature as “a depraved little insect.” She was told that this + would be improper, because depravity always implies a previous + state of innocence, whereas the mosquito has always been as bad as + he now is. Dr. Lyman Beecher, however, seems to have held the + contrary view. When he had captured the mosquito who had bitten + him, he crushed the insect, saying: “There! I’ll show you that + there is a God in Israel!” He identified the mosquito with all the + corporate evil of the world. Allen, Religious Progress, + 22—“Wordsworth hoped still, although the French Revolution + depressed him; Macaulay, after reading Ranke’s History of the + Popes, denied all religious progress.” On Huxley’s account of + evil, see Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 265 _sq._ + + Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 1:301, 302—“The Greeks of Homer’s + time had a naïve and youthful optimism. But they changed from an + optimistic to a pessimistic view. This change resulted from their + increasing contemplation of the moral disorder of the world.” On + the melancholy of the Greeks, see Butcher, Aspects of Greek + Genius, 130-165. Butcher holds that the great difference between + Greeks and Hebrews was that the former had no hope or ideal of + progress. A. H. Bradford, Age of Faith, 74-102—“The voluptuous + poets are pessimistic, because sensual pleasure quickly passes, + and leaves lassitude and enervation behind. Pessimism is the basis + of Stoicism also. It is inevitable where there is no faith in God + and in a future life. The life of a seed underground is not + inspiring, except in prospect of sun and flowers and fruit.” + Bradley, Appearance and Reality, xiv, sums up the optimistic view + as follows: “The world is the best of all possible worlds, and + everything in it is a necessary evil.” He should have added that + pain is the exception in the world, and finite free will is the + cause of the trouble. Pain is made the means of developing + character, and, when it has accomplished its purpose, pain will + pass away. + + Jackson, James Martineau, 390—“All is well, says an American + preacher, for if there is anything that is not well, it is well + that it is not well. It is well that falsity and hate are not + well, that malice and envy and cruelty are not well. What hope for + the world or what trust in God, if they were well?” _Live_ spells + _Evil_, only when we read it the wrong way. James Russell Lowell, + Letters, 2:51—“The more I learn ... the more my confidence in the + general good sense and honest intentions of mankind increases.... + The signs of the times cease to alarm me, and seem as natural as + to a mother the teething of her seventh baby. I take great comfort + in God. I think that he is considerably amused with us sometimes, + and that he likes us on the whole, and would not let us get at the + matchbox so carelessly as he does, unless he knew that the frame + of his universe was fireproof.” + + Compare with all this the hopeless pessimism of Omar Kháyyám, + Rubáiyát, stanza 99—“Ah Love! could you and I with Him conspire To + grasp this sorry scheme of things entire, Would not we shatter it + to bits—and then Remould it nearer to the heart’s desire?” Royce, + Studies of Good and Evil, 14, in discussing the Problem of Job, + suggests the following solution: “When you suffer, your sufferings + are God’s sufferings, not his external work, not his external + penalty, not the fruit of his neglect, but identically his own + personal woe. In you God himself suffers, precisely as you do, and + has all your concern in overcoming this grief.” F. H. Johnson, + What is Reality, 349, 505—“The Christian ideal is not + maintainable, if we assume that God could as easily develop his + creation without conflict.... Happiness is only one of his ends; + the evolution of moral character is another.” A. E. Waffle, Uses + of Moral Evil: “(1) It aids development of holy character by + opposition; (2) affords opportunity for ministering; (3) makes + known to us some of the chief attributes of God; (4) enhances the + blessedness of heaven.” + + +4. To Providence and Redemption. + + +Christianity is essentially a scheme of supernatural love and power. It +conceives of God as above the world, as well as in it,—able to manifest +himself, and actually manifesting himself, in ways unknown to mere nature. + +But this absolute sovereignty and transcendence, which are manifested in +providence and redemption, are inseparable from creatorship. If the world +be eternal, like God, it must be an efflux from the substance of God and +must be absolutely equal with God. Only a proper doctrine of creation can +secure God’s absolute distinctness from the world and his sovereignty over +it. + +The logical alternative of creation is therefore a system of pantheism, in +which God is an impersonal and necessary force. Hence the pantheistic +_dicta_ of Fichte: “The assumption of a creation is the fundamental error +of all false metaphysics and false theology”; of Hegel: “God evolves the +world out of himself, in order to take it back into himself again in the +Spirit”; and of Strauss: “Trinity and creation, speculatively viewed, are +one and the same,—only the one is viewed absolutely, the other +empirically.” + + + Sterrett, Studies, 155, 156—“Hegel held that it belongs to God’s + nature to create. Creation is God’s positing an _other_ which is + not an _other_. The creation is _his_, belongs to his being or + essence. This involves the finite as his own self-posited object + and self-revelation. It is necessary for God to create. Love, + Hegel says, is only another expression of the eternally Triune + God. Love must create and love _another_. But in loving this + _other_, God is only loving himself.” We have already, in our + discussion of the theory of creation from eternity, shown the + insufficiency of creation to satisfy either the love or the power + of God. A proper doctrine of the Trinity renders the hypothesis of + an eternal creation unnecessary and irrational. That hypothesis is + pantheistic in tendency. + + Luthardt, Compendium der Dogmatik, 97—“Dualism might be called a + logical alternative of creation, but for the fact that its notion + of two gods in self-contradictory, and leads to the lowering of + the idea of the Godhead, so that the impersonal god of pantheism + takes its place.” Dorner, System of Doctrine, 2:11—“The world + cannot be necessitated in order to satisfy either want or + over-fulness in God.... The doctrine of absolute creation prevents + the _confounding_ of God with the world. The declaration that the + Spirit brooded over the formless elements, and that life was + developed under the continuous operation of God’s laws and + presence, prevents the _separation_ of God from the world. Thus + pantheism and deism are both avoided.” See Kant and Spinoza + contrasted in Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 1:468, 469. The unusually full + treatment of the doctrine of creation in this chapter is due to a + conviction that the doctrine constitutes an antidote to most of + the false philosophy of our time. + + +5. To the Observance of the Sabbath. + + +We perceive from this point of view, moreover, the importance and value of +the Sabbath, as commemorating God’s act of creation, and thus God’s +personality, sovereignty, and transcendence. + +(_a_) The Sabbath is of perpetual obligation as God’s appointed memorial +of his creating activity. The Sabbath requisition antedates the decalogue +and forms a part of the moral law. Made at the creation, it applies to man +as man, everywhere and always, in his present state of being. + + + _Gen. 2:3_—“_And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it; + because that in it he rested from all his work which God had + created and made._” Our rest is to be a miniature representation + of God’s rest. As God worked six divine days and rested one divine + day, so are we in imitation of him to work six human days and to + rest one human day. In the Old Testament there are indications of + an observance of the Sabbath day before the Mosaic legislation: + _Gen. 4:3_—“_And in process of time_ [lit. “_at the end of days_”] + _it came to pass that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an + offering unto Jehovah_”; _Gen. 8:10, 12_—Noah twice waited seven + days before sending forth the dove from the ark; _Gen. 29:27, + 28_—“_fulfil the week_”; _cf._ _Judges 14:12_—“_the seven days of + the feast_”; _Ex. 16:5_—double portion of manna promised on the + sixth day, that none be gathered on the Sabbath (_cf._ _verses 20, + 30_). This division of days into weeks is best explained by the + original institution of the Sabbath at man’s creation. Moses in + the fourth commandment therefore speaks of it as already known and + observed: _Ex. 20:8_—“_Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy._” + + The Sabbath is recognized in Assyrian accounts of the Creation; + see Trans. Soc. Bib. Arch., 5:427, 428; Schrader, Keilinschriften, + ed. 1883:18-22. Professor Sayce: “Seven was a sacred number + descended to the Semites from their Accadian predecessors. Seven + by seven had the magic knots to be tied by the witch; seven times + had the body of the sick man to be anointed by the purifying oil. + As the Sabbath of rest fell on each seventh day of the week, so + the planets, like the demon-messengers of Anu, were seven in + number, and the gods of the number seven received a particular + honor.” But now the discovery of a calendar tablet in Mesopotamia + shows us the week of seven days and the Sabbath in full sway in + ancient Babylon long before the days of Moses. In this tablet the + seventh, the fourteenth, the twenty-first and the twenty-eighth + days are called Sabbaths, the very word used by Moses, and + following it are the words: “A day of rest.” The restrictions are + quite as rigid in this tablet as those in the law of Moses. This + institution must have gone back to the Accadian period, before the + days of Abraham. In one of the recent discoveries this day is + called “the day of rest for the heart,” but of the gods, on + account of the propitiation offered on that day, their heart being + put at rest. See Jastrow, in Am. Jour. Theol., April, 1898. + + S. S. Times, Jan. 1892, art. by Dr. Jensen of the University of + Strassburg on the Biblical and Babylonian Week: “_Subattu_ in + Babylonia means day of propitiation, implying a religious purpose. + A week of seven days is implied in the Babylonian Flood-Story, the + rain continuing six days and ceasing on the seventh, and another + period of seven days intervening between the cessation of the + storm and the disembarking of Noah, the dove, swallow and raven + being sent out again on the seventh day. Sabbaths are called days + of rest for the heart, days of the completion of labor.” Hutton, + Essays, 2:229—“Because there is in God’s mind a spring of eternal + rest as well as of creative energy, we are enjoined to respect the + law of rest as well as the law of labor.” We may question, indeed, + whether this doctrine of God’s rest does not of itself refute the + theory of eternal, continuous, and necessary creation. + + +(_b_) Neither our Lord nor his apostles abrogated the Sabbath of the +decalogue. The new dispensation does away with the Mosaic prescriptions as +to the method of keeping the Sabbath, but at the same time declares its +observance to be of divine origin and to be a necessity of human nature. + + + Not everything in the Mosaic law is abrogated in Christ. Worship + and reverence, regard for life and purity and property, are + binding still. Christ did not nail to his cross every commandment + of the decalogue. Jesus does not defend himself from the charge of + Sabbath-breaking by saying that the Sabbath is abrogated, but by + asserting the true idea of the Sabbath as fulfilling a fundamental + human need. _Mark 2:27_—“_The Sabbath was made_ [by God] _for man, + and not man for the Sabbath._” The Puritan restrictions are not + essential to the Sabbath, nor do they correspond even with the + methods of later Old Testament observance. The Jewish Sabbath was + more like the New England Thanksgiving than like the New England + Fast-day. _Nehemiah 8:12, 18_—“_And all the people went their way + to eat, and to drink, and to send portions, and to make great + mirth.... And they kept the feast seven days; and on the eighth + day was a solemn assembly, according unto the ordinance_”—seems to + include the Sabbath day as a day of gladness. + + Origen, in Homily 23 on _Numbers_ (Migne, II:358): “Leaving + therefore the Jewish observances of the Sabbath, let us see what + ought to be for a Christian the observance of the Sabbath. On the + Sabbath day nothing of all the actions of the world ought to be + done.” Christ walks through the cornfield, heals a paralytic, and + dines with a Pharisee, all on the Sabbath day. John Milton, in his + Christian Doctrine, is an extreme anti-sabbatarian, maintaining + that the decalogue was abolished with the Mosaic law. He thinks it + uncertain whether “the Lord’s day” was weekly or annual. The + observance of the Sabbath, to his mind, is a matter not of + authority, but of convenience. Archbishop Paley: “In my opinion + St. Paul considered the Sabbath a sort of Jewish ritual, and not + obligatory on Christians. A cessation on that day from labor + beyond the time of attending public worship is not intimated in + any part of the New Testament. The notion that Jesus and his + apostles meant to retain the Jewish Sabbath, only shifting the day + from the seventh to the first, prevails without sufficient + reason.” + + According to Guizot, Calvin was so pleased with a play to be acted + in Geneva on Sunday, that he not only attended but deferred his + sermon so that his congregation might attend. When John Knox + visited Calvin, he found him playing a game of bowls on Sunday. + Martin Luther said: “Keep the day holy for its use’s sake, both to + body and soul. But if anywhere the day is made holy for the mere + day’s sake, if any one set up its observance on a Jewish + foundation, then I order you to work on it, to ride on it, to + dance on it, to do anything that shall reprove this encroachment + on the Christian spirit and liberty.” But the most liberal and + even radical writers of our time recognize the economic and + patriotic uses of the Sabbath. R. W. Emerson said that its + observance is “the core of our civilization.” Charles Sumner: “If + we would perpetuate our Republic, we must sanctify it as well as + fortify it, and make it at once a temple and a citadel.” Oliver + Wendell Holmes: “He who ordained the Sabbath loved the poor.” In + Pennsylvania they bring up from the mines every Sunday the mules + that have been working the whole week in darkness,—otherwise they + would become blind. So men’s spiritual sight will fail them if + they do not weekly come up into God’s light. + + +(_c_) The Sabbath law binds us to set apart a seventh portion of our time +for rest and worship. It does not enjoin the simultaneous observance by +all the world of a fixed portion of absolute time, nor is such observance +possible. Christ’s example and apostolic sanction have transferred the +Sabbath from the seventh day to the first, for the reason that this last +is the day of Christ’s resurrection, and so the day when God’s spiritual +creation became in Christ complete. + + + No exact portion of absolute time can be simultaneously observed + by men in different longitudes. The day in Berlin begins six hours + before the day in New York, so that a whole quarter of what is + Sunday in Berlin is still Saturday in New York. Crossing the 180th + degree of longitude from West to East we gain a day, and a + seventh-day Sabbatarian who circumnavigated the globe might thus + return to his starting point observing the same Sabbath with his + fellow Christians. A. S. Carman, in the Examiner, Jan. 4, 1894, + asserts that Heb. 4:5-9 alludes to the change of day from the + seventh to the first, in the references to “_a Sabbath rest_” that + “_remaineth_,” and to “_another day_” taking the place of the + original promised day of rest. Teaching of the Twelve Apostles: + “On the Lord’s Day assemble ye together, and give thanks, and + break bread.” + + The change from the seventh day to the first seems to have been + due to the resurrection of Christ upon “_the first day of the + week_” (_Mat. 28:1_), to his meeting with the disciples upon that + day and upon the succeeding Sunday (_John 20:26_), and to the + pouring out of the Spirit upon the Pentecostal Sunday seven weeks + after (_Acts 2:1_—see Bap. Quar. Rev., 185:229-232). Thus by + Christ’s own example and by apostolic sanction the first day + became “_the Lord’s day_” (_Rev. 1:10_), on which believers met + regularly each week with their Lord (_Acts 20:7_—“_the first day + of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread_”) and + brought together their benevolent contributions (_1 Cor. 16:1, + 2_—“_Now concerning the collection for the saints ... Upon the + first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store, as + he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come_”). + Eusebius, Com. on _Ps. 92_ (Migne, V:1191, C): “Wherefore those + things [the Levitical regulations] having been already rejected, + the Logos through the new Covenant transferred and changed the + festival of the Sabbath to the rising of the sun ... the Lord’s + day ... holy and spiritual Sabbaths.” + + Justin Martyr, First Apology: “On the day called Sunday all who + live in city or country gather together in one place, and the + memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are + read.... Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common + assembly, because it is the first day on which God made the world + and Jesus our Savior on the same day rose from the dead. For he + was crucified on the day before, that of Saturn (Saturday); and on + the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun + (Sunday), having appeared to his apostles and disciples he taught + them these things which we have submitted to you for your + consideration.” This seems to intimate that Jesus between his + resurrection and ascension gave command respecting the observance + of the first day of the week. He was “_received up_” only after + “_he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit unto the + apostles whom he had chosen_” (_Acts 1:2_). + + The Christian Sabbath, then, is the day of Christ’s resurrection. + The Jewish Sabbath commemorated only the beginning of the world; + the Christian Sabbath commemorates also the new creation of the + world in Christ, in which God’s work in humanity first becomes + complete. C. H. M. on _Gen. 2_: “If I celebrate the seventh day it + marks me as an earthly man, inasmuch as that day is clearly the + rest of earth—creation-rest; if I intelligently celebrate the + first day of the week, I am marked as a heavenly man, believing in + the new creation in Christ.” (_Gal. 4:10, 11_—“_Ye observe days, + and months, and seasons, and years. I am afraid of you, least by + any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain_”; _Col. + 2:16,17_—“_Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or + in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day: which + are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ’s._”) + See George S. Gray, Eight Studies on the Lord’s Day; Hessey, + Bampton Lectures on the Sunday; Gilfillan, The Sabbath; Wood, + Sabbath Essays; Bacon, Sabbath Observance; Hadley, Essays + Philological and Critical, 325-345; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 3: + 321-348; Lotz, Quæstiones de Historia Sabbati; Maurice, Sermons on + the Sabbath; Prize Essays on the Sabbath; Crafts, The Sabbath for + Man; A. E. Waffle, The Lord’s Day; Alvah Hovey, Studies in Ethics + and Religion, 271-320; Guirey, The Hallowed Day; Gamble, Sunday + and the Sabbath; Driver, art.: Sabbath, in Hastings’ Bible + Dictionary; Broadus, Am. Com. on _Mat. 12:3_. For the seventh-day + view, see T. B. Brown, The Sabbath; J. N. Andrews, History of the + Sabbath. _Per contra_, see Prof. A. Rauschenbusch, Saturday or + Sunday? + + + +Section II.—Preservation. + + +I. Definition of Preservation. + + +Preservation is that continuous agency of God by which he maintains in +existence the things he has created, together with the properties and +powers with which he has endowed them. As the doctrine of creation is our +attempt to explain the existence of the universe, so the doctrine of +Preservation is our attempt to explain its continuance. + +In explanation we remark: + +(_a_) Preservation is not creation, for preservation presupposes creation. +That which is preserved must already exist, and must have come into +existence by the creative act of God. + +(_b_) Preservation is not a mere negation of action, or a refraining to +destroy, on the part of God. It is a positive agency by which, at every +moment, he sustains the persons and the forces of the universe. + +(_c_) Preservation implies a natural concurrence of God in all operations +of matter and of mind. Though personal beings exist and God’s will is not +the sole force, it is still true that, without his concurrence, no person +or force can continue to exist or to act. + + + Dorner, System of Doctrine, 2:40-42—“Creation and preservation + cannot be the same thing, for then man would be only the product + of natural forces supervised by God,—whereas, man is above nature + and is inexplicable from nature. Nature is not the whole of the + universe, but only the preliminary basis of it.... The _rest_ of + God is not cessation of activity, but is a new exercise of power.” + Nor is God “the soul of the universe.” This phrase is pantheistic, + and implies that God is the only agent. + + It is a wonder that physical life continues. The pumping of blood + through the heart, whether we sleep or wake, requires an + expenditure of energy far beyond our ordinary estimates. The + muscle of the heart never rests except between the beats. All the + blood in the body passes through the heart in each half-minute. + The grip of the heart is greater than that of the fist. The two + ventricles of the heart hold on the average ten ounces or + five-eighths of a pound, and this amount is pumped out at each + beat. At 72 per minute, this is 45 pounds per minute, 2,700 pounds + per hour, and 64,800 pounds or 32 and four tenths tons per day. + Encyclopædia Britannica, 11:554—“The heart does about one-fifth of + the whole mechanical work of the body—a work equivalent to raising + its own weight over 13,000 feet an hour. It takes its rest only in + short snatches, as it were, its action as a whole being + continuous. It must necessarily be the earliest sufferer from any + improvidence as regards nutrition, mental emotion being in this + respect quite as potential a cause of constitutional bankruptcy as + the most violent muscular exertion.” + + Before the days of the guillotine in France, when the criminal to + be executed sat in a chair and was decapitated by one blow of the + sharp sword, an observer declared that the blood spouted up + several feet into the air. Yet this great force is exerted by the + heart so noiselessly that we are for the most part unconscious of + it. The power at work is the power of God, and we call that + exercise of power by the name of preservation. Crane, Religion of + To-morrow, 130—“We do not get bread because God instituted certain + laws of growing wheat or of baking dough, he leaving these laws to + run of themselves. But God, personally present in the wheat, makes + it grow, and in the dough turns it into bread. He does not make + gravitation or cohesion, but these are phases of his present + action. Spirit is the reality, matter and law are the modes of its + expression. So in redemption it is not by the working of some + perfect plan that God saves. He is the immanent God, and all of + his benefits are but phases of his person and immediate + influence.” + + +II. Proof of the Doctrine of Preservation. + + +1. From Scripture. + + +In a number of Scripture passages, preservation is expressly distinguished +from creation. Though God rested from his work of creation and established +an order of natural forces, a special and continuous divine activity is +declared to be put forth in the upholding of the universe and its powers. +This divine activity, moreover, is declared to be the activity of Christ; +as he is the mediating agent in creation, so he is the mediating agent in +preservation. + + + _Nehemiah 9:6_—“_Thou art Jehovah, even thou alone; thou hast made + heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and + all things that are thereon, the seas and all that is in them, and + thou preservest them all_”; _Job 7:20_—“_O thou watcher_ [marg. + “preserver”] _of men!_”; _Ps. 36:6_—“_thou preservest man and + beast_”; _104:29, 30_—“_Thou takest away their breath, they die, + And return to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are + created, And thou renewest the face of the ground._” See Perowne + on _Ps. 104_—“A psalm to the God who is in and with nature for + good.” Humboldt, Cosmos, 2:413—“Psalm 104 presents an image of the + whole Cosmos.” _Acts 17:28_—“_in him we live, and move, and have + our being_”; _Col. 1:17_—“_in him all things consist_”; _Heb. 1:2, + 3_—“_upholding all things by the word of his power._” _John + 5:17_—“_My Father worketh even until now, and I work_”—refers most + naturally to preservation, since creation is a work completed; + compare _Gen. 2:2_—“_on the seventh day God finished his work + which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his + work which he had made._” God is the upholder of physical life; + see _Ps. 66:8, 9_—“_O bless our God ... who holdeth our soul in + life._” God is also the upholder of spiritual life; see _1 Tim. + 6:13_—“_I charge thee in the sight of God who preserveth all + things alive_” (ζωογονοῦντος τὰ πάντα)—the great Preserver enables + us to persist in our Christian course. _Mat. 4:4_—“_Man shall not + live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the + mouth of God_”—though originally referring to physical nourishment + is equally true of spiritual sustentation. In _Ps. 104:26_—“_There + go the ships,_” Dawson, Mod. Ideas of Evolution, thinks the + reference is not to man’s works but to God’s, as the parallelism: + “There is leviathan” would indicate, and that by “ships” are meant + “floaters” like the nautilus, which is a “little ship.” The 104th + Psalm is a long hymn to the preserving power of God, who keeps + alive all the creatures of the deep, both small and great. + + +2. From Reason. + + +We may argue the preserving agency of God from the following +considerations: + +(_a_) Matter and mind are not self-existent. Since they have not the cause +of their being in themselves, their continuance as well as their origin +must be due to a superior power. + + + Dorner, Glaubenslehre: “Were the world self-existent, it would be + God, not world, and no religion would be possible.... The world + has receptivity for new creations; but these, once introduced, are + subject, like the rest, to the law of preservation”—_i. e._, are + dependent for their continued existence upon God. + + +(_b_) Force implies a will of which it is the direct or indirect +expression. We know of force only through the exercise of our own wills. +Since will is the only cause of which we have direct knowledge, second +causes in nature may be regarded as only secondary, regular, and automatic +workings of the great first Cause. + + + For modern theories identifying force with divine will, see + Herschel, Popular Lectures on Scientific Subjects, 460; Murphy, + Scientific Bases, 13-15, 29-36, 42-52; Duke of Argyll, Reign of + Law, 121-127; Wallace, Natural Selection, 363-371; Bowen, + Metaphysics and Ethics, 146-162; Martineau, Essays, 1:63, 265, and + Study, 1:244—“Second causes in nature bear the same relation to + the First Cause as the automatic movement of the muscles in + walking bears to the first decision of the will that initiated the + walk.” It is often objected that we cannot thus identify force + with will, because in many cases the effort of our will is + fruitless for the reason that nervous and muscular force is + lacking. But this proves only that force cannot be identified with + human will, not that it cannot be identified with the divine will. + To the divine will no force is lacking; in God will and force are + one. + + We therefore adopt the view of Maine de Biran, that causation + pertains only to spirit. Porter, Human Intellect, 582-588, objects + to this view as follows: “This implies, first, that the conception + of a material cause is self-contradictory. But the mind recognizes + in itself spiritual energies that are not voluntary; because we + derive our notion of cause from will, it does not follow that the + causal relation always involves will; it would follow that the + universe, so far as it is not intelligent, is impossible. It + implies, secondly, that there is but one agent in the universe, + and that the phenomena of matter and mind are but manifestations + of one single force—the Creator’s.” We reply to this reasoning by + asserting that no dead thing can act, and that what we call + involuntary spiritual energies are really unconscious or + unremembered activities of the will. + + From our present point of view we would also criticize Hodge, + Systematic Theology, 1:596—“Because we get our idea of force from + mind, it does not follow that mind is the only force. That mind is + a cause is no proof that electricity may not be a cause. If matter + is force and nothing but force, then matter is nothing, and the + external world is simply God. In spite of such argument, men will + believe that the external world is a reality—that matter is, and + that it is the cause of the effects we attribute to its agency.” + New Englander, Sept. 1883:552—“Man in early time used second + causes, _i. e._, machines, very little to accomplish his purposes. + His usual mode of action was by the direct use of his hands, or + his voice, and he naturally ascribed to the gods the same method + as his own. His own use of second causes has led man to higher + conceptions of the divine action.” Dorner: “If the world had no + independence, it would not reflect God, nor would creation mean + anything.” But this independence is not absolute. Even man lives, + moves and has his being in God (_Acts 17:28_), and whatever has + come into being, whether material or spiritual, has life only in + Christ (_John 1:3, 4_, marginal reading). + + Preservation is God’s continuous willing. Bowne, Introd. to Psych. + Theory, 305, speaks of “a kind of wholesale willing.” Augustine: + “Dei voluntas est rerum natura.” Principal Fairbairn: “Nature is + spirit.” Tennyson, The Ancient Sage: “Force is from the heights.” + Lord Gifford, quoted in Max Müller, Anthropological Religion, + 392—“The human soul is neither self-derived nor self-subsisting. + It would vanish if it had not a substance, and its substance is + God.” Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 284, 285—“Matter is simply spirit + in its lowest form of manifestation. The absolute Cause must be + that deeper Self which we find at the heart of our own + self-consciousness. By self-differentiation God creates both + matter and mind.” + + +(_c_) God’s sovereignty requires a belief in his special preserving +agency; since this sovereignty would not be absolute, if anything occurred +or existed independent of his will. + + + James Martineau, Seat of Authority, 29, 30—“All cosmic force is + will.... This identification of nature with God’s will _would_ be + pantheistic only _if_ we turned the proposition round and + identified God with _no more_ than the life of the universe. But + we do not deny transcendency. Natural forces are God’s will, but + God’s will _is_ more than they. He is not the equivalent of the + All, but its directing Mind. God is not the rage of the wild + beast, nor the sin of man. There are things and beings objective + to him.... He puts his power into that which is _other than + himself_, and he parts with _other use of it_ by preëngagement to + an end. Yet he is the continuous source and supply of power to the + system.” + + Natural forces are generic volitions of God. But human wills, with + their power of alternative, are the product of God’s + self-limitation, even more than nature is, for human wills do not + always obey the divine will,—they may even oppose it. Nothing + finite is only finite. In it is the Infinite, not only as + immanent, but also as transcendent, and in the case of sin, as + opposing the sinner and as punishing him. This continuous willing + of God has its analogy in our own subconscious willing. J. M. + Whiton, in Am. Jour. Theol., Apl. 1901:320—“Our own will, when we + walk, does not put forth a separate volition for every step, but + depends on the automatic action of the lower nerve-centres, which + it both sets in motion and keeps to their work. So the divine Will + does not work in innumerable separate acts of volition.” A. R. + Wallace: “The whole universe is not merely dependent on, but + actually _is_, the will of higher intelligences or of one supreme + intelligence.... Man’s free will is only a larger artery for the + controlling current of the universal Will, whose time-long + evolutionary flow constitutes the self-revelation of the Infinite + One.” This latter statement of Wallace merges the finite will far + too completely in the will of God. It is true of nature and of all + holy beings, but it is untrue of the wicked. These are indeed + upheld by God in their being, but opposed by God in their conduct. + Preservation leaves room for human freedom, responsibility, sin, + and guilt. + + All natural forces and all personal beings therefore give + testimony to the will of God which originated them and which + continually sustains them. The physical universe, indeed, is in no + sense independent of God, for its forces are only the constant + willing of God, and its laws are only the habits of God. Only in + the free will of intelligent beings has God disjoined from himself + any portion of force and made it capable of contradicting his holy + will. But even in free agents God does not cease to uphold. The + being that sins can maintain its existence only through the + preserving agency of God. The doctrine of preservation therefore + holds a middle ground between two extremes. It holds that finite + personal beings have a real existence and a relative independence. + On the other hand it holds that these persons retain their being + and their powers only as they are upheld by God. + + God is the soul, but not the sum, of things. Christianity holds to + God’s transcendence as well as to God’s immanence. Immanence alone + is God imprisoned, as transcendence alone is God banished. Gore, + Incarnation, 136 _sq._—“Christian theology is the harmony of + pantheism and deism.” It maintains transcendence, and so has all + the good of pantheism without its limitations. It maintains + immanence, and so has all the good of deism without its inability + to show how God could be blessed without creation. Diman, Theistic + Argument, 367—“The dynamical theory of nature as a plastic + organism, pervaded by a system of forces uniting at last in one + supreme Force, is altogether more in harmony with the spirit and + teaching of the Gospel than the mechanical conceptions which + prevailed a century ago, which insisted on viewing nature as an + intricate machine, fashioned by a great Artificer who stood wholly + apart from it.” On the persistency of force, _super cuncta_, + _subter cuncta_, see Bib. Sac., Jan. 1881:1-24; Cocker, Theistic + Conception of the World, 172-243, esp. 236. The doctrine of + preservation therefore holds to a God both in nature and beyond + nature. According as the one or the other of these elements is + exclusively regarded, we have the error of Deism, or the error of + Continuous Creation—theories which we now proceed to consider. + + +III. Theories which virtually deny the doctrine of Preservation. + + +1. Deism. + + +This view represents the universe as a self-sustained mechanism, from +which God withdrew as soon as he had created it, and which he left to a +process of self-development. It was held in the seventeenth and eighteenth +centuries by the English Herbert, Collins, Tindal, and Bolingbroke. + + + Lord Herbert of Cherbury was one of the first who formed deism + into a system. His book _De Veritate_ was published in 1624. He + argues against the probability of God’s revealing his will to only + a portion of the earth. This he calls “particular religion.” Yet + he sought, and according to his own account he received, a + revelation from heaven to encourage the publication of his work in + disproof of revelation. He “asked for a sign,” and was answered by + a “loud though gentle noise from the heavens.” He had the vanity + to think his book of such importance to the cause of truth as to + extort a declaration of the divine will, when the interests of + half mankind could not secure any revelation at all; what God + would not do for a nation, he would do for an individual. See + Leslie and Leland, Method with the Deists. Deism is the + exaggeration of the truth of God’s transcendence. See Christlieb, + Modern Doubt and Christian Belief, 190-209. Melanchthon + illustrates by the shipbuilder: “Ut faber discedit a navi + exstructa et relinquit eam nautis.” God is the maker, not the + keeper, of the watch. In Sartor Resartus, Carlyle makes + Teufelsdröckh speak of “An absentee God, sitting idle ever since + the first Sabbath at the outside of the universe, and seeing it + go.” Blunt, Dict. Doct. and Hist. Theology, art.: Deism. + + “Deism emphasized the inviolability of natural law, and held to a + mechanical view of the world” (Ten Broeke). Its God is a sort of + Hindu Brahma, “as idle as a painted ship upon a painted + ocean”—mere being, without content or movement. Bruce, + Apologetics, 115-131—“God made the world so good at the first that + the best he can do is to let it alone. Prayer is inadmissible. + Deism implies a Pelagian view of human nature. Death redeems us by + separating us from the body. There is natural immortality, but no + resurrection. Lord Herbert of Cherbury, the brother of the poet + George Herbert of Bemerton, represents the rise of Deism; Lord + Bolingbroke its decline. Blount assailed the divine Person of the + founder of the faith; Collins its foundation in prophecy; Woolston + its miraculous attestation; Toland its canonical literature. + Tindal took more general ground, and sought to show that a special + revelation was unnecessary, impossible, unverifiable, the religion + of nature being sufficient and superior to all religions of + positive institution.” + + +We object to this view that: + +(_a_) It rests upon a false analogy.—Man is able to construct a +self-moving watch only because he employs preëxisting forces, such as +gravity, elasticity, cohesion. But in a theory which likens the universe +to a machine, these forces are the very things to be accounted for. + + + Deism regards the universe as a “perpetual motion.” Modern views + of the dissipation of energy have served to discredit it. Will is + the only explanation of the forces in nature. But according to + deism, God builds a house, shuts himself out, locks the door, and + then ties his own hands in order to make sure of never using the + key. John Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 114-138—“A made + mind, a spiritual nature created by an external omnipotence, is an + impossible and self-contradictory notion.... The human contriver + or artist deals with materials prepared to his hand. Deism reduces + God to a finite anthropomorphic personality, as pantheism annuls + the finite world or absorbs it in the Infinite.” Hence Spinoza, + the pantheist, was the great antagonist of 16th century deism. See + Woods, Works, 2:40. + + +(_b_) It is a system of anthropomorphism, while it professes to exclude +anthropomorphism.—Because the upholding of all things would involve a +multiplicity of minute cares if man were the agent, it conceives of the +upholding of the universe as involving such burdens in the case of God. +Thus it saves the dignity of God by virtually denying his omnipresence, +omniscience, and omnipotence. + + + The infinity of God turns into sources of delight all that would + seem care to man. To God’s inexhaustible fulness of life there are + no burdens involved in the upholding of the universe he has + created. Since God, moreover, is a perpetual observer, we may + alter the poet’s verse and say: “There’s not a flower that’s born + to blush unseen And waste its sweetness on the desert air.” God + does not expose his children as soon as they are born. They are + not only his offspring; they also live, move and have their being + in him, and are partakers of his divine nature. Gordon, Christ of + To-day, 200—“The worst person in all history is something to God, + if he be nothing to the world.” See Chalmers, Astronomical + Discourses, in Works, 7:68. Kurtz, The Bible and Astronomy, in + Introd. to History of Old Covenant, lxxxii-xcviii. + + +(_c_) It cannot be maintained without denying all providential +interference, in the history of creation and the subsequent history of the +world.—But the introduction of life, the creation of man, incarnation, +regeneration, the communion of intelligent creatures with a present God, +and interpositions of God in secular history, are matters of fact. + + + Deism therefore continually tends to atheism. Upton, Hibbert + Lectures, 287—“The defect of deism is that, on the human side, it + treats all men as isolated individuals, forgetful of the immanent + divine nature which interrelates them and in a measure unifies + them; and that, on the divine side, it separates men from God and + makes the relation between them a purely external one.” Ruskin: + “The divine mind is as visible in its full energy of operation on + every lowly bank and mouldering stone as in the lifting of the + pillars of heaven and settling the foundations of the earth; and + to the rightly perceiving mind there is the same majesty, the same + power, the same unity, and the same perfection manifested in the + casting of the clay as in the scattering of the cloud, in the + mouldering of dust as in the kindling of the day-star.” See + Pearson, Infidelity, 87; Hanne, Idee der absoluten Persönlichkeit, + 76. + + +2. Continuous Creation. + + +This view regards the universe as from moment to moment the result of a +new creation. It was held by the New England theologians Edwards, Hopkins, +and Emmons, and more recently in Germany by Rothe. + + + Edwards, Works, 2:486-490, quotes and defends Dr. Taylor’s + utterance: “God is the original of all being, and the only cause + of all natural effects.” Edwards himself says: “God’s upholding + created substance, or causing its existence in each successive + moment, is altogether equivalent to an immediate production out of + nothing at each moment.” He argues that the past existence of a + thing cannot be the cause of its present existence, because a + thing cannot act at a time and place where it is not. “This is + equivalent to saying that God cannot produce an effect which shall + last for one moment beyond the direct exercise of his creative + power. What man can do, God, it seems, cannot” (A. S. Carman). + Hopkins, Works, 1:164-167—Preservation “is really continued + creation.” Emmons, Works, 4:363-389, esp. 381—“Since all men are + dependent agents, all their motions, exercises, or actions must + originate in a divine efficiency.” 2:683—“There is but one true + and satisfactory answer to the question which has been agitated + for centuries: ‘Whence came evil?’ and that is: It came from the + first great Cause of all things.... It is as consistent with the + moral rectitude of the Deity to produce sinful as holy exercises + in the minds of men. He puts forth a positive influence to make + moral agents act, in every instance of their conduct, as he + pleases.” God therefore creates all the volitions of the soul, as + he effects by his almighty power all the changes of the material + world. Rothe also held this view. To his mind external expression + is necessary to God. His maxim was: “Kein Gott ohne Welt”—“There + can be no God without an accompanying world.” See Rothe, Dogmatik, + 1:126-160, esp. 150, and Theol. Ethik, 1:186-190; also in Bib. + Sac., Jan. 1875:144. See also Lotze, Philos. of Religion, 81-94. + + The element of truth in Continuous Creation is its assumption that + all force is will. Its error is in maintaining that all force is + _divine_ will, and divine will in _direct_ exercise. But the human + will is a force as well as the divine will, and the forces of + nature are secondary and automatic, not primary and immediate, + workings of God. These remarks may enable us to estimate the grain + of truth in the following utterances which need important + qualification and limitation. Bowne, Philosophy of Theism, 202, + likens the universe to the musical note, which exists only on + condition of being incessantly reproduced. Herbert Spencer says + that “ideas are like the successive chords and cadences brought + out from a piano, which successively die away as others are + produced.” Maudsley, Physiology of Mind, quotes this passage, but + asks quite pertinently: “What about the performer, in the case of + the piano and in the case of the brain, respectively? Where in the + brain is the equivalent of the harmonic conceptions in the + performer’s mind?” Professor Fitzgerald: “All nature is living + thought—the language of One in whom we live and move and have our + being.” Dr. Oliver Lodge, to the British Association in 1891: “The + barrier between matter and mind may melt away, as so many others + have done.” + + +To this we object, upon the following grounds: + +(_a_) It contradicts the testimony of consciousness that regular and +executive activity is not the mere repetition of an initial decision, but +is an exercise of the will entirely different in kind. + + + Ladd, in his Philosophy of Mind, 144, indicates the error in + Continuous Creation as follows: “The whole world of things is + momently quenched and then replaced by a similar world of actually + new realities.” The words of the poet would then be literally + true: “Every fresh and new creation, A divine improvisation, From + the heart of God proceeds.” Ovid, Metaph., 1:16—“Instabilis + tellus, innabilis unda.” Seth, Hegelianism and Personality, 60, + says that, to Fichte, “the world was thus perpetually created anew + in each finite spirit,—revelation to intelligence being the only + admissible meaning of that much abused term, creation.” A. L. + Moore, Science and the Faith, 184, 185—“A theory of occasional + intervention implies, as its correlate, a theory of ordinary + absence.... For Christians the facts of nature are the acts of + God. Religion relates these facts to God as their author; science + relates them to one another as parts of a visible order. Religion + does not tell of this interrelation; science cannot tell of their + relation to God.” + + Continuous creation is an erroneous theory because it applies to + human wills a principle which is true only of irrational nature + and which is only partially true of that. I know that I am not God + acting. My will is proof that not all force is divine will. Even + on the monistic view, moreover, we may speak of second causes in + nature, since God’s regular and habitual action is a second and + subsequent thing, while his act of initiation and organization is + the first. Neither the universe nor any part of it is to be + identified with God, any more than my thoughts and acts are to be + identified with me. Martineau, in Nineteenth Century, April, + 1895:559—“What is _nature_, but the promise of God’s pledged and + habitual causality? And what is _spirit_, but the province of his + free causality responding to needs and affections of his free + children?... God is not a retired architect who may now and then + be called in for repairs. Nature is not self-active, and God’s + agency is not intrusive.” William Watson, Poems, 88—“If nature be + a phantasm, as thou say’st, A splendid fiction and prodigious + dream, To reach the real and true I’ll make no haste, More than + content with worlds that only seem.” + + +(_b_) It exaggerates God’s power only by sacrificing his truth, love, and +holiness;—for if finite personalities are not what they seem—namely, +objective existences—God’s veracity is impugned; if the human soul has no +real freedom and life, God’s love has made no self-communication to +creatures; if God’s will is the only force in the universe, God’s holiness +can no longer be asserted, for the divine will must in that case be +regarded as the author of human sin. + + + Upon this view personal identity is inexplicable. Edwards bases + identity upon the arbitrary decree of God. God can therefore, by + so decreeing, make Adam’s posterity one with their first father + and responsible for his sin. Edwards’s theory of continuous + creation, indeed, was devised as an explanation of the problem of + original sin. The divinely appointed union of acts and exercises + with Adam was held sufficient, without union of substance, or + natural generation from him, to explain our being born corrupt and + guilty. This view would have been impossible, if Edwards had not + been an idealist, making far too much of acts and exercises and + far too little of substance. + + It is difficult to explain the origin of Jonathan Edwards’s + idealism. It has sometimes been attributed to the reading of + Berkeley. Dr. Samuel Johnson, afterwards President of King’s + College in New York City, a personal friend of Bishop Berkeley and + an ardent follower of his teaching, was a tutor in Yale College + while Edwards was a student. But Edwards was in Weathersfield + while Johnson remained in New Haven, and was among those + disaffected towards Johnson as a tutor. Yet Edwards, Original Sin, + 479, seems to allude to the Berkeleyan philosophy when he says: + “The course of nature is demonstrated by recent improvements in + philosophy to be indeed ... nothing but the established order and + operation of the Author of nature” (see Allen, Jonathan Edwards, + 16, 308, 309). President McCracken, in Philos. Rev., Jan. + 1892:26-42, holds that Arthur Collier’s Clavis Universalis is the + source of Edwards’s idealism. It is more probable that his + idealism was the result of his own independent thinking, + occasioned perhaps by mere hints from Locke, Newton, Cudworth, and + Norris, with whose writings he certainly was acquainted. See E. C. + Smyth, in Am. Jour. Theol., Oct. 1897:956; Prof. Gardiner, in + Philos. Rev., Nov. 1900:573-596. + + How thorough-going this idealism of Edwards was may be learned + from Noah Porter’s Discourse on Bishop George Berkeley, 71, and + quotations from Edwards, in Journ. Spec. Philos., Oct. + 1883:401-420—“Nothing else has a proper being but spirits, and + bodies are but the shadow of being.... Seeing the brain exists + only mentally, I therefore acknowledge that I speak improperly + when I say that the soul is in the brain only, as to its + operations. For, to speak yet more strictly and abstractedly, ’tis + nothing but the connection of the soul with these and those modes + of its own ideas, or those mental acts of the Deity, seeing the + brain exists only in idea.... That which truly is the substance of + all bodies is the infinitely exact and precise and perfectly + stable idea in God’s mind, together with his stable will that the + same shall be gradually communicated to us and to other minds + according to certain fixed and established methods and laws; or, + in somewhat different language, the infinitely exact and precise + divine idea, together with an answerable, perfectly exact, + precise, and stable will, with respect to correspondent + communications to created minds and effects on those minds.” It is + easy to see how, from this view of Edwards, the “Exercise-system” + of Hopkins and Emmons naturally developed itself. On Edwards’s + Idealism, see Frazer’s Berkeley (Blackwood’s Philos. Classics), + 139, 140. On personal identity, see Bp. Butler, Works (Bohn’s + ed.), 327-334. + + +(_c_) As deism tends to atheism, so the doctrine of continuous creation +tends to pantheism.—Arguing that, because we get our notion of force from +the action of our own wills, therefore all force must be will, and divine +will, it is compelled to merge the human will in this all-comprehending +will of God. Mind and matter alike become phenomena of one force, which +has the attributes of both; and, with the distinct existence and +personality of the human soul, we lose the distinct existence and +personality of God, as well as the freedom and accountability of man. + + + Lotze tries to escape from _material_ causes and yet hold to + _second_ causes, by intimating that these second causes may be + spirits. But though we can see how there can be a sort of spirit + in the brute and in the vegetable, it is hard to see how what we + call insensate matter can have spirit in it. It must be a very + peculiar sort of spirit—a deaf and dumb spirit, if any—and such a + one does not help our thinking. On this theory the body of a dog + would need to be much more highly endowed than its soul. James + Seth, in Philos. Rev., Jan. 1894:73—“This principle of unity is a + veritable lion’s den,—all the footprints are in one direction. + Either it is a bare unity—the One annuls the many; or it is simply + the All,—the ununified totality of existence.” Dorner well remarks + that “Preservation is empowering of the creature and maintenance + of its activity, not new bringing it into being.” On the whole + subject, see Julius Müller, Doctrine of Sin, 1:220-225; Philippi, + Glaubenslehre, 2:258-272; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 50; Hodge, Syst. + Theol., 1:577-581, 595; Dabney, Theology, 338, 339. + + +IV. Remarks upon the Divine Concurrence. + + +(_a_) The divine efficiency interpenetrates that of man without destroying +or absorbing it. The influx of God’s sustaining energy is such that men +retain their natural faculties and powers. God does not work all, but all +in all. + + + Preservation, then, is midway between the two errors of denying + the first cause (deism or atheism) and denying the second causes + (continuous creation or pantheism). _1 Cor. 12:6_—“_there are + diversities of workings, but the same God, who worketh all things + in all_”; _cf._ _Eph. 1:23_—the church, “_which is his body, the + fulness of him that filleth all in all_.” God’s action is no + _actio in distans_, or action where he is not. It is rather action + in and through free agents, in the case of intelligent and moral + beings, while it is his own continuous willing in the case of + nature. Men are second causes in a sense in which nature is not. + God works through these human second causes, but he does not + supersede them. We cannot see the line between the two—the action + of the first cause and the action of second causes; yet both are + real, and each is distinct from the other, though the method of + God’s concurrence is inscrutable. As the pen and the hand together + produce the writing, so God’s working causes natural powers to + work with him. The natural growth indicated by the words “_wherein + is the seed thereof_” (_Gen. 1:11_) has its counterpart in the + spiritual growth described in the words “_his seed abideth in + him_” (_1 John 3:9_). Paul considers himself a reproductive agency + in the hands of God: he begets children in the gospel (_1 Cor. + 4:15_); yet the New Testament speaks of this begetting as the work + of God (_1 Pet. 1:3_). We are bidden to work out our own salvation + with fear and trembling, upon the very ground that it is God who + works in us both to will and to work (_Phil. 2:12, 13_). + + +(_b_) Though God preserves mind and body in their working, we are ever to +remember that God concurs with the evil acts of his creatures only as they +are natural acts, and not as they are evil. + + + In holy action God gives the natural powers, and by his word and + Spirit influences the soul to use these powers aright. But in evil + action God gives only the natural powers; the evil direction of + these powers is caused only by man. _Jer. 44:4_—“_Oh, do not this + abominable thing that I hate_”; _Hab. 1:13_—“_Thou that art of + purer eyes than to behold evil, and that canst not look on + perverseness, wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal + treacherously, and holdest thy peace when the wicked swalloweth up + the man that is more righteous than he?_” _James 1:13, 14_—“_Let + no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot + be tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man: but each man + is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed._” + Aaron excused himself for making an Egyptian idol by saying that + the fire did it; he asked the people for gold; “_so they gave it + me; and I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf_” + (_Ex. 32:24_). Aaron leaves out one important point—his own + personal agency in it all. In like manner we lay the blame of our + sins upon nature and upon God. Pym said of Strafford that God had + given him great talents, of which the devil had given the + application. But it is more true to say of the wicked man that he + himself gives the application of his God-given powers. We are + electric cars for which God furnishes the motive-power, but to + which we the conductors give the direction. We are organs; the + wind or breath of the organ is God’s; but the fingering of the + keys is ours. Since the maker of the organ is also present at + every moment as its preserver, the shameful abuse of his + instrument and the dreadful music that is played are a continual + grief and suffering to his soul. Since it is Christ who upholds + all things by the word of his power, preservation involves the + suffering of Christ, and this suffering is his atonement, of which + the culmination and demonstration are seen in the cross of Calvary + (_Heb. 1:3_). On the importance of the idea of preservation in + Christian doctrine, see Calvin, Institutes, 1:182 (chapter 16). + + + +Section III.—Providence. + + +I. Definition of Providence. + + +Providence is that continuous agency of God by which he makes all the +events of the physical and moral universe fulfill the original design with +which he created it. + +As Creation explains the existence of the universe, and as Preservation +explains its continuance, so Providence explains its evolution and +progress. + +In explanation notice: + +(_a_) Providence is not to be taken merely in its etymological sense of +_fore_seeing. It is _for_seeing also, or a positive agency in connection +with all the events of history. + +(_b_) Providence is to be distinguished from preservation. While +preservation is a maintenance of the existence and powers of created +things, providence is an actual care and control of them. + +(_c_) Since the original plan of God is all-comprehending, the providence +which executes the plan is all-comprehending also, embracing within its +scope things small and great, and exercising care over individuals as well +as over classes. + +(_d_) In respect to the good acts of men, providence embraces all those +natural influences of birth and surroundings which prepare men for the +operation of God’s word and Spirit, and which constitute motives to +obedience. + +(_e_) In respect to the evil acts of men, providence is never the +efficient cause of sin, but is by turns preventive, permissive, directive, +and determinative. + +(_f_) Since Christ is the only revealer of God, and he is the medium of +every divine activity, providence is to be regarded as the work of Christ; +see 1 Cor. 8:6—“one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things”; +_cf._ John 5:17—“My Father worketh even until now, and I work.” + + + The Germans have the word _Fürsehung_, forseeing, looking out for, + as well as the word _Vorsehung_, foreseeing, seeing beforehand. + Our word “providence” embraces the meanings of both these words. + On the general subject of providence, see Philippi, Glaubenslehre, + 2:272-284; Calvin, Institutes, 1:182-219; Dick, Theology, + 1:416-446; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 1:581-616; Bib. Sac., 12:179; + 21:584; 26:315; 30:593; N. W. Taylor, Moral Government, 2:294-326. + + Providence is God’s attention concentrated everywhere. His care is + microscopic as well as telescopic. Robert Browning, Pippa Passes, + _ad finem_: “All service is the same with God—With God, whose + puppets, best and worst, Are we: there is no last nor first.” + Canon Farrar: “In one chapter of the Koran is the story how + Gabriel, as he waited by the gates of gold, was sent by God to + earth to do two things. One was to prevent king Solomon from the + sin of forgetting the hour of prayer in exultation over his royal + steeds; the other to help a little yellow ant on the slope of + Ararat, which had grown weary in getting food for its nest, and + which would otherwise perish in the rain. To Gabriel the one + behest seemed just as kingly as the other, since God had ordered + it. ‘Silently he left The Presence, and prevented the king’s sin, + And holp the little ant at entering in.’ ‘Nothing is too high or + low, Too mean or mighty, if God wills it so.’ ” Yet a preacher + began his sermon on Mat. 10:30—“The very hairs of your head are + are all numbered”—by saying: “Why, some of you, my hearers, do not + believe that even your heads are all numbered!” + + A modern prophet of unbelief in God’s providence is William + Watson. In his poem entitled The Unknown God, we read: “When + overarched by gorgeous night, I wave my trivial self away; When + all I was to all men’s sight Shares the erasure of the day: Then + do I cast my cumbering load, Then do I gain a sense of God.” Then + he likens the God of the Old Testament to Odin and Zeus, and + continues: “O streaming worlds, O crowded sky, O life, and mine + own soul’s abyss, Myself am scarce so small that I Should bow to + Deity like this! This my Begetter? This was what Man in his + violent youth begot. The God I know of I shall ne’er Know, though + he dwells exceeding nigh. Raise thou the stone and find me there. + Cleave thou the wood and there am I. Yea, in my flesh his Spirit + doth flow, Too near, too far, for me to know. Whate’er my deeds, I + am not sure That I can pleasure him or vex: I, that must use a + speech so poor It narrows the Supreme with sex. Notes he the good + or ill in man? To hope he cares is all I can. I hope with fear. + For did I trust This vision granted me at birth, The sire of + heaven would seem less just Than many a faulty son of earth. And + so he seems indeed! But then, I trust it not, this bounded ken. + And dreaming much, I never dare To dream that in my prisoned soul + The flutter of a trembling prayer Can move the Mind that is the + Whole. Though kneeling nations watch and yearn, Does the primeval + Purpose turn? Best by remembering God, say some. We keep our high + imperial lot. Fortune, I fear, hath oftenest come When we + forgot—when we forgot! A lovelier faith their happier crown, But + history laughs and weeps it down: Know they not well how seven + times seven, Wronging our mighty arms with rust, We dared not do + the work of heaven, Lest heaven should hurl us in the dust? The + work of heaven! ’Tis waiting still The sanction of the heavenly + will. Unmeet to be profaned by praise Is he whose coils the world + enfold; The God on whom I ever gaze, The God I never once behold: + Above the cloud, above the clod, The unknown God, the unknown + God.” + + In pleasing contrast to William Watson’s Unknown God, is the God + of Rudyard Kipling’s Recessional: “God of our fathers, known of + old—Lord of our far-flung battle-line—Beneath whose awful hand we + hold Dominion over palm and pine—Lord God of hosts, be with us + yet, Lest we forget—lest we forget! The tumult and the shouting + dies—The captains and the kings depart—Still stands thine ancient + Sacrifice, An humble and a contrite heart. Lord God of hosts, be + with us yet. Lest we forget—lest we forget! Far-called our navies + melt away—On dune and headland sinks the fire—So, all our pomp of + yesterday Is one with Nineveh and Tyre! Judge of the nations, + spare us yet, Lest we forget—lest we forget! If, drunk with sight + of power, we loose Wild tongues that have not thee in awe—Such + boasting as the Gentiles use, Or lesser breeds without the + Law—Lord God of hosts, be with us yet, Lest we forget—lest we + forget! For heathen heart that puts her trust In reeking tube and + iron shard—All valiant dust that builds on dust, And guarding + calls not thee to guard—For frantic boast and foolish word, Thy + mercy on thy people, Lord!” + + These problems of God’s providential dealings are intelligible + only when we consider that Christ is the revealer of God, and that + his suffering for sin opens to us the heart of God. All history is + the progressive manifestation of Christ’s holiness and love, and + in the cross we have the key that unlocks the secret of the + universe. With the cross in view, we can believe that Love rules + over all, and that “_all things work together for good to them + that love God._” (_Rom. 8:28_). + + +II. Proof of the Doctrine of Providence. + + +1. Scriptural Proof. + + +The Scripture witnesses to + +A. A general providential government and control (_a_) over the universe +at large; (_b_) over the physical world; (_c_) over the brute creation; +(_d_) over the affairs of nations; (_e_) over man’s birth and lot in life; +(_f_) over the outward successes and failures of men’s lives; (_g_) over +things seemingly accidental or insignificant; (_h_) in the protection of +the righteous; (_i_) in the supply of the wants of God’s people; (_j_) in +the arrangement of answers to prayer; (_k_) in the exposure and punishment +of the wicked. + + + (_a_) _Ps. 103:19_—“_his kingdom ruleth over all_”; _Dan. + 4:35_—“_doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and + among the inhabitants of the earth_”; _Eph. 1:11_—“_worketh all + things after the counsel of his will._” + + (_b_) _Job 37:5, 10_—“_God thundereth ... By the breath of God ice + is given_”; _Ps. 104:14_—“_causeth the grass to grow for the + cattle_”; _135:6, 7_—“_Whatsoever Jehovah pleased, that hath he + done, In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps ... + vapors ... lightnings ... wind_”; _Mat. 5:45_—“_maketh his sun to + rise ... sendeth rain_”; _Ps. 104:16_—“_The trees of Jehovah are + filled_”—are planted and tended by God as carefully as those which + come under human cultivation; _cf._ _Mat. 6:30_—“_if God so clothe + the grass of the field._” + + (_c_) _Ps. 104:21, 28_—“_young lions roar ... seek their food from + God ... that thou givest them they gather_”; _Mat. 6:26_—“_birds + of the heaven ... your heavenly Father feedeth them_”; + _10:29_—“_two sparrows ... not one of them shall fall on the + ground without your Father._” + + (_d_) _Job 12:23_—“_He increaseth the nations, and he destroyeth + them: He enlargeth the nations, and he leadeth them captive_”; + _Ps. 22:28_—“_the kingdom is Jehovah’s; And he is the ruler over + the nations_”; _66:7_—“_He ruleth by his might for ever; His eyes + observe the nations_”; _Acts 17:26_—“_made of one every nation of + men to dwell on all the face of the earth, having determined their + appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation_” (instance + Palestine, Greece, England). + + (_e_) _1 Sam. 16:1_—“_fill thy horn with oil, and go: I will send + thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite; for I have provided me a king + among his sons_”; _Ps. 139:16_—“_Thine eyes did see mine unformed + substance, And in thy book were all my members written_”; _Is. + 45:5_—“_I will gird thee, though thou hast not known me_”; _Jer. + 1:5_—“_Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee ... + sanctified thee ... appointed thee_”; _Gal. 1:15, 16_—“_God, who + separated me, even from my mother’s womb, and called me through + his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among + the Gentiles._” + + (_f_) _Ps. 75:6, 7_—“_neither from the east, nor from the west, + Nor yet from the south cometh lifting up. But God is the judge, He + putteth down one, and lifteth up another_”; _Luke 1:52_—“_He hath + put down princes from their thrones, And hath exalted them of low + degree._” + + (_g_) _Prov. 16:33_—“_The lot is cast into the lap; But the whole + disposing thereof is of Jehovah_”; _Mat. 10:30_—“_the very hairs + of your head are all numbered._” + + (_h_) _Ps. 4:8_—“_In peace will I both lay me down and sleep; For + thou, Jehovah, alone makest me dwell in safety_”; _5:12_—“_thou + wilt compass him with favor as with a shield_”; _63:8_—“_Thy right + hand upholdeth me_”; _121:3_—“_He that keepeth thee will not + slumber_”; _Rom. 8:28_—“_to them that love God all things work + together for good._” + + (_i_) _Gen. 22:8, 14_—“_God will provide himself the lamb ... + Jehovah-jireh_” (marg.: that is, “Jehovah will see,” or + “provide”); _Deut. 8:3_—“_man doth not live by bread only, but by + every thing that proceedeth out of the mouth of Jehovah doth man + live_”; _Phil. 4:19_—“_my God shall supply every need of yours._” + + (_j_) _Ps. 68:10_—“_Thou, O God, didst prepare of thy goodness for + the poor_”; _Is. 64:4_—“_neither hath the eye seen a God besides + thee, who worketh for him that waiteth for him_”; _Mat. + 6:8_—“_your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye + ask him_”; _32, 33_—“_all these things shall be added unto you._” + + (_k_) _Ps. 7:12, 13_—“_If a man turn not, he will whet his sword; + He hath bent his bow and made it ready; He hath also prepared for + him the instruments of death; He maketh his arrows fiery shafts_”; + _11:6_—“_Upon the wicked he will rain snares; Fire and brimstone + and burning wind shall be the portion of their cup._” + + +The statements of Scripture with regard to God’s providence are strikingly +confirmed by recent studies in physiography. In the early stages of human +development man was almost wholly subject to nature, and environment was a +determining factor in his progress. This is the element of truth in +Buckle’s view. But Buckle ignored the fact that, as civilization advanced, +ideas, at least at times, played a greater part than environment. +Thermopylæ cannot be explained by climate. In the later stages of human +development, nature is largely subject to man, and environment counts for +comparatively little. “There shall be no Alps!” says Napoleon. Charles +Kingsley: “The spirit of ancient tragedy was man conquered by +circumstance; the spirit of modern tragedy is man conquering +circumstance.” Yet many national characteristics can be attributed to +physical surroundings, and so far as this is the case they are due to the +ordering of God’s providence. Man’s need of fresh water leads him to +rivers,—hence the original location of London. Commerce requires +seaports,—hence New York. The need of defense leads man to bluffs and +hills,—hence Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, Edinburgh. These places of defense +became also places of worship and of appeal to God. + +Goldwin Smith, in his Lectures and Essays, maintains that national +characteristics are not congenital, but are the result of environment. The +greatness of Rome and the greatness of England have been due to position. +The Romans owed their successes to being at first less warlike than their +neighbors. They were traders in the centre of the Italian seacoast, and +had to depend on discipline to make headway against marauders on the +surrounding hills. Only when drawn into foreign conquest did the +ascendency of the military spirit become complete, and then the military +spirit brought despotism as its natural penalty. Brought into contact with +varied races, Rome was led to the founding of colonies. She adopted and +assimilated the nations which she conquered, and in governing them learned +organization and law. _Parcere subjectis_ was her rule, as well as +_debellare superbos_. In a similiar manner Goldwin Smith maintains that +the greatness of England is due to position. Britain being an island, only +a bold and enterprising race could settle it. Maritime migration +strengthened freedom. Insular position gave freedom from invasion. +Isolation however gave rise to arrogance and self-assertion. The island +became a natural centre of commerce. There is a steadiness of political +progress which would have been impossible upon the continent. Yet +consolidation was tardy, owing to the fact that Great Britain consists of +_several_ islands. Scotland was always liberal, and Ireland foredoomed to +subjection. + +Isaac Taylor, Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, has a valuable chapter on Palestine +as the providential theatre of divine revelation. A little land, yet a +sample-land of all lands, and a thoroughfare between the greatest lands of +antiquity, it was fitted by God to receive and to communicate his truth. +George Adam Smith’s Historical Geography of the Holy Land is a repertory +of information on this subject. Stanley, Life and Letters, 1:269-271, +treats of Greek landscape and history. Shaler, Interpretation of Nature, +sees such difference between Greek curiosity and search for causes on the +one hand, and Roman indifference to scientific explanation of facts on the +other, that he cannot think of the Greeks and the Romans as cognate +peoples. He believes that Italy was first peopled by Etrurians, a Semitic +race from Africa, and that from them the Romans descended. The Romans had +as little of the spirit of the naturalist as had the Hebrews. The Jews and +the Romans originated and propagated Christianity, but they had no +interest in science. + +On God’s pre-arrangement of the physical conditions of national life, +striking suggestions may be found in Shaler, Nature and Man in America. +Instance the settlement of Massachusetts Bay between 1629 and 1639, the +only decade in which such men as John Winthrop could be found and the only +one in which they actually emigrated from England. After 1639 there was +too much to do at home, and with Charles II the spirit which animated the +Pilgrims no longer existed in England. The colonists builded better than +they knew, for though they sought a place to worship God themselves, they +had no idea of giving this same religious liberty to others. R. E. +Thompson, The Hand of God in American History, holds that the American +Republic would long since have broken in pieces by its own weight and +bulk, if the invention of steam-boat in 1807, railroad locomotive in 1829, +telegraph in 1837, and telephone in 1877, had not bound the remote parts +of the country together. A woman invented the reaper by combining the +action of a row of scissors in cutting. This was as early as 1835. Only in +1855 the competition on the Emperor’s farm at Compiègne gave supremacy to +the reaper. Without it farming would have been impossible during our civil +war, when our men were in the field and women and boys had to gather in +the crops. + +B. A government and control extending to the free actions of men—(_a_) to +men’s free acts in general; (_b_) to the sinful acts of men also. + + + (a) _Ex. 12:36_—“_Jehovah gave the people favor in the sight of + the Egyptians, so that they let them have what they asked. And + they despoiled the Egyptians_”; _1 Sam. 24:18_—“_Jehovah had + delivered me up into thy hand_” (Saul to David); _Ps. 33:14, + 15_—“_He looketh forth Upon all the inhabitants of the earth, He + that fashioneth the hearts of them all_” (_i. e._, equally, one as + well as another); _Prov. 16:1_—“_The plans of the heart belong to + man; But the answer of the tongue is from Jehovah_”; + _19:21_—“_There are many devices in a man’s heart; But the counsel + of Jehovah, __ that shall stand_”; _20:24_—“_A man’s goings are of + Jehovah; How then can man understand his way?_” _21:1_—“_The + king’s heart is in the hand of Jehovah as the watercourses: He + turneth it whithersoever he will_” (_i. e._, as easily as the + rivulets of the eastern fields are turned by the slightest motion + of the hand or the foot of the husbandman); _Jer. 10:23_—“_O + Jehovah, I know that the way of man is not in himself; it is not + in man that walketh to direct his steps_”; _Phil. 2:13_—“_it is + God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good + pleasure_”; _Eph. 2:10_—“_we are his workmanship, created in + Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we + should walk in them_”; _James 4:13-15_—“_If the Lord will, we + shall both live, and do this or that._” + + (_b_) _2 Sam. 16:10_—“_because Jehovah hath said unto him_ + [Shimei]: _Curse David_”; _24:1_—“_the anger of Jehovah was + kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying, + Go, number Israel and Judah_”; _Rom. 11:32_—“_God hath shut up all + unto disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all_”; _2 Thess. + 2:11, 12_—“_God sendeth them a working of error, that they should + believe a lie: that they all might be judged who believed not the + truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness._” + + Henry Ward Beecher: “There seems to be no order in the movements + of the bees of a hive, but the honey-comb shows that there was a + plan in them all.” John Hunter compared his own brain to a hive in + which there was a great deal of buzzing and apparent disorder, + while yet a real order underlay it all. “As bees gather their + stores of sweets against a time of need, but are colonized by + man’s superior intelligence for his own purposes, so men plan and + work yet are overruled by infinite Wisdom for his own glory.” Dr. + Deems: “The world is wide In Time and Tide, And God is guide: Then + do not hurry. That man is blest Who does his best And leaves the + rest: Then do not worry.” See Bruce, Providential Order, 183 + _sq._; Providence in the Individual Life, 231 _sq._ + + +God’s providence with respect to men’s evil acts is described in Scripture +as of four sorts: + +(_a_) Preventive,—God by his providence prevents sin which would otherwise +be committed. That he thus prevents sin is to be regarded as matter, not +of obligation, but of grace. + + + _Gen. 20:6_—Of Abimelech: “_I also withheld thee from sinning + against me_”; _31:24_—“_And God came to Laban the Syrian in a + dream of the night, and said unto him, Take heed to thyself that + thou speak not to Jacob either good or bad_”; _Psalm 19:13_—“_Keep + back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; Let them not have + dominion over me_”; _Hosea 2:6_—“_Behold, I will hedge up thy way + with thorns, and I will build a wall against her, that she shall + not find her paths_”—here the “_thorns_” and the “_wall_” may + represent the restraints and sufferings by which God mercifully + checks the fatal pursuit of sin (see Annotated Par. Bible _in + loco_). Parents, government, church, traditions, customs, laws, + age, disease, death, are all of them preventive influences. Man + sometimes finds himself on the brink of a precipice of sin, and + strong temptation hurries him on to make the fatal leap. Suddenly + every nerve relaxes, all desire for the evil thing is gone, and he + recoils from the fearful brink over which he was just now going to + plunge. God has interfered by the voice of conscience and the + Spirit. This too is a part of his preventive providence. Men at + sixty years of age are eight times less likely to commit crime + than at the age of twenty-five. Passion has subsided; fear of + punishment has increased. The manager of a great department store, + when asked what could prevent its absorbing all the trade of the + city, replied: “Death!” Death certainly limits aggregations of + property, and so constitutes a means of God’s preventive + providence. In the life of John G. Paton, the rain sent by God + prevented the natives from murdering him and taking his goods. + + +(_b_) Permissive,—God permits men to cherish and to manifest the evil +dispositions of their hearts. God’s permissive providence is simply the +negative act of withholding impediments from the path of the sinner, +instead of preventing his sin by the exercise of divine power. It implies +no ignorance, passivity, or indulgence, but consists with hatred of the +sin and determination to punish it. + + + _2 Chron. 32:31_—“_God left him_ [Hezekiah], _to try him, that he + might know all that was in his heart_”; _cf._ _Deut. 8:2_—“_that + he might humble thee, to prove thee, to know what was in thine + heart._” _Ps. 17:13, 14_—“_Deliver my soul from the wicked, who is + thy sword, from men who are thy hand, O Jehovah_”; _Ps. 81:12, + 13_—“_So I let them go after the stubbornness of their heart, That + they might walk in their own counsels. Oh that my people would + hearken unto me!_” _Is. 53:4, 10_—“_Surely he hath borne our + griefs.... Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him._” _Hosea + 4:17_—“_Ephraim __ Ephraim is joined to idols; let him alone_”; + _Acts 14:16_—“_who in the generations gone by suffered all the + nations to walk in their own ways_”; _Rom. 1:24, 28_—“_God gave + them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness... God gave + them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not + fitting_”; _3:25_—“_to show his righteousness, because of the + passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of + God._” To this head of permissive providence is possibly to be + referred _1 Sam. 18:10_—“_an evil spirit from God came mightily + upon Saul._” As the Hebrew writers saw in second causes the + operation of the great first Cause, and said: “_The God of glory + thundereth_” (_Ps. 29:3_), so, because even the acts of the wicked + entered into God’s plan, the Hebrew writers sometimes represented + God as doing what he merely permitted finite spirits to do. In _2 + Sam. 24:1_, God moves David to number Israel, but in _1 Chron. + 21:1_ the same thing is referred to Satan. God’s providence in + these cases, however, may be directive as well as permissive. + + Tennyson, The Higher Pantheism: “God is law, say the wise; O Soul, + and let us rejoice, For if he thunder by law the thunder is yet + his voice.” Fisher, Nature and Method of Revelation, 56—“The clear + separation of God’s efficiency from God’s permissive act was + reserved to a later day. All emphasis was in the Old Testament + laid upon the sovereign power of God.” Coleridge, in his + Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit, letter II, speaks of “the + habit, universal with the Hebrew doctors, of referring all + excellent or extraordinary things to the great first Cause, + without mention of the proximate and instrumental causes—a + striking illustration of which may be found by comparing the + narratives of the same events in the Psalms and in the historical + books.... The distinction between the providential and the + miraculous did not enter into their forms of thinking—at any rate, + not into their mode of conveying their thoughts.” The woman who + had been slandered rebelled when told that God had permitted it + for her good; she maintained that Satan had inspired her accuser; + she needed to learn that God had permitted the work of Satan. + + +(_c_) Directive,—God directs the evil acts of men to ends unforeseen and +unintended by the agents. When evil is in the heart and will certainly +come out, God orders its flow in one direction rather than in another, so +that its course can be best controlled and least harm may result. This is +sometimes called overruling providence. + + + _Gen. 50:20_—“_as for you, ye meant evil against me; but God meant + it for good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much + people alive_”; _Ps. 76:10_—“_the wrath of man shall praise thee: + The residue of wrath shalt thou gird upon thee_”—put on as an + ornament—clothe thyself with it for thine own glory; _Is. + 10:5_—“_Ho Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in whose + hand is mine indignation_”; _John 13:27_—“_What thou doest, do + quickly_”—do in a particular way what is actually being done + (Westcott, Bib. Com., _in loco_); _Acts 4:27, 28_—“_against thy + holy Servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius + Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, were gathered + together, to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel fore-ordained + to come to pass._” + + To this head of directive providence should probably be referred + the passages with regard to Pharaoh in _Ex. 4:21_—“_I will harden + his heart, and he will not let the people go_”; _7:13_—“_and + Pharaoh’s heart was hardened_”; _8:15_—“_he hardened his + heart_”—_i. e._, Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Here the + controlling agency of God did not interfere with the liberty of + Pharaoh or oblige him to sin; but in judgment for his previous + cruelty and impiety God withdrew the external restraints which had + hitherto kept his sin within bounds, and placed him in + circumstances which would have influenced to right action a + well-disposed mind, but which God foresaw would lead a disposition + like Pharaoh’s to the peculiar course of wickedness which he + actually pursued. + + God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, then, first, by permitting him to + harden his own heart, God being the author of his sin only in the + sense that he is the author of a free being who is himself the + direct author of his sin; secondly, by giving to him the means of + enlightenment, Pharaoh’s very opportunities being perverted by him + into occasions of more virulent wickedness, and good resisted + being thus made to result in greater evil; thirdly, by judicially + forsaking Pharaoh, when it became manifest that he would not do + God’s will, and thus making it morally certain, though not + necessary, that he would do evil; and fourthly, by so directing + Pharaoh’s surroundings that his sin would manifest itself in one + way rather than in another. Sin is like the lava of the volcano, + which will certainly come out, but which God directs in its course + down the mountain-side so that it will do least harm. The + gravitation downward is due to man’s evil will; the direction to + this side or to that is due to God’s providence. See _Rom. 9:17, + 18_—“_For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show + in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in + all the earth. So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he + will he hardeneth._” Thus the very passions which excite men to + rebel against God are made completely subservient to his purposes: + see Annotated Paragraph Bible, on _Ps. 76:10_. + + God hardens Pharaoh’s heart only after all the earlier plagues + have been sent. Pharaoh had hardened his own heart before. God + hardens no man’s heart who has not first hardened it himself. + Crane, Religion of To-morrow, 140—“Jehovah is never said to harden + the heart of a good man, or of one who is set to do righteousness. + It is always those who are bent on evil whom God hardens. Pharaoh + hardens his own heart before the Lord is said to harden it. Nature + is God, and it is the nature of human beings to harden when they + resist softening influences.” The Watchman, Dec. 5, 1901:11—“God + decreed to Pharaoh what Pharaoh had chosen for himself. + Persistence in certain inclinations and volitions awakens within + the body and soul forces which are not under the control of the + will, and which drive the man on in the way he has chosen. After a + time nature hardens the hearts of men to do evil.” + + +(_d_) Determinative,—God determines the bounds reached by the evil +passions of his creatures, and the measure of their effects. Since moral +evil is a germ capable of indefinite expansion, God’s determining the +measure of its growth does not alter its character or involve God’s +complicity with the perverse wills which cherish it. + +_Job 1:12_—“_And Jehovah said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in +thy power; only upon himself put not forth thy hand_”; _2:6_—“_Behold, he +is in thy hand; only spare his life_”; _Ps. 124:2_—“_If it had not been +Jehovah who was on our side, when men rose up against us; Then had they +swallowed us up alive_”; _1 Cor. 10:13_—“_will not suffer you to be +tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation make also the +way of escape, that ye may be able to endure it_”; _2 Thess. 2:7_—“_For +the mystery of lawlessness doth already work; only there is one that +restraineth now, until he be taken out of the way_”; _Rev. 20:2, 3_—“_And +he laid hold on the dragon, the old serpent, which is the Devil and Satan, +and bound him for a thousand years._” + +Pepper, Outlines of Syst. Theol., 76—The union of God’s will and man’s +will is “such that, while in one view all can be ascribed to God, in +another all can be ascribed to the creature. But how God and the creature +are united in operation is doubtless known and knowable only to God. A +very dim analogy is furnished in the union of the soul and body in men. +The hand retains its own physical laws, yet is obedient to the human will. +This theory recognizes the veracity of consciousness in its witness to +personal freedom, and yet the completeness of God’s control of both the +bad and the good. Free beings are ruled, but are ruled as free and in +their freedom. The freedom is not sacrificed to the control. The two +coëxist, each in its integrity. Any doctrine which does not allow this is +false to Scripture and destructive of religion.” + + +2. Rational proof. + + +A. Arguments _a priori_ from the divine attributes. (_a_) From the +immutability of God. This makes it certain that he will execute his +eternal plan of the universe and its history. But the execution of this +plan involves not only creation and preservation, but also providence. +(_b_) From the benevolence of God. This renders it certain that he will +care for the intelligent universe he has created. What it was worth his +while to create, it is worth his while to care for. But this care is +providence. (_c_) From the justice of God. As the source of moral law, God +must assure the vindication of law by administering justice in the +universe and punishing the rebellious. But this administration of justice +is providence. + + + For heathen ideas of providence, see Cicero, De Natura Deorum, + 11:30, where Balbus speaks of the existence of the gods as that, + “quo concesso, confitendum est eorum consilio mundum + administrari.” Epictetus, sec. 41—“The principal and most + important duty in religion is to possess your mind with just and + becoming notions of the gods—to believe that there are such + supreme beings, and that they govern and dispose of all the + affairs of the world with a just and good providence.” Marcus + Antoninus: “If there are no gods, or if they have no regard for + human affairs, why should I desire to live in a world without gods + and without a providence? But gods undoubtedly there are, and they + regard human affairs.” See also Bib. Sac., 16:374. As we shall + see, however, many of the heathen writers believed in a general, + rather than in a particular, providence. + + On the argument for providence derived from God’s benevolence, see + Appleton, Works, 1:146—“Is indolence more consistent with God’s + majesty than action would be? The happiness of creatures is a + good. Does it honor God to say that he is indifferent to that + which he knows to be good and valuable? Even if the world had come + into existence without his agency, it would become God’s moral + character to pay some attention to creatures so numerous and so + susceptible to pleasure and pain, especially when he might have so + great and favorable an influence on their moral condition.” _John + 5:17_—“_My Father worketh even until now, and I work_”—is as + applicable to providence as to preservation. + + The complexity of God’s providential arrangements may be + illustrated by Tyndall’s explanation of the fact that heartsease + does not grow in the neighborhood of English villages: 1. In + English villages dogs run loose. 2. Where dogs run loose, cats + must stay at home. 3. Where cats stay at home, field mice abound. + 4. Where field mice abound, the nests of bumble-bees are + destroyed. 5. Where bumble-bees’ nests are destroyed, there is no + fertilization of pollen. Therefore, where dogs go loose, no + heartsease grows. + + +B. Arguments _a posteriori_ from the facts of nature and of history. (_a_) +The outward lot of individuals and nations is not wholly in their own +hands, but is in many acknowledged respects subject to the disposal of a +higher power. (_b_) The observed moral order of the world, although +imperfect, cannot be accounted for without recognition of a divine +providence. Vice is discouraged and virtue rewarded, in ways which are +beyond the power of mere nature. There must be a governing mind and will, +and this mind and will must be the mind and will of God. + + + The birthplace of individuals and of nations, the natural powers + with which they are endowed, the opportunities and immunities they + enjoy, are beyond their own control. A man’s destiny for time and + for eternity may be practically decided for him by his birth in a + Christian home, rather than in a tenement-house at the Five + Points, or in a kraal of the Hottentots. Progress largely depends + upon “variety of environment” (H. Spencer). But this variety of + environment is in great part independent of our own efforts. + + “There’s a Divinity that shapes our ends, Rough hew them how we + will.” Shakespeare here expounds human consciousness. “Man + proposes and God disposes” has become a proverb. Experience + teaches that success and failure are not wholly due to us. Men + often labor and lose; they consult and nothing ensues; they + “embattle and are broken.” Providence is not always on the side of + the heaviest battalions. Not arms but ideas have decided the fate + of the world—as Xerxes found at Thermopylæ, and Napoleon at + Waterloo. Great movements are generally begun without + consciousness of their greatness. _Cf._ _Is. 42:16_—“_I will bring + the blind by a way that they know not_”; _1 Cor. 5:37, 38_—“_thou + sowest ... a bare grain ... but God giveth it a body even as it + pleased him._” + + The deed returns to the doer, and character shapes destiny. This + is true in the long run. Eternity will show the truth of the + maxim. But here in time a sufficient number of apparent exceptions + are permitted to render possible a moral probation. If evil were + always immediately followed by penalty, righteousness would have a + compelling power upon the will and the highest virtue would be + impossible. Job’s friends accuse Job of acting upon this + principle. The Hebrew children deny its truth, when they say: + “_But if not_”—even if God does not deliver us—“_we will not serve + thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up_” + (_Dan. 3:18._) + + Martineau, Seat of Authority, 298—“Through some misdirection or + infirmity, most of the larger agencies in history have failed to + reach their own ideal, yet have accomplished revolutions greater + and more beneficent; the conquests of Alexander, the empire of + Rome, the Crusades, the ecclesiastical persecutions, the monastic + asceticisms, the missionary zeal of Christendom, have all played a + momentous part in the drama of the world, yet a part which is a + surprise to each. All this shows the controlling presence of a + Reason and a Will transcendent and divine.” Kidd, Social + Evolution, 99, declares that the progress of the race has taken + place only under conditions which have had no sanction from the + reason of the great proportion of the individuals who submit to + them. He concludes that a rational religion is a scientific + impossibility, and that the function of religion is to provide a + super-rational sanction for social progress. We prefer to say that + Providence pushes the race forward even against its will. + + James Russell Lowell, Letters, 2:51, suggests that God’s calm + control of the forces of the universe, both physical and mental, + should give us confidence when evil seems impending: “How many + times have I seen the fire-engines of church and state clanging + and lumbering along to put out—a false alarm! And when the heavens + are cloudy, what a glare can be cast by a burning shanty!” See + Sermon on Providence in Political Revolutions, in Farrar’s Science + and Theology, 228. On the moral order of the world, + notwithstanding its imperfections, see Butler, Analogy, Bohn’s + ed., 98; King, in Baptist Review, 1884:202-222. + + +III. Theories opposing the Doctrine of Providence. + + +1. Fatalism. + + +Fatalism maintains the certainty, but denies the freedom, of human +self-determination,—thus substituting fate for providence. + +To this view we object that (_a_) it contradicts consciousness, which +testifies that we are free; (_b_) it exalts the divine power at the +expense of God’s truth, wisdom, holiness, love; (_c_) it destroys all +evidence of the personality and freedom of God; (_d_) it practically makes +necessity the only God, and leaves the imperatives of our moral nature +without present validity or future vindication. + + + The Mohammedans have frequently been called fatalists, and the + practical effect of the teachings of the Koran upon the masses is + to make them so. The ordinary Mohammedan will have no physician or + medicine, because everything happens as God has before appointed. + Smith, however, in his Mohammed and Mohammedanism, denies that + fatalism is essential to the system. _Islam_ = “submission,” and + the participle _Moslem_ = “submitted,” _i. e._, to God. Turkish + proverb: “A man cannot escape what is written on his forehead.” + The Mohammedan thinks of God’s dominant attribute as being + greatness rather than righteousness, power rather than purity. God + is the personification of arbitrary will, not the God and Father + of our Lord Jesus Christ. But there is in the system an absence of + sacerdotalism, a jealousy for the honor of God, a brotherhood of + believers, a reverence for what is considered the word of God, and + a bold and habitual devotion of its adherents to their faith. + + Stanley, Life and Letters, 1:489, refers to the Mussulman + tradition existing in Egypt that the fate of Islam requires that + it should at last be superseded by Christianity. F. W. Sanders + denies that the Koran is peculiarly _sensual_. “The Christian and + Jewish religions,” he says, “have their paradise also. The Koran + makes this the reward, but not the ideal, of conduct; ‘Grace from + thy Lord—that is the grand bliss.’ The emphasis of the Koran is + upon right living. The Koran does not teach the propagation of + religion by _force_. It declares that there shall be no compulsion + in religion. The practice of converting by the sword is to be + distinguished from the teaching of Mohammed, just as the + Inquisition and the slave-trade in Christendom do not prove that + Jesus taught them. The Koran did not institute _polygamy_. It + found unlimited polygamy, divorce, and infanticide. The last it + prohibited; the two former it restricted and ameliorated, just as + Moses found polygamy, but brought it within bounds. The Koran is + not hostile to _secular learning_. Learning flourished under the + Bagdad and Spanish Caliphates. When Moslems oppose learning, they + do so without authority from the Koran. The Roman Catholic church + has opposed schools, but we do not attribute this to the gospel.” + See Zwemer, Moslem Doctrine of God. + + Calvinists can assert freedom, since man’s will finds its highest + freedom only in submission to God. Islam also cultivates + submission, but it is the submission not of love but of fear. The + essential difference between Mohammedanism and Christianity is + found in the revelation which the latter gives of the love of God + in Christ—a revelation which secures from free moral agents the + submission of love; see page 186. On fatalism, see McCosh, + Intuitions, 266; Kant, Metaphysic of Ethics, 52-74, 98-108; Mill, + Autobiography, 168-170, and System of Logic, 521-526; Hamilton, + Metaphysics, 692; Stewart, Active and Moral Powers of Man, ed. + Walker, 268-324. + + +2. Casualism. + + +Casualism transfers the freedom of mind to nature, as fatalism transfers +the fixity of nature to mind. It thus exchanges providence for chance. +Upon this view we remark: + +(_a_) If chance be only another name for human ignorance, a name for the +fact that there are trivial occurrences in life which have no meaning or +relation to us,—we may acknowledge this, and still hold that providence +arranges every so-called chance, for purposes beyond our knowledge. +Chance, in this sense, is providential coincidence which we cannot +understand, and do not need to trouble ourselves about. + + + Not all chances are of equal importance. The casual meeting of a + stranger in the street need not bring God’s providence before me, + although I know that God arranges it. Yet I can conceive of that + meeting as leading to religious conversation and to the stranger’s + conversion. When we are prepared for them, we shall see many + opportunities which are now as unmeaning to us as the gold in the + river-beds was to the early Indians in California. I should be an + ingrate, if I escaped a lightning-stroke, and did not thank God; + yet Dr. Arnold’s saying that every school boy should put on his + hat for God’s glory, and with a high moral purpose, seems morbid. + There is a certain room for the play of arbitrariness. We must not + afflict ourselves or the church of God by requiring a Pharisaic + punctiliousness in minutiæ. Life is too short to debate the + question which shoe we shall put on first. “Love God and do what + you will,” said Augustine; that is, Love God, and act out that + love in a simple and natural way. Be free in your service, yet be + always on the watch for indications of God’s will. + + +(_b_) If chance be taken in the sense of utter absence of all causal +connections in the phenomena of matter and mind,—we oppose to this notion +the fact that the causal judgment is formed in accordance with a +fundamental and necessary law of human thought, and that no science or +knowledge is possible without the assumption of its validity. + + + In _Luke 10:31_, our Savior says: “_By chance a certain priest was + going down that way_.” Janet: “Chance is not a cause, but a + coincidence of causes.” Bowne, Theory of Thought and Knowledge, + 197—“By chance is not meant lack of causation, but the coincidence + in an event of mutually independent series of causation. Thus the + unpurposed meeting of two persons is spoken of as a chance one, + when the movement of neither implies that of the other. Here the + antithesis of chance is purpose.” + + +(_c_) If chance be used in the sense of undesigning cause,—it is evidently +insufficient to explain the regular and uniform sequences of nature, or +the moral progress of the human race. These things argue a superintending +and designing mind—in other words, a providence. Since reason demands not +only a cause, but a sufficient cause, for the order of the physical and +moral world, casualism must be ruled out. + + + The observer at the signal station was asked what was the climate + of Rochester. “Climate?” he replied; “Rochester has no + climate,—only weather!” So Chauncey Wright spoke of the ups and + downs of human affairs as simply “cosmical weather.” But our + intuition of design compels us to see mind and purpose in + individual and national history, as well as in the physical + universe. The same argument which proves the existence of God + proves also the existence of a providence. See Farrar, Life of + Christ, 1:155, note. + + +3. Theory of a merely general providence. + + +Many who acknowledge God’s control over the movements of planets and the +destinies of nations deny any divine arrangement of particular events. +Most of the arguments against deism are equally valid against the theory +of a merely general providence. This view is indeed only a form of deism, +which holds that God has not wholly withdrawn himself from the universe, +but that his activity within it is limited to the maintenance of general +laws. + + + This appears to have been the view of most of the heathen + philosophers. Cicero: “Magna dii curant; parva negligunt.” “Even + in kingdoms among men,” he says, “kings do not trouble themselves + with insignificant affairs.” Fullerton, Conceptions of the + Infinite, 9—“Plutarch thought there could not be an infinity of + worlds,—Providence could not possibly take charge of so many. + ‘Troublesome and boundless infinity’ could be grasped by no + consciousness.” The ancient Cretans made an image of Jove without + ears, for they said: “It is a shame to believe that God would hear + the talk of men.” So Jerome, the church Father, thought it absurd + that God should know just how many gnats and cockroaches there + were in the world. David Harum is wiser when he expresses the + belief that there is nothing wholly bad or useless in the world: + “A reasonable amount of fleas is good for a dog,—they keep him + from broodin’ on bein’ a dog.” This has been paraphrased: “A + reasonable number of beaux are good for a girl,—they keep her from + brooding over her being a girl.” + + +In addition to the arguments above alluded to, we may urge against this +theory that: + +(_a_) General control over the course of nature and of history is +impossible without control over the smallest particulars which affect the +course of nature and of history. Incidents so slight as well-nigh to +escape observation at the time of their occurrence are frequently found to +determine the whole future of a human life, and through that life the +fortunes of a whole empire and of a whole age. + + + “Nothing great has great beginnings.” “Take care of the pence, and + the pounds will take care of themselves.” “Care for the chain is + care for the links of the chain.” Instances in point are the + sleeplessness of King Ahasuerus (_Esther 6:1_), and the seeming + chance that led to the reading of the record of Mordecai’s service + and to the salvation of the Jews in Persia; the spider’s web spun + across the entrance to the cave in which Mohammed had taken + refuge, which so deceived his pursuers that they passed on In a + bootless chase, leaving to the world the religion and the empire + of the Moslems; the preaching of Peter the Hermit, which + occasioned the first Crusade; the chance shot of an archer, which + pierced the right eye of Harold, the last of the purely English + kings, gained the battle of Hastings for William the Conqueror, + and secured the throne of England for the Normans; the flight of + pigeons to the south-west, which changed the course of Columbus, + hitherto directed towards Virginia, to the West Indies, and so + prevented the dominion of Spain over North America; the storm that + dispersed the Spanish Armada and saved England from the Papacy, + and the storm that dispersed the French fleet gathered for the + conquest of New England—the latter on a day of fasting and prayer + appointed by the Puritans to avert the calamity; the settling of + New England by the Puritans, rather than by French Jesuits; the + order of Council restraining Cromwell and his friends from sailing + to America; Major André’s lack of self-possession in presence of + his captors, which led him to ask an improper question instead of + showing his passport, and which saved the American cause; the + unusually early commencement of cold weather, which frustrated the + plans of Napoleon and destroyed his army in Russia; the fatal shot + at Fort Sumter, which precipitated the war of secession and + resulted in the abolition of American slavery. Nature is linked to + history; the breeze warps the course of the bullet; the worm + perforates the plank of the ship. God must care for the least, or + he cannot care for the greatest. + + “Large doors swing on small hinges.” The barking of a dog + determined F. W. Robertson to be a preacher rather than a soldier. + Robert Browning, Mr. Sludge the Medium: “We find great things are + made of little things, And little things go lessening till at last + Comes God behind them.” E. G. Robinson: “We cannot suppose only a + general outline to have been in the mind of God, while the + filling-up is left to be done in some other way. The general + includes the special.” Dr. Lloyd, one of the Oxford Professors, + said to Pusey, “I wish you would learn something about those + German critics.” “In the obedient spirit of those times,” writes + Pusey, “I set myself at once to learn German, and I went to + Göttingen, to study at once the language and the theology. My life + turned on that hint of Dr. Lloyd’s.” + + Goldwin Smith: “Had a bullet entered the brain of Cromwell or of + William III in his first battle, or had Gustavus not fallen at + Lützen, the course of history apparently would have been changed. + The course even of science would have been changed, if there had + not been a Newton and a Darwin.” The annexation of Corsica to + France gave to France a Napoleon, and to Europe a conqueror. + Martineau, Seat of Authority, 101—“Had the monastery at Erfurt + deputed another than young Luther on its errand to paganized Rome, + or had Leo X sent a less scandalous agent than Tetzel on his + business to Germany, the seeds of the Reformation might have + fallen by the wayside where they had no deepness of earth, and the + Western revolt of the human mind might have taken another date and + another form.” See Appleton, Works, 1:149 _sq._; Lecky, England in + the Eighteenth Century, chap. I. + + +(_b_) The love of God which prompts a general care for the universe must +also prompt a particular care for the smallest events which affect the +happiness of his creatures. It belongs to love to regard nothing as +trifling or beneath its notice which has to do with the interests of the +object of its affection. Infinite love may therefore be expected to +provide for all, even the minutest things in the creation. Without belief +in this particular care, men cannot long believe in God’s general care. +Faith in a particular providence is indispensable to the very existence of +practical religion; for men will not worship or recognize a God who has no +direct relation to them. + + + Man’s care for his own body involves care for the least important + members of it. A lover’s devotion is known by his interest in the + minutest concerns of his beloved. So all our affairs are matters + of interest to God. Pope’s Essay on Man: “All nature is but art + unknown to thee; All chance, direction which thou canst not see; + All discord, harmony not understood; All partial evil, universal + good.” If harvests may be labored for and lost without any agency + of God; if rain or sun may act like fate, sweeping away the + results of years, and God have no hand in it all; if wind and + storm may wreck the ship and drown our dearest friends, and God + not care for us or for our loss, then all possibility of general + trust in God will disappear also. + + God’s care is shown in the least things as well as in the + greatest. In Gethsemane Christ says: “_Let these go their way: + that the word might be fulfilled which he spake, Of those whom + thou hast given me I lost not one_” (_John 18:8, 9_). It is the + same spirit as that of his intercessory prayer: “_I guarded them, + and not one of them perished, but the son of perdition_” (_John + 17:12_). Christ gives himself as a prisoner that his disciples may + go free, even as he redeems us from the curse of the law by being + made a curse for us (_Gal. 3:13_). The dewdrop is moulded by the + same law that rounds the planets into spheres. Gen. Grant said he + had never but once sought a place for himself, and in that place + he was a comparative failure; he had been an instrument in God’s + hand for the accomplishing of God’s purposes, apart from any plan + or thought or hope of his own. + + Of his journey through the dark continent in search of David + Livingston, Henry M. Stanley wrote in Scribner’s Monthly for June, + 1890: “Constrained at the darkest hour humbly to confess that + without God’s help I was helpless, I vowed a vow in the forest + solitudes that I would confess his aid before men. Silence as of + death was around me; it was midnight; I was weakened by illness, + prostrated with fatigue, and wan with anxiety for my white and + black companions, whose fate was a mystery. In this physical and + mental distress I besought God to give me back my people. Nine + hours later we were exulting with a rapturous joy. In full view of + all was the crimson flag with the crescent, and beneath its waving + folds was the long-lost rear column.... My own designs were + frustrated constantly by unhappy circumstances. I endeavored to + steer my course as direct as possible, but there was an + unaccountable influence at the helm.... I have been conscious that + the issues of every effort were in other hands.... Divinity seems + to have hedged us while we journeyed, impelling us whither it + would, effecting its own will, but constantly guiding and + protecting us.” He refuses to believe that it is all the result of + “luck”, and he closes with a doxology which we should expect from + Livingston but not from him: “Thanks be to God, forever and ever!” + + +(_c_) In times of personal danger, and in remarkable conjunctures of +public affairs, men instinctively attribute to God a control of the events +which take place around them. The prayers which such startling emergencies +force from men’s lips are proof that God is present and active in human +affairs. This testimony of our mental constitution must be regarded as +virtually the testimony of him who framed this constitution. + + + No advance of science can rid us of this conviction, since it + comes from a deeper source than mere reasoning. The intuition of + design is awakened by the connection of events in our daily life, + as much as by the useful adaptations which we see in nature. _Ps. + 107:23-28_—“_They that go down to the sea in ships ... mount up to + the heavens, they go down again to the depths ... And are at their + wits’ end. Then they cry unto Jehovah in their trouble._” A narrow + escape from death shows us a present God and Deliverer. Instance + the general feeling throughout the land, expressed by the press as + well as by the pulpit, at the breaking out of our rebellion and at + the President’s subsequent Proclamation of Emancipation. + + “Est deus in nobis; agitante calescimus illo.” For contrast + between Nansen’s ignoring of God in his polar journey and Dr. + Jacob Chamberlain’s calling upon God in his strait in India, see + Missionary Review, May, 1898. Sunday School Times, March 4, + 1893—“Benjamin Franklin became a deist at the age of fifteen. + Before the Revolutionary War he was merely a shrewd and pushing + business man. He had public spirit, and he made one happy + discovery in science. But ‘Poor Richard’s’ sayings express his + mind at that time. The perils and anxieties of the great war gave + him a deeper insight. He and others entered upon it ‘with a rope + around their necks.’ As he told the Constitutional Convention of + 1787, when he proposed that its daily sessions be opened with + prayer, the experiences of that war showed him that ‘God verily + rules in the affairs of men.’ And when the designs for an American + coinage were under discussion, Franklin proposed to stamp on them, + not ‘A Penny Saved is a Penny Earned,’ or any other piece of + worldly prudence, but ‘The Fear of the Lord is the Beginning of + Wisdom.’ ” + + +(_d_) Christian experience confirms the declarations of Scripture that +particular events are brought about by God with special reference to the +good or ill of the individual. Such events occur at times in such direct +connection with the Christian’s prayers that no doubt remains with regard +to the providential arrangement of them. The possibility of such divine +agency in natural events cannot be questioned by one who, like the +Christian, has had experience of the greater wonders of regeneration and +daily intercourse with God, and who believes in the reality of creation, +incarnation, and miracles. + + + Providence prepares the way for men’s conversion, sometimes by + their own partial reformation, sometimes by the sudden death of + others near them. Instance Luther and Judson. The Christian learns + that the same Providence that led him before his conversion is + busy after his conversion in directing his steps and in supplying + his wants. Daniel Defoe: “I have been fed more by miracle than + Elijah when the angels were his purveyors.” In _Psalm 32_, David + celebrates not only God’s pardoning mercy but his subsequent + providential leading: “_I will counsel thee with mine eye upon + thee_” (_verse 8_). It may be objected that we often mistake the + meaning of events. We answer that, as in nature, so in providence, + we are compelled to believe, not that we _know_ the design, but + that there _is_ a design. Instance Shelley’s drowning, and Jacob + Knapp’s prayer that his opponent might be stricken dumb. Lyman + Beecher’s attributing the burning of the Unitarian church to God’s + judgment upon false doctrine was invalidated a little later by the + burning of his own church. + + _Job 23:10_—“_He knoweth the way that is mine,_” or “_the way that + is with me,_” _i. e._, my inmost way, life, character; “_When he + hath tried me, I shall come forth as gold._” _1 Cor. 19:4_—“_and + the rock was Christ_”—Christ was the ever present source of their + refreshment and life, both physical and spiritual. God’s + providence is all exercised through Christ. _2 Cor. 2:14_—“_But + thanks be unto God, who always leadeth us in triumph in Christ_”; + not, as in A. V., “_causeth us to triumph_.” Paul glories, not in + conquering, but in being conquered. Let Christ triumph, not Paul. + “Great King of grace, my heart subdue; I would be led in triumph + too. A willing captive to my Lord, To own the conquests of his + word.” Therefore Paul can call himself “_the prisoner of Christ + Jesus_” (_Eph. 3:1_). It was Christ who had shut him up two years + in Cæsarea, and then two succeeding years in Rome. + + +IV. Relations of the Doctrine of Providence. + + +1. To miracles and works of grace. + + +Particular providence is the agency of God in what seem to us the minor +affairs of nature and human life. Special providence is only an instance +of God’s particular providence which has special relation to us or makes +peculiar impression upon us. It is special, not as respects the means +which God makes use of, but as respects the effect produced upon us. In +special providence we have only a more impressive manifestation of God’s +universal control. + +Miracles and works of grace like regeneration are not to be regarded as +belonging to a different order of things from God’s special providences. +They too, like special providences, may have their natural connections and +antecedents, although they more readily suggest their divine authorship. +Nature and God are not mutually exclusive,—nature is rather God’s method +of working. Since nature is only the manifestation of God, special +providence, miracle, and regeneration are simply different degrees of +extraordinary nature. Certain of the wonders of Scripture, such as the +destruction of Sennacherib’s army and the dividing of the Red Sea, the +plagues of Egypt, the flight of quails, and the draught of fishes, can be +counted as exaggerations of natural forces, while at the same time they +are operations of the wonder-working God. + + + The falling of snow from a roof is an example of ordinary (or + particular) providence. But if a man is killed by it, it becomes a + special providence to him and to others who are thereby taught the + insecurity of life. So the providing of coal for fuel in the + geologic ages may be regarded by different persons in the light + either of a general or of a special providence. In all the + operations of nature and all the events of life God’s providence + is exhibited. That providence becomes special, when it manifestly + suggests some care of God for us or some duty of ours to God. + Savage, Life beyond Death, 285—“Mary A. Livermore’s life was saved + during her travels in the West by her hearing and instantly + obeying what seemed to her a voice. She did not know where it came + from; but she leaped, as the voice ordered, from one side of a car + to the other, and instantly the side where she had been sitting + was crushed in and utterly demolished.” In a similar way, the life + of Dr. Oncken was saved in the railroad disaster at Norwalk. + + Trench gives the name of “providential miracles” to those + Scripture wonders which may be explained as wrought through the + agency of natural laws (see Trench, Miracles, 19). Mozley also + (Miracles, 117-120) calls these wonders miracles, because of the + predictive word of God which accompanied them. He says that the + difference in effect between miracles and special providences is + that the latter give _some_ warrant, while the former give _full_ + warrant, for believing that they are wrought by God. He calls + special providences “invisible miracles.” Bp. of Southampton, + Place of Miracles, 12, 13—“The art of Bezaleel in constructing the + tabernacle, and the plans of generals like Moses and Joshua, + Gideon, Barak, and David, are in the Old Testament ascribed to the + direct inspiration of God. A less religious writer would have + ascribed them to the instinct of military skill. No miracle is + necessarily involved, when, in devising the system of ceremonial + law it is said: _‘__Jehovah spake unto Moses__’__ (Num. 5:1)_. God + is everywhere present in the history of Israel, but miracles are + strikingly rare.” We prefer to say that the line between the + natural and the supernatural, between special providence and + miracle, is an arbitrary one, and that the same event may often be + regarded either as special providence or as miracle, according as + we look at it from the point of view of its relation to other + events or from the point of view of its relation to God. + + E. G. Robinson: “If Vesuvius should send up ashes and lava, and a + strong wind should scatter them, it could be said to rain fire and + brimstone, as at Sodom and Gomorrha.” There is abundant evident of + volcanic action at the Dead Sea. See article on the Physical + Preparation for Israel in Palestine, by G. Frederick Wright, in + Bib. Sac., April, 1901:364. The three great miracles—the + destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha, the parting of the waters of + the Jordan, the falling down of the walls of Jericho—are described + as effect of volcanic eruption, elevation of the bed of the river + by a landslide, and earthquake-shock overthrowing the walls. Salt + slime thrown up may have enveloped Lot’s wife and turned her into + “_a mound of salt_” (_Gen. 19:26_). In like manner, some of Jesus’ + works of healing, as for instance those wrought upon paralytics + and epileptics, may be susceptible of natural explanation, while + yet they show that Christ is absolute Lord of nature. For the + naturalistic view, see Tyndall on Miracles and Special + Providences, in Fragments of Science, 45, 418. _Per contra_, see + Farrar, on Divine Providence and General Laws, in Science and + Theology, 54-80; Row, Bampton Lect. on Christian Evidences, + 109-115; Godet, Defence of Christian Faith, Chap. 2; Bowne, The + Immanence of God, 56-65. + + +2. To prayer and its answer. + + +What has been said with regard to God’s connection with nature suggests +the question, how God can answer prayer consistently with the fixity of +natural law. + + + Tyndall (see reference above), while repelling the charge of + denying that God can answer prayer at all, yet does deny that he + can answer it without a miracle. He says expressly “that without a + disturbance of natural law quite as serious as the stoppage of an + eclipse, or the rolling of the St. Lawrence up the falls of + Niagara, no act of humiliation, individual or national, could call + one shower from heaven or deflect toward us a single beam of the + sun.” In reply we would remark: + + +A. Negatively, that the true solution is not to be reached: + +(_a_) By making the sole effect of prayer to be its reflex influence upon +the petitioner.—Prayer presupposes a God who hears and answers. It will +not be offered, unless it is believed to accomplish objective as well as +subjective results. + + + According to the first view mentioned above, prayer is a mere + spiritual gymnastics—an effort to lift ourselves from the ground + by tugging at our own boot-straps. David Hume said well, after + hearing a sermon by Dr. Leechman: “We can make use of no + expression or even thought in prayers and entreaties which does + not imply that these prayers have an influence.” See Tyndall on + Prayer and Natural Law, in Fragments of Science, 35. Will men pray + to a God who is both deaf and dumb? Will the sailor on the + bowsprit whistle to the wind for the sake of improving his voice? + Horace Bushnell called this perversion of prayer a “mere dumb-bell + exercise.” Baron Munchausen pulled himself out of the bog in China + by tugging away at his own pigtail. + + Hyde, God’s Education of Man, 154, 155—“Prayer is not the reflex + action of my will upon itself, but rather the communion of two + wills, in which the finite comes into connection with the + Infinite, and, like the trolley, appropriates its purpose and + power.” Harnack, Wesen des Christenthums, 42, apparently follows + Schleiermacher in unduly limiting prayer to general petitions + which receive only a subjective answer. He tells us that “Jesus + taught his disciples the Lord’s Prayer in response to a request + for directions how to pray. Yet we look in vain therein for + requests for special gifts of grace, or for particular good + things, even though they are spiritual. The name, the will, the + kingdom of God—these are the things which are the objects of + petition.” Harnack forgets that the same Christ said also: “_All + things whatsoever ye pray and ask for, believe that ye receive + them, and ye shall have them_” (_Mark 11:24_). + + +(_b_) Nor by holding that God answers prayer simply by spiritual means, +such as the action of the Holy Spirit upon the spirit of man.—The realm of +spirit is no less subject to law than the realm of matter. Scripture and +experience, moreover, alike testify that in answer to prayer events take +place in the outward world which would not have taken place if prayer had +not gone before. + + + According to this second theory, God feeds the starving Elijah, + not by a distinct message from heaven but by giving a + compassionate disposition to the widow of Zarephath so that she is + moved to help the prophet. _1 K. 17:9_—“_behold, I have commanded + a widow there to sustain thee._” But God could also feed Elijah by + the ravens and the angel (_1 K. 17:4; 19:15_), and the pouring + rain that followed Elijah’s prayer (_1 K. 18:42-45_) cannot be + explained as a subjective spiritual phenomenon. Diman, Theistic + Argument, 268—“Our charts map out not only the solid shore but the + windings of the ocean currents, and we look into the morning + papers to ascertain the gathering of storms on the slopes of the + Rocky Mountains.” But law rules in the realm of spirit as well as + in the realm of nature. See Baden Powell, in Essays and Reviews, + 106-162; Knight, Studies in Philosophy and Literature, 340-404; + George I. Chace, discourse before the Porter Rhet. Soc. of + Andover, August, 1854. Governor Rice in Washington is moved to + send money to a starving family in New York, and to secure + employment for them. Though he has had no information with regard + to their need, they have knelt in prayer for help just before the + coming of the aid. + + +(_c_) Nor by maintaining that God suspends or breaks in upon the order of +nature, in answering every prayer that is offered.—This view does not take +account of natural laws as having objective existence, and as revealing +the order of God’s being. Omnipotence might thus suspend natural law, but +wisdom, so far as we can see, would not. + + + This third theory might well be held by those who see in nature no + force but the all-working will of God. But the properties and + powers of matter are revelations of the divine will, and the human + will has only a relative independence in the universe. To desire + that God would answer all our prayers is to desire omnipotence + without omniscience. All true prayer is therefore an expression of + the one petition: “_Thy will be done_” (_Mat. 6:10_). E. G. + Robinson: “It takes much common sense to pray, and many prayers + are destitute of this quality. Man needs to pray audibly even in + his private prayers, to get the full benefit of them. One of the + chief benefits of the English liturgy is that the individual + minister is lost sight of. Protestantism makes you work; in + Romanism the church will do it all for you.” + + +(_d_) Nor by considering prayer as a physical force, linked in each case +to its answer, as physical cause is linked to physical effect.—Prayer is +not a force acting directly upon nature; else there would be no discretion +as to its answer. It can accomplish results in nature, only as it +influences God. + + + We educate our children in two ways: first, by training them to do + for themselves what they can do; and, secondly, by encouraging + them to seek our help in matters beyond their power. So God + educates us, first, by impersonal law, and, secondly, by personal + dependence. He teaches us both to work and to ask. Notice the + “perfect unwisdom of modern scientists who place themselves under + the training of impersonal law, to the exclusion of that higher + and better training which is under personality” (Hopkins, Sermon + on Prayer-gauge, 16). + + +It seems more in accordance with both Scripture and reason to say that: + +B. God may answer prayer, even when that answer involves changes in the +sequences of nature,— + +(_a_) By new combinations of natural forces, in regions withdrawn from our +observation, so that effects are produced which these same forces left to +themselves would never have accomplished. As man combines the laws of +chemical attraction and of combustion, to fire the gunpowder and split the +rock asunder, so God may combine the laws of nature to bring about answers +to prayer. In all this there may be no suspension or violation of law, but +a use of law unknown to us. + + + Hopkins, Sermon on the Prayer-gauge: “Nature is uniform in her + processes but not in her results. Do you say that water cannot run + uphill? Yes, it can and does. Whenever man constructs a milldam + the water runs up the environing hills till it reaches the top of + the milldam. Man can make a spark of electricity do his bidding; + why cannot God use a bolt of electricity? Laws are not our + masters, but our servants. They do our bidding all the better + because they are uniform. And our servants are not God’s masters.” + Kendall Brooks: “The master of a musical instrument can vary + without limit the combination of sounds and the melodies which + these combinations can produce. The laws of the instrument are not + changed, but in their unchanging steadfastness produce an infinite + variety of tunes. It is necessary that they should be unchanging + in order to secure a desired result. So nature, which exercises + the infinite skill of the divine Master, is governed by unvarying + laws; but he, by these laws, produces an infinite variety of + results.” + + Hodge, Popular Lectures, 45, 99—“The system of natural laws is far + more flexible in God’s hands than it is in ours. We act on second + causes externally; God acts on them internally. We act upon them + at only a few isolated points; God acts upon every point of the + system at the same time. The whole of nature may be as plastic to + his will as the air in the organs of the great singer who + articulates it into a fit expression of every thought and passion + of his soaring soul.” Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 155—“If all the + chemical elements of our solar system preëxisted in the fiery + cosmic mist, there must have been a time when quite suddenly the + attractions between these elements overcame the degree of caloric + force which held them apart, and the rush of elements into + chemical union must have been consummated with inconceivable + rapidity. Uniformitarianism is not universal.” + + Shaler, Interpretation of Nature, chap. 2—“By a little increase of + centrifugal force the elliptical orbit is changed into a parabola, + and the planet becomes a comet. By a little reduction in + temperature water becomes solid and loses many of its powers. So + unexpected results are brought about and surprises as + revolutionary as if a Supreme Power immediately intervened.” + William James, Address before Soc. for Psych. Research: + “Thought-transference may involve a critical point, as the + physicists call it, which is passed only when certain psychic + conditions are realized, and otherwise not reached at all—just as + a big conflagration will break out at a certain temperature, below + which no conflagration whatever, whether big or little, can + occur.” Tennyson, Life, 1:324—“Prayer is like opening a sluice + between the great ocean and our little channels, when the great + sea gathers itself together and flows in at full tide.” + + +Since prayer is nothing more nor less than appeal to a personal and +present God, whose granting or withholding of the requested blessing is +believed to be determined by the prayer itself, we must conclude that +prayer moves God, or, in other words, induces the putting forth on his +part of an imperative volition. + + + The view that in answering prayer God combines natural forces is + elaborated by Chalmers, Works, 2:314, and 7:234. See Diman, + Theistic Argument, 111—“When laws are conceived of, not as single, + but as combined, instead of being immutable in their operation, + they are the agencies of ceaseless change. Phenomena are governed, + not by invariable forces, but by _endlessly varying combinations + of invariable forces_.” Diman seems to have followed Argyll, Reign + of Law, 100. + + Janet, Final Causes, 219—“I kindle a fire in my grate. I only + intervene to produce and combine together the different agents + whose natural action behooves to produce the effect I have need + of; but the first step once taken, all the phenomena constituting + combustion engender each other, conformably to their laws, without + a new intervention of the agent; so that an observer who should + study the series of these phenomena, without perceiving the first + hand that had prepared all, could not seize that hand in any + especial act, and yet there is a preconceived plan and + combination.” + + Hopkins, Sermon on Prayer-gauge: Man, by sprinkling plaster on his + field, may cause the corn to grow more luxuriantly; by kindling + great fires and by firing cannon, he may cause rain; and God can + surely, in answer to prayer, do as much as man can. Lewes says + that the fundamental character of all theological philosophy is + conceiving of phenomena as subject to supernatural volition, and + consequently as eminently and irregularly variable. This notion, + he says, is refuted, first, by exact and rational prevision of + phenomena, and, secondly, by the possibility of our modifying + these phenomena so as to promote our own advantage. But we ask in + reply: If we can modify them, cannot God? But, lest this should + seem to imply mutability in God or inconsistency in nature, we + remark, in addition, that: + + +(_b_) God may have so preärranged the laws of the material universe and +the events of history that, while the answer to prayer is an expression of +his will, it is granted through the working of natural agencies, and in +perfect accordance with the general principle that results, both temporal +and spiritual, are to be attained by intelligent creatures through the use +of the appropriate and appointed means. + + + J. P. Cooke, Credentials of Science, 194—“The Jacquard loom of + itself would weave a perfectly uniform plain fabric; the + perforated cards determine a selection of the threads, and through + a combination of these variable conditions, so complex that the + observer cannot follow their intricate workings, the predesigned + pattern appears.” E. G. Robinson: “The most formidable objection + to this theory is the apparent countenance it lends to the + doctrine of necessitarianism. But if it presupposes that free + actions have been taken into account, it cannot easily be shown to + be false.” The bishop who was asked by his curate to sanction + prayers for rain was unduly sceptical when he replied: “First + consult the barometer.” Phillips Brooks: “Prayer is not the + conquering of God’s reluctance, but the taking hold of God’s + willingness.” + + The Pilgrims at Plymouth, somewhere about 1628, prayed for rain. + They met at 9 A. M., and continued in prayer for eight or nine + hours. While they were assembled clouds gathered, and the next + morning began rains which, with some intervals, lasted fourteen + days. John Easter was many years ago an evangelist in Virginia. A + large out-door meeting was being held. Many thousands had + assembled, when heavy storm clouds began to gather. There was no + shelter to which the multitudes could retreat. The rain had + already reached the adjoining fields when John Easter cried: + “Brethren, be still, while I call upon God to stay the storm till + the gospel is preached to this multitude!” Then he knelt and + prayed that the audience might be spared the rain, and that after + they had gone to their homes there might be refreshing showers. + Behold, the clouds parted as they came near, and passed to either + side of the crowd and then closed again, leaving the place dry + where the audience had assembled, and the next day the postponed + showers came down upon the ground that had been the day before + omitted. + + +Since God is immanent in nature, an answer to prayer, coming about through +the intervention of natural law, may be as real a revelation of God’s +personal care as if the laws of nature were suspended, and God interposed +by an exercise of his creative power. Prayer and its answer, though having +God’s immediate volition as their connecting bond, may yet be provided for +in the original plan of the universe. + + + The universe does not exist for itself, but for moral ends and + moral beings, to reveal God and to furnish facilities of + intercourse between God and intelligent creatures. Bishop + Berkeley: “The universe is God’s ceaseless conversation with his + creatures.” The universe certainly subserves moral ends—the + discouragement of vice and the reward of virtue; why not spiritual + ends also? When we remember that there is no true prayer which God + does not inspire; that every true prayer is part of the plan of + the universe linked in with all the rest and provided for at the + beginning; that God is in nature and in mind, supervising all + their movements and making all fulfill his will and reveal his + personal care; that God can adjust the forces of nature to each + other far more skilfully than can man when man produces effects + which nature of herself could never accomplish; that God is not + confined to nature or her forces, but can work by his creative and + omnipotent will where other means are not sufficient,—we need have + no fear, either that natural law will bar God’s answers to prayer, + or that these answers will cause a shock or jar in the system of + the universe. + + Matheson, Messages of the Old Religions, 321, 322—“Hebrew poetry + never deals with outward nature for its own sake. The eye never + rests on beauty for itself alone. The heavens are the work of + God’s hands, the earth is God’s footstool, the winds are God’s + ministers, the stars are God’s host, the thunder is God’s voice. + What we call Nature the Jew called God.” Miss Heloise E. Hersey: + “Plato in the Phædrus sets forth in a splendid myth the means by + which the gods refresh themselves. Once a year, in a mighty host, + they drive their chariots up the steep to the topmost vault of + heaven. Thence they may behold all the wonders and the secrets of + the universe; and, quickened by the sight of the great plain of + truth, they return home replenished and made glad by the celestial + vision.” Abp. Trench, Poems, 134—“Lord, what a change within us + one short hour Spent in thy presence will prevail to make—What + heavy burdens from our bosoms take, What parched grounds refresh + as with a shower! We kneel, and all around us seems to lower; We + rise, and all, the distant and the near, Stands forth in sunny + outline, brave and clear; We kneel how weak, we rise how full of + power! Why, therefore, should we do ourselves this wrong, Or + others—that we are not always strong; That we are ever overborne + with care; That we should ever weak or heartless be, Anxious or + troubled, when with us is prayer, And joy and strength and courage + are with thee?” See Calderwood, Science and Religion, 299-309; + McCosh, Divine Government, 215; Liddon, Elements of Religion, + 178-203; Hamilton, Autology, 690-694. See also Jellett, Donnellan + Lectures on the Efficacy of Prayer; Butterworth, Story of Notable + Prayers; Patton, Prayer and its Answers; Monrad, World of Prayer; + Prime, Power of Prayer; Phelps, The Still Hour; Haven, and + Bickersteth, on Prayer; Prayer for Colleges; Cox, in Expositor, + 1877: chap. 3; Faunce, Prayer as a Theory and a Fact; Trumbull, + Prayer, Its Nature and Scope. + + +C. If asked whether this relation between prayer and its providential +answer can be scientifically tested, we reply that it may be tested just +as a father’s love may be tested by a dutiful son. + +(_a_) There is a general proof of it in the past experience of the +Christian and in the past history of the church. + +_Ps. 116:1-8_—“_I love Jehovah because he heareth my voice and my +supplications._” Luther prays for the dying Melanchthon, and he recovers. +George Müller trusts to prayer, and builds his great orphan-houses. For a +multitude of instances, see Prime, Answers to Prayer. Charles H. Spurgeon: +“If there is any fact that is proved, it is that God hears prayer. If +there is any scientific statement that is capable of mathematical proof, +this is.” Mr. Spurgeon’s language is rhetorical: he means simply that +God’s answers to prayer remove all reasonable doubt. Adoniram Judson: “I +never was deeply interested in any object, I never prayed sincerely and +earnestly for anything, but it came; at some time—no matter at how distant +a day—somehow, in some shape, probably the last I should have devised—it +came. And yet I have always had so little faith! May God forgive me, and +while he condescends to use me as his instrument, wipe the sin of unbelief +from my heart!” + +(_b_) In condescension to human blindness, God may sometimes submit to a +formal test of his faithfulness and power,—as in the case of Elijah and +the priests of Baal. + + + _Is. 7:10-13_—Ahaz is rebuked for not asking a sign,—in him it + indicated unbelief. _1 K. 18:36-38_—Elijah said, “_let it be known + this day that thou art God in Israel.... Then the fire of Jehovah + fell, and consumed the burnt offering._” Romaine speaks of “a year + famous for believing.” _Mat 21:21, 22_—“_even if ye shall say unto + this mountain, Be thou taken up and cast into the sea, it shall be + done. And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, + believing, ye shall receive._” “Impossible?” said Napoleon; “then + it shall be done!” Arthur Hallam, quoted in Tennyson’s Life, + 1:44—“With respect to prayer, you ask how I am to distinguish the + operations of God in me from the motions of my own heart. Why + should you distinguish them, or how do you know that there is any + distinction? Is God less God because he acts by general laws when + he deals with the common elements of nature?” “Watch in prayer to + see what cometh. Foolish boys that knock at a door in wantonness, + will not stay till somebody open to them; but a man that hath + business will knock, and knock again, till he gets his answer.” + + Martineau, Seat of Authority, 102, 103—“God is not beyond nature + simply,—he is within it. In nature and in mind we must find the + action of his power. There is no need of his being a third factor + over and above the life of nature and the life of man.” Hartley + Coleridge: “Be not afraid to pray,—to pray is right. Pray if thou + canst with hope, but ever pray, Though hope be weak, or sick with + long delay; Pray in the darkness, if there be no light. Far is the + time, remote from human sight, When war and discord on the earth + shall cease; Yet every prayer for universal peace Avails the + blessed time to expedite. Whate’er is good to wish, ask that of + heaven, Though it be what thou canst not hope to see; Pray to be + perfect, though the material leaven Forbid the spirit so on earth + to be; But if for any wish thou dar’st not pray, Then pray to God + to cast that wish away.” + + +(_c_) When proof sufficient to convince the candid inquirer has been +already given, it may not consist with the divine majesty to abide a test +imposed by mere curiosity or scepticism,—as in the case of the Jews who +sought a sign from heaven. + + + _Mat. 12:39_—“_An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a + sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah + the prophet._” Tyndall’s prayer-gauge would ensure a conflict of + prayers. Since our present life is a moral probation, delay in the + answer to our prayers, and even the denial of specific things for + which we pray, may be only signs of God’s faithfulness and love. + George Müller: “I myself have been bringing certain requests + before God now for seventeen years and six months, and never a day + has passed without my praying concerning them all this time; yet + the full answer has not come up to the present. But I look for it; + I confidently expect it.” Christ’s prayer, “_let this cup pass + away from me_” (_Mat. 26:39_), and Paul’s prayer that the “_thorn + in the flesh_” might depart from him (_2 Cor. 12:7, 8_), were not + answered in the precise way requested. No more are our prayers + always answered in the way we expect. Christ’s prayer was not + answered by the literal removing of the cup, because the drinking + of the cup was really his glory; and Paul’s prayer was not + answered by the literal removal of the thorn, because the thorn + was needful for his own perfecting. In the case of both Jesus and + Paul, there were larger interests to be consulted than their own + freedom from suffering. + + +(_d_) Since God’s will is the link between prayer and its answer, there +can be no such thing as a physical demonstration of its efficacy in any +proposed case. Physical tests have no application to things into which +free will enters as a constitutive element. But there are moral tests, and +moral tests are as scientific as physical tests can be. + + + Diman, Theistic Argument, 576, alludes to Goldwin Smith’s denial + that any scientific method can be applied to history because it + would make man a necessary link in a chain of cause and effect and + so would deny his free will. But Diman says this is no more + impossible than the development of the individual according to a + fixed law of growth, while yet free will is sedulously respected. + Froude says history is not a science, because no science could + foretell Mohammedanism or Buddhism; and Goldwin Smith says that + “prediction is the crown of all science.” But, as Diman remarks: + “geometry, geology, physiology, are sciences, yet they do not + predict.” Buckle brought history into contempt by asserting that + it could be analyzed and referred solely to intellectual laws and + forces. To all this we reply that there may be scientific tests + which are not physical, or even intellectual, but only moral. Such + a test God urges his people to use, in _Mal. 3:10_—“_Bring ye the + whole tithe into the storehouse ... and prove me now herewith, if + I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a + blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it._” All + such prayer is a reflection of Christ’s words—some fragment of his + teaching transformed into a supplication (_John 15:7_; see + Westcott, Bib. Com., _in loco_); all such prayer is moreover the + work of the Spirit of God (_Rom. 8:26, 27_). It is therefore sure + of an answer. + + But the test of prayer proposed by Tyndall is not applicable to + the thing to be tested by it. Hopkins, Prayer and the + Prayer-gauge, 22 _sq._—“We cannot measure wheat by the yard, or + the weight of a discourse with a pair of scales.... God’s wisdom + might see that it was not best for the petitioners, nor for the + objects of their petition, to grant their request. Christians + therefore could not, without special divine authorization, rest + their faith upon the results of such a test.... Why may we not ask + for great changes in nature? For the same reason that a + well-informed child does not ask for the moon as a plaything.... + There are two limitations upon prayer. First, except by special + direction of God, we cannot ask for a miracle, for the same reason + that a child could not ask his father to burn the house down. + Nature is the house we live in. Secondly, we cannot ask for + anything under the laws of nature which would contravene the + object of those laws. Whatever we can do for ourselves under these + laws, God expects us to do. If the child is cold, let him go near + the fire,—not beg his father to carry him.” + + Herbert Spencer’s Sociology is only social physics. He denies + freedom, and declares anyone who will affix D. V. to the + announcement of the Mildmay Conference to be incapable of + understanding sociology. Prevision excludes divine or human will. + But Mr. Spencer intimates that the evils of natural selection may + be modified by artificial selection. What is this but the + interference of will? And if man can interfere, cannot God do the + same? Yet the wise child will not expect the father to give + everything he asks for. Nor will the father who loves his child + give him the razor to play with, or stuff him with unwholesome + sweets, simply because the child asks these things. If the + engineer of the ocean steamer should give me permission to press + the lever that sets all the machinery in motion, I should decline + to use my power and should prefer to leave such matters to him, + unless he first suggested it and showed me how. So the Holy Spirit + “_helpeth our infirmity; for we know not how to pray as we ought; + but the Spirit himself __ maketh intercession for us with + groanings which cannot be uttered_” (_Rom. 8:26_). And we ought + not to talk of “submitting” to perfect Wisdom, or of “being + resigned” to perfect Love. Shakespeare, Antony and Cleopatra, + 2:1—“What they [the gods] do delay, they do not deny.... We, + ignorant of ourselves, Beg often our own harms, which the wise + powers Deny us for our good; so find we profit By losing of our + prayers.” See Thornton, Old-Fashioned Ethics, 286-297. _Per + contra_, see Galton, Inquiries into Human Faculty, 277-294. + + +3. To Christian activity. + + +Here the truth lies between the two extremes of quietism and naturalism. + +(_a_) In opposition to the false abnegation of human reason and will which +quietism demands, we hold that God guides us, not by continual miracle, +but by his natural providence and the energizing of our faculties by his +Spirit, so that we rationally and freely do our own work, and work out our +own salvation. + + + Upham, Interior Life, 356, defines quietism as “cessation of + wandering thoughts and discursive imaginations, rest from + irregular desires and affections, and perfect submission of the + will.” Its advocates, however, have often spoken of it as a giving + up of our will and reason, and a swallowing up of these in the + wisdom and will of God. This phraseology is misleading, and savors + of a pantheistic merging of man in God. Dorner: “Quietism makes + God a monarch without living subjects.” Certain English quietists, + like the Mohammedans, will not employ physicians in sickness. They + quote _2 Chron. 16:12, 13_—Asa “_sought not to Jehovah, but to the + physicians. And Asa slept with his fathers_.” They forget that the + “_physicians_” alluded to in Chronicles were probably heathen + necromancers. Cromwell to his Ironsides: “Trust God, and keep your + powder dry!” + + Providence does not exclude, but rather implies the operation of + natural law, by which we mean God’s regular way of working. It + leaves no excuse for the sarcasm of Robert Browning’s Mr. Sludge + the Medium, 223—“Saved your precious self from what befell The + thirty-three whom Providence forgot.” Schurman, Belief in God, + 213—“The temples were hung with the votive offerings of those only + who had _escaped_ drowning.” “So like Provvy!” Bentham used to + say, when anything particularly unseemly occurred in the way of + natural catastrophe, God reveals himself in natural law. + Physicians and medicine are his methods, as well as the + impartation of faith and courage to the patient. The advocates of + faith-cure should provide by faith that no believing Christian + should die. With the apostolic miracles should go inspiration, as + Edward Irving declared. “Every man is as lazy as circumstances + will admit.” We throw upon the shoulders of Providence the burdens + which belong to us to bear. “_Work out your own salvation with + fear and trembling; for it is God who worketh in you both to will + and to work, for his good pleasure_” (_Phil. 2:12, 13_). + + Prayer without the use of means is an insult to God. “If God has + decreed that you should live, what is the use of your eating or + drinking?” Can a drowning man refuse to swim, or even to lay hold + of the rope that is thrown to him, and yet ask God to save him on + account of his faith? “Tie your camel,” said Mohammed, “and commit + it to God.” Frederick Douglas used to say that when in slavery he + often prayed for freedom, but his prayer was never answered till + he prayed with his feet—and ran away. Whitney, Integrity of + Christian Science, 68—“The existence of the dynamo at the + power-house does not make unnecessary the trolley line, nor the + secondary motor, nor the conductor’s application of the power. + True quietism is a resting in the Lord after we have done our + part.” _Ps. 37:7_—“_Rest in Jehovah, and wait patiently for him_”; + _Is. 57:2_—“_He entereth into peace; they rest in their beds, each + one that walketh in his uprightness_”. Ian Maclaren, Cure of + Souls, 147—“Religion has three places of abode: in the reason, + which is theology; in the conscience, which is ethics; and in the + heart, which is quietism.” On the self-guidance of Christ, see + Adamson, The Mind in Christ, 202-232. + + George Müller, writing about ascertaining the will of God, says: + “I seek at the beginning to get my heart into such a state that it + has no will of its own in regard to a given matter. Nine tenths of + the difficulties are overcome when our hearts are ready to do the + Lord’s will, whatever it may be. Having done this, I do not leave + the result to feeling or simple impression. If I do so, I make + myself liable to a great delusion. I seek the will of the Spirit + of God through, or in connection with, the Word of God. The Spirit + and the Word must be combined. If I look to the Spirit alone, + without the Word, I lay myself open to great delusions also. If + the Holy Ghost guides us at all, he will do it according to the + Scriptures, and never contrary to them. Next I take into account + providential circumstances. These often plainly indicate God’s + will in connection with his Word and his Spirit. I ask God in + prayer to reveal to me his will aright. Thus through prayer to + God, the study of the Word, and reflection, I come to a deliberate + judgment according to the best of my knowledge and ability, and, + if my mind is thus at peace, I proceed accordingly.” + + We must not confound rational piety with false enthusiasm. See + Isaac Taylor, Natural History of Enthusiasm. “Not quiescence, but + acquiescence, is demanded of us.” As God feeds “_the birds of the + heaven_” (_Mat. 6:26_), not by dropping food from heaven into + their mouths, but by stimulating them to seek food for themselves, + so God provides for his rational creatures by giving them a + sanctified common sense and by leading them to use it. In a true + sense Christianity gives us more will than ever. The Holy Spirit + emancipates the will, sets it upon proper objects, and fills it + with new energy. We are therefore not to surrender ourselves + passively to whatever professes to be a divine suggestion: _1 John + 4:1_—“_believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether + they are of God._” The test is the revealed word of God: _Is. + 8:20_—“_To the law and to the testimony! if they speak not + according to this word, surely there is no morning for them._” See + remarks on false Mysticism, pages 32, 33. + + +(_b_) In opposition to naturalism, we hold that God is continually near +the human spirit by his providential working, and that this providential +working is so adjusted to the Christian’s nature and necessities as to +furnish instruction with regard to duty, discipline of religious +character, and needed help and comfort in trial. + +In interpreting God’s providences, as in interpreting Scripture, we are +dependent upon the Holy Spirit. The work of the Spirit is, indeed, in +great part an application of Scripture truth to present circumstances. +While we never allow ourselves to act blindly and irrationally, but +accustom ourselves to weigh evidence with regard to duty, we are to +expect, as the gift of the Spirit, an understanding of circumstances—a +fine sense of God’s providential purposes with regard to us, which will +make our true course plain to ourselves, although we may not always be +able to explain it to others. + + + The Christian may have a continual divine guidance. Unlike the + unfaithful and unbelieving, of whom it is said, in _Ps. 106:13_, + “_They waited not for his counsel,_” the true believer has wisdom + given him from above. _Ps. 32:8_—“_I will instruct thee and teach + thee in the way which thou shalt go_”; _Prov. 3:6_—“_In all thy + ways acknowledge him, And he will direct thy paths_”; _Phil. + 1:9_—“_And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and + more in knowledge and all discernment_” (αἰσθήσει = spiritual + discernment); _James 1:5_—“_if any of you lacketh wisdom, let him + ask of God, who giveth_ (τοῦ διδόντος Θεοῦ) _to all liberally and + upbraideth not_”; _John 15:15_—“_No longer do I call you servants; + for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called + you friends_”; _Col. 1:9, 10_—“_that ye may be filled with the + knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, + to walk worthily of the Lord unto all pleasing._” + + God’s Spirit makes Providence as well as the Bible personal to us. + From every page of nature, as well as of the Bible, the living God + speaks to us. Tholuck: “The more we recognize in every daily + occurrence God’s secret inspiration, guiding and controlling us, + the more will all which to others wears a common and every-day + aspect prove to us a sign and a wondrous work.” Hutton, Essays: + “Animals that are blind slaves of impulse, driven about by forces + from within, have so to say fewer valves in their moral + constitution for the entrance of divine guidance. But minds alive + to every word of God give constant opportunity for his + interference with suggestions that may alter the course of their + lives. The higher the mind, the more it glides into the region of + providential control. God turns the good by the slightest breath + of thought.” So the Christian hymn, “Guide me, O thou great + Jehovah!” likens God’s leading of the believer to that of Israel + by the pillar of fire and cloud; and Paul in his dungeon calls + himself “_the prisoner of Christ Jesus_” (_Eph. 3:1_). Affliction + is the discipline of God’s providence. Greek proverb: “He who does + not get thrashed, does not get educated.” On God’s Leadings, see + A. H. Strong, Philosophy and Religion, 560-562. + + Abraham “_went out, not knowing whither he went_” (_Heb. 11:8_). + Not till he reached Canaan did he know the place of his + destination. Like a child he placed his hand in the hand of his + unseen Father, to be led whither he himself knew not. We often + have guidance without discernment of that guidance. _Is. + 42:16_—“_I will bring the blind by a way that they know not; in + paths that they know not will I lead them._” So we act more wisely + than we ourselves understand, and afterwards look back with + astonishment to see what we have been able to accomplish. Emerson: + “Himself from God he could not free; He builded better than he + knew.” Disappointments? Ah, you make a mistake in the spelling; + the D should be an H: His appointments. Melanchthon: “Quem poetæ + fortunam, nos Deum appellamus.” Chinese proverb: “The good God + never smites with both hands.” “Tact is a sort of psychical + automatism” (Ladd). There is a Christian tact which is rarely at + fault, because its possessor is “_led by the Spirit of God_” + (_Rom. 8:14_). Yet we must always make allowance, as Oliver + Cromwell used to say, “for the possibility of being mistaken.” + + When Luther’s friends wrote despairingly of the negotiations at + the Diet of Worms, he replied from Coburg that he had been looking + up at the night sky, spangled and studded with stars, and had + found no pillars to hold them up. And yet they did not fall. God + needs no props for his stars and planets. He hangs them on + nothing. So, in the working of God’s providence, the unseen is + prop enough for the seen. Henry Drummond, Life, 127—“To find out + God’s will: 1. Pray. 2. Think. 3. Talk to wise people, but do not + regard their decision as final. 4. Beware of the bias of your own + will, but do not be too much afraid of it (God never unnecessarily + thwarts a man’s nature and likings, and it is a mistake to think + that his will is always in the line of the disagreeable). 5. + Meantime, do the next thing (for doing God’s will in small things + is the best preparation for knowing it in great things). 6. When + decision and action are necessary, go ahead. 7. Never reconsider + the decision when it is finally acted on; and 8. You will probably + not find out until afterwards, perhaps long afterwards, that you + have been led at all.” + + Amiel lamented that everything was left to his own responsibility + and declared: “It is this thought that disgusts me with the + government of my own life. To win true peace, a man needs to feel + himself directed, pardoned and sustained by a supreme Power, to + feel himself in the right road, at the point where God would have + him be,—in harmony with God and the universe. This faith gives + strength and calm. I have not got it. All that is seems to me + arbitrary and fortuitous.” How much better is Wordsworth’s faith, + Excursion, book 4:581—“One adequate support For the calamities of + mortal life Exists, one only: an assured belief That the + procession of our fate, howe’er Sad or disturbed, is ordered by a + Being Of infinite benevolence and power, Whose everlasting + purposes embrace All accidents, converting them to good.” Mrs. + Browning, De Profundis, stanza xxiii—“I praise thee while my days + go on; I love thee while my days go on! Through dark and dearth, + through fire and frost, With emptied arms and treasure lost, I + thank thee while my days go on!” + + +4. To the evil acts of free agents. + + +(_a_) Here we must distinguish between the natural agency and the moral +agency of God, or between acts of permissive providence and acts of +efficient causation. We are ever to remember that God neither works evil, +nor causes his creatures to work evil. All sin is chargeable to the +self-will and perversity of the creature; to declare God the author of it +is the greatest of blasphemies. + + + Bp. Wordsworth: “God _foresees_ evil deeds, but never _forces_ + them.” “God does not cause sin, any more than the rider of a + limping horse causes the limping.” Nor can it be said that Satan + is the author of man’s sin. Man’s powers are his own. Not Satan, + but the man himself, gives the wrong application to these powers. + Not the cause, but the occasion, of sin is in the tempter; the + cause is in the evil will which yields to his persuasions. + + +(_b_) But while man makes up his evil decision independently of God, God +does, by his natural agency, order the method in which this inward evil +shall express itself, by limiting it in time, place, and measure, or by +guiding it to the end which his wisdom and love, and not man’s intent, has +set. In all this, however, God only allows sin to develop itself after its +own nature, so that it may be known, abhorred, and if possible overcome +and forsaken. + + + Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 2:272-284—“Judas’s treachery works the + reconciliation of the world, and Israel’s apostasy the salvation + of the Gentiles.... God smooths the path of the sinner, and gives + him chance for the outbreak of the evil, like a wise physician who + draws to the surface of the body the disease that has been raging + within, in order that it may be cured, if possible, by mild means, + or, if not, may be removed by the knife.” + + Christianity rises in spite of, nay, in consequence of opposition, + like a kite against the wind. When Christ has used the sword with + which he has girded himself, as he used Cyrus and the Assyrian, he + breaks it and throws it away. He turns the world upside down that + he may get it right side up. He makes use of every member of + society, as the locomotive uses every cog. The sufferings of the + martyrs add to the number of the church; the worship of relics + stimulates the Crusades; the worship of the saints leads to + miracle plays and to the modern drama; the worship of images helps + modern art; monasticism, scholasticism, the Papacy, even sceptical + and destructive criticism stir up defenders of the faith. + Shakespeare, Richard III, 5:1—“Thus doth he force the swords of + wicked men To turn their own points on their masters’ bosoms”; + Hamlet, 1:2—“Foul deeds will rise, though all the earth o’erwhelm + them, to men’s eyes”; Macbeth, 1:7—“Even handed justice Commends + the ingredients of the poisoned chalice To our own lips.” + + The Emperor of Germany went to Paris incognito and returned, + thinking that no one had known of his absence. But at every step, + going and coming, he was surrounded by detectives who saw that no + harm came to him. The swallow drove again and again at the little + struggling moth, but there was a plate glass window between them + which neither one of them knew. Charles Darwin put his cheek + against the plate glass of the cobra’s cage, but could not keep + himself from starting when the cobra struck. Tacitus, Annales, + 14:5—“Noctem sideribus illustrem, quasi convinsendum ad scelus, + dii præbuere”—“a night brilliant with stars, as if for the purpose + of proving the crime, was granted by the gods.” See F. A. Noble, + Our Redemption, 59-76, on the self-registry and self-disclosure of + sin, with quotation from Daniel Webster’s speech in the case of + Knapp at Salem: “It must be confessed. It will be confessed. There + is no refuge from confession but suicide, and suicide is + confession.” + + +(_c_) In cases of persistent iniquity, God’s providence still compels the +sinner to accomplish the design with which he and all things have been +created, namely, the manifestation of God’s holiness. Even though he +struggle against God’s plan, yet he must by his very resistance serve it. +His sin is made its own detector, judge, and tormentor. His character and +doom are made a warning to others. Refusing to glorify God in his +salvation, he is made to glorify God in his destruction. + + + _Is. 10:5, 7_—“_Ho Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, the staff in + whose hand is mine indignation!... Howbeit, he meaneth not so._” + Charles Kingsley, Two Years Ago: “He [Treluddra] is one of those + base natures, whom fact only lashes into greater fury,—a Pharaoh, + whose heart the Lord himself can only harden”—here we would add + the qualification: “consistently with the limits which he has set + to the operations of his grace.” Pharaoh’s ordering the + destruction of the Israelitish children (_Ex. 1:16_) was made the + means of putting Moses under royal protection, of training him for + his future work, and finally of rescuing the whole nation whose + sons Pharaoh sought to destroy. So God brings good out of evil; + see Tyler, Theology of Greek Poets, 28-35. Emerson: “My will + fulfilled shall be, For in daylight as in dark My thunderbolt has + eyes to see His way home to the mark.” See also Edwards, Works, + 4:300-312. + + _Col. 2:15_—“_having stripped off from himself the principalities + and the powers_”—the hosts of evil spirits that swarmed upon him + in their final onset—“_he made a show of them openly, triumphing + over them in it_,” _i. e._, in the cross, thus turning their evil + into a means of good. Royce, Spirit of Modern Philosophy, + 443,—“Love, seeking for absolute evil, is like an electric light + engaged in searching for a shadow,—when Love gets there, the + shadow has disappeared.” But this means, not that all things _are_ + good, but that “_all things work together __ for good_” (_Rom. + 8:28_)—God overruling for good that which in itself is only evil. + John Wesley: “God buries his workmen, but carries on his work.” + Sermon on “The Devil’s Mistakes”: Satan thought he could overcome + Christ in the wilderness, in the garden, on the cross. He + triumphed when he cast Paul into prison. But the cross was to + Christ a lifting up, that should draw all men to him (_John + 12:32_), and Paul’s imprisonment furnished his epistles to the New + Testament. + + “It is one of the wonders of divine love that even our blemishes + and sins God will take when we truly repent of them and give them + into his hands, and will in some way make them to be blessings. A + friend once showed Ruskin a costly handkerchief on which a blot of + ink had been made. ‘Nothing can be done with that,’ the friend + said, thinking the handkerchief worthless and ruined now. Ruskin + carried it away with him, and after a time sent it back to his + friend. In a most skilful and artistic way, he had made a fine + design in India ink, using the blot as its basis. Instead of being + ruined, the handkerchief was made far more beautiful and valuable. + So God takes the blots and stains upon our lives, the disfiguring + blemishes, when we commit them to him, and by his marvellous grace + changes them into marks of beauty. David’s grievous sin was not + only forgiven, but was made a transforming power in his life. + Peter’s pitiful fall became a step upward through his Lord’s + forgiveness and gentle dealing.” So “men may rise on stepping + stones Of their dead selves to higher things” (Tennyson, In + Memoriam, I). + + + +Section IV.—Good And Evil Angels. + + +As ministers of divine providence there is a class of finite beings, +greater in intelligence and power than man in his present state, some of +whom positively serve God’s purpose by holiness and voluntary execution of +his will, some negatively, by giving examples to the universe of defeated +and punished rebellion, and by illustrating God’s distinguishing grace in +man’s salvation. + +The scholastic subtleties which encumbered this doctrine in the Middle +Ages, and the exaggerated representations of the power of evil spirits +which then prevailed, have led, by a natural reaction, to an undue +depreciation of it in more recent times. + + + For scholastic discussions, see Thomas Aquinas, Summa (ed. Migne), + 1:833-993. The scholastics debated the questions, how many angels + could stand at once on the point of a needle (relation of angels + to space); whether an angel could be in two places at the same + time; how great was the interval between the creation of angels + and their fall; whether the sin of the first angel caused the sin + of the rest; whether as many retained their integrity as fell; + whether our atmosphere is the place of punishment for fallen + angels; whether guardian-angels have charge of children from + baptism, from birth, or while the infant is yet in the womb of the + mother; even the excrements of angels were subjects of discussion, + for if there was “_angels’ food_” (_Ps. 78:25_), and if angels ate + (_Gen. 18:8_), it was argued that we must take the logical + consequences. + + Dante makes the creation of angels simultaneous with that of the + universe at large. “The fall of the rebel angels he considers to + have taken place within twenty seconds of their creation, and to + have originated in the pride which made Lucifer unwilling to await + the time prefixed by his Maker for enlightening him with perfect + knowledge”—see Rossetti, Shadow of Dante, 14, 15. Milton, unlike + Dante, puts the creation of angels ages before the creation of + man. He tells us that Satan’s first name in heaven is now lost. + The sublime associations with which Milton surrounds the adversary + diminish our abhorrence of the evil one. Satan has been called the + hero of the Paradise Lost. Dante’s representation is much more + true to Scripture. But we must not go to the extreme of giving + ludicrous designations to the devil. This indicates and causes + scepticism as to his existence. + + In mediæval times men’s minds were weighed down by the terror of + the spirit of evil. It was thought possible to sell one’s soul to + Satan, and such compacts were written with blood. Goethe + represents Mephistopheles as saying to Faust: “I to thy service + here agree to bind me, To run and never rest at call of thee; When + _over yonder_ thou shalt find me, Then thou shalt do as much for + me.” The cathedrals cultivated and perpetuated this superstition, + by the figures of malignant demons which grinned from the + gargoyles of their roofs and the capitals of their columns, and + popular preaching exalted Satan to the rank of a rival god—a god + more feared than was the true and living God. Satan was pictured + as having horns and hoofs—an image of the sensual and + bestial—which led Cuvier to remark that the adversary could not + devour, because horns and hoofs indicated not a carnivorous but a + ruminant quadruped. + + But there is certainly a possibility that the ascending scale of + created intelligences does not reach its topmost point in man. As + the distance between man and the lowest forms of life is filled in + with numberless gradations of being, so it is possible that + between man and God there exist creatures of higher than human + intelligence. This possibility is turned to certainty by the + express declarations of Scripture. The doctrine is interwoven with + the later as well as with the earlier books of revelation. + + Quenstedt (Theol., 1:629) regards the existence of angels as + antecedently probable, because there are no gaps in creation; + nature does not proceed _per saltum_. As we have (1) beings purely + corporeal, as stones; (2) beings partly corporeal and partly + spiritual, as men: so we should expect in creation (3) beings + wholly spiritual, as angels. Godet, in his Biblical Studies of the + O. T., 1-29, suggests another series of gradations. As we have (1) + vegetables—species without individuality; (2) + animals—individuality in bondage to species; and (3) men—species + overpowered by individuality: so we may expect (4) + angels—individuality without species. + + If souls live after death, there is certainly a class of + disembodied spirits. It is not impossible that God may have + _created_ spirits without bodies. E. G. Robinson, Christian + Theology, 110—“The existence of lesser deities in all heathen + mythologies, and the disposition of man everywhere to believe in + beings superior to himself and inferior to the supreme God, is a + presumptive argument in favor of their existence.” Locke: “That + there should be more species of intelligent creatures above us + than there are of sensible and material below us, is probable to + me from hence, that in all the visible and corporeal world we see + no chasms and gaps.” Foster, Christian Life and Theology, 193—“A + man may certainly believe in the existence of angels upon the + testimony of one who claims to have come from the heavenly world, + if he can believe in the Ornithorhyncus upon the testimony of + travelers.” Tennyson, Two Voices: “This truth within thy mind + rehearse, That in a boundless universe Is boundless better, + boundless worse. Think you this world of hopes and fears Could + find no statelier than his peers In yonder hundred million + spheres?” + + The doctrine of angels affords a barrier against the false + conception of this world as including the whole spiritual + universe. Earth is only part of a larger organism. As Christianity + has united Jew and Gentile, so hereafter will it blend our own and + other orders of creation: _Col. 2:10_—“_who is the head of all + principality and power_”—Christ is the head of angels as well as + of men; _Eph. 1:10_—“_to sum up all things in Christ, the things + in the heavens, and the things upon the earth._” On Christ and + Angels, see Robertson Smith in The Expositor, second series, vols. + 1, 2, 3. On the general subject of angels, see also Whately, Good + and Evil Angels; Twesten, transl. in Bib. Sac., 1:768, and 2:108; + Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 2:282-337, and 3:251-354; Birks, + Difficulties of Belief, 78 sq.; Scott, Existence of Evil Spirits; + Herzog, Encyclopädie, arts.: Engel, Teufel; Jewett, + Diabolology,—the Person and Kingdom of Satan; Alexander, Demonic + Possession. + + +I. Scripture Statements and Imitations. + + +1. As to the nature and attributes of angels. + + +(_a_) They are created beings. + + + _Ps. 148:2-5_—“_Praise ye him, all his angels.... For he + commanded, and they were created_”; _Col. 1:16_—“_for in him were + all things created ... whether thrones or dominions or + principalities or powers_”; _cf._ _1 Pet. 3:32_—“_angels and + authorities and powers._” God alone is uncreated and eternal. This + is implied in _1 Tim. 6:16_—“_who only hath immortality._” + + +(_b_) They are incorporeal beings. + + + In _Heb. 1:14_, where a single word is used to designate angels, + they are described as “_spirits_”—“_are they not all ministering + spirits?_” Men, with their twofold nature, material as well as + immaterial, could not well be designated as “_spirits_.” That + their being characteristically “_spirits_” forbids us to regard + angels as having a bodily organism, seems implied in _Eph. + 6:12_—“_for our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but + against ... the spiritual hosts_ [or “_things_”] _of wickedness in + the heavenly places_”; cf. _Eph. 1:3_; _2:6_. In _Gen. 6:2_, + “_sons of God_” =, not angels, but descendants of Seth and + worshipers of the true God (see Murphy, Com., _in loco_). In _Ps. + 78:25_ (A. V.), “_angels’ food_” = manna coming from heaven where + angels dwell; better, however, read with Rev. Vers.: “_bread of + the mighty_”—probably meaning angels, though the word “_mighty_” + is nowhere else applied to them; possibly = “bread of princes or + nobles,” _i. e._, the finest, most delicate bread. _Mat + 22:30_—“_neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as + angels in heaven_”—and _Luke 20:36_—“_neither can they die any + more: for they are equal unto the angels_”—imply only that angels + are without distinctions of sex. Saints are to be like angels, not + as being incorporeal, but as not having the same sexual relations + which they have here. + + There are no “souls of angels,” as there are “_souls of men_” + (_Rev. 18:13_), and we may infer that angels have no bodies for + souls to inhabit; see under Essential Elements of Human Nature. + Nevius, Demon-Possession, 258, attributes to evil spirits an + instinct or longing for a body to possess, even though it be the + body of an inferior animal: “So in Scripture we have spirits + represented as wandering about to seek rest in bodies, and asking + permission to enter into swine” (_Mat. 12:43; 8:31_). Angels + therefore, since they have no bodies, know nothing of growth, age, + or death. Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, 133—“It is precisely + because the angels are only spirits, but not souls, that they + cannot possess the same rich existence as man, whose soul is the + point of union in which spirit and nature meet.” + + +(_c_) They are personal—that is, intelligent and voluntary—agents. + + + _2 Sam. 14:20_—“_wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of + God_”; _Luke 4:34_—“_I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of + God_”; _2 Tim. 2:26_—“_snare of the devil ... taken captive by him + unto his will_”; _Rev. 22:9_—“_See thou do it not_” = exercise of + will; _Rev. 12:12_—“_The devil is gone down unto you, having great + wrath_” = set purpose of evil. + + +(_d_) They are possessed of superhuman intelligence and power, yet an +intelligence and power that has its fixed limits. + + + _Mat. 24:36_—“_of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the + angels of heaven_” = their knowledge, though superhuman, is yet + finite. _1 Pet. 1:12_—“_which things angels desire to look into_”; + _Ps. 103:20_—“_angels ... mighty in strength_”; _2 Thess. + 1:7_—“_the angels of his power_”; _2 Pet. 2:11_—“_angels, though + greater_ [than men] _in might and power_”; _Rev. 20:2, 10_—“_laid + hold on the dragon ... and bound him ... cast into the lake of + fire._” Compare _Ps. 72:18_—“_God ... Who only doeth wondrous + things_” = only God can perform miracles. Angels are imperfect + compared with God (_Job 4:18; 15:15; 25:5_). + + Power, rather than beauty or intelligence, is their striking + characteristic. They are “_principalities and powers_” (_Col. + 1:16_). They terrify those who behold them (_Mat. 28:4_). The + rolling away of the stone from the sepulchre took strength. A + wheel of granite, eight feet in diameter and one foot thick, + rolling in a groove, would weigh more than four tons. Mason, Faith + of the Gospel, 86—“The spiritual might and burning indignation in + the face of Stephen reminded the guilty Sanhedrin of an angelic + vision.” Even in their tenderest ministrations they strengthen + (_Luke 22:43_; _cf._ _Dan. 10:19_). In _1 Tim. 6:15_—“_King of + kings and Lord of lords_”—the words “_kings_” and “_lords_” + (βασιλευόντων and κυριευόντων) may refer to angels. In the case of + evil spirits especially, power seems the chief thing in mind, _e. + g._, “_the prince of this world_,” “_the strong man armed_,” “_the + power of darkness_,” “_rulers of the darkness of this world_,” + “_the great dragon,_” “_all the power of the enemy_,” “_all these + things will I give thee_,” “_deliver us from the evil one_.” + + +(_e_) They are an order of intelligences distinct from man and older than +man. + + + Angels are distinct from man. _1 Cor. 6:3_—“_we shall judge + angels_”; _Heb. 1:14_—“_Are they not all ministering spirits, sent + forth to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit + salvation?_” They are not glorified human spirits; see _Heb. + 2:16_—“_for verily not to angels doth he give help, but he giveth + help to __ the seed of Abraham_”; also _12:22, 23_, where “_the + innumerable hosts of angels_” are distinguished from “_the church + of the firstborn_” and “_the spirits of just men made perfect_.” + In _Rev. 22:9_—“_I am a fellow-servant with + thee_”—“_fellow-servant_” intimates likeness to men, not in + nature, but in service and subordination to God, the proper object + of worship. Sunday School Times, Mch. 15, 1902:146—“Angels are + spoken of as greater in power and might than man, but that could + be said of many a lower animal, or even of whirlwind and fire. + Angels are never spoken of as a superior order of spiritual + beings. We are to ‘_judge angels_’ (_1 Cor. 6:3_), and inferiors + are not to judge superiors.” + + Angels are an order of intelligences older than man. The Fathers + made the creation of angels simultaneous with the original calling + into being of the elements, perhaps basing their opinion on the + apocryphal Ecclesiasticus, 18:1—“he that liveth eternally created + all things together.” In _Job 38:7_, the Hebrews parallelism makes + “_morning stars_”—“_sons of God,_” so that angels are spoken of as + present at certain stages of God’s creative work. The mention of + “_the serpent_” in _Gen. 3:1_ implies the fall of Satan before the + fall of man. We may infer that the creation of angels took place + before the creation of man—the lower before the higher. In _Gen. + 2:1_, “_all the host of them,_” which God had created, may be + intended to include angels. Man was the crowning work of creation, + created after angels were created. Mason, Faith of the Gospel, + 81—“Angels were perhaps created before the material heavens and + earth—a spiritual substratum in which the material things were + planted, a preparatory creation to receive what was to follow. In + the vision of Jacob they ascend first and descend after; their + natural place is in the world below.” + + +The constant representation of angels as personal beings in Scripture +cannot be explained as a personification of abstract good and evil, in +accommodation to Jewish superstitions, without wresting many narrative +passages from their obvious sense; implying on the part of Christ either +dissimulation or ignorance as to an important point of doctrine; and +surrendering belief in the inspiration of the Old Testament from which +these Jewish views of angelic beings were derived. + + + Jesus accommodated himself to the popular belief in respect at + least to “_Abraham’s bosom_” (_Luke 16:22_), and he confessed + ignorance with regard to the time of the end (_Mark 13:32_); see + Rush Rhees, Life of Jesus of Nazareth, 245-248. But in the former + case his hearers probably understood him to speak figuratively and + rhetorically, while in the latter case there was no teaching of + the false but only limitation of knowledge with regard to the + true. Our Lord did not hesitate to contradict Pharisaic belief in + the efficacy of ceremonies, and Sadducean denial of resurrection + and future life. The doctrine of angels had even stronger hold + upon the popular mind than had these errors of the Pharisees and + Sadducees. That Jesus did not correct or deny the general belief, + but rather himself expressed and confirmed it, implies that the + belief was rational and Scriptural. For one of the best statements + of the argument for the existence of evil spirits, see Broadus, + Com. on _Mat. 8:28_. + + _Eph. 3:10_—“_to the intent that now unto the principalities and + the powers in the heavenly places might be made known through the + church the manifold wisdom of God_”—excludes the hypothesis that + angels are simply abstract conceptions of good or evil. We speak + of “moon-struck” people (lunatics), only when we know that nobody + supposes us to believe in the power of the moon to cause madness. + But Christ’s contemporaries _did_ suppose him to believe in + angelic spirits, good and evil. If this belief was an error, it + was by no means a harmless one, and the benevolence as well as the + veracity of Christ would have led him to correct it. So too, if + Paul had known that there were no such beings as angels, he could + not honestly have contented himself with forbidding the Colossians + to worship them (_Col 2:18_) but would have denied their + existence, as he denied the existence of heathen gods (_1 Cor. + 8:4_). + + Theodore Parker said it was very evident that Jesus Christ + believed in a personal devil. Harnack, Wesen des Christenthums, + 35—“There can be no doubt that Jesus shared with his + contemporaries the representation of two kingdoms, the kingdom of + God and the kingdom of the devil.” Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, + 1:164—Jesus “makes it appear as if Satan was the immediate + tempter. I am far from thinking that he does so in a merely + figurative way. Beyond all doubt Jesus accepted the contemporary + ideas as to the real existence of Satan, and accordingly, in the + particular cases of disease referred to, he supposes a real + Satanic temptation.” Maurice, Theological Essays, 32, 34—“The + acknowledgment of an evil spirit is characteristic of + Christianity.” H. B. Smith, System, 261—“It would appear that the + power of Satan in the world reached its culminating point at the + time of Christ, and has been less ever since.” + + +The same remark applies to the view which regards Satan as but a +collective term for all evil beings, human or superhuman. The Scripture +representations of the progressive rage of the great adversary, from his +first assault on human virtue in Genesis to his final overthrow in +Revelation, join with the testimony of Christ just mentioned, to forbid +any other conclusion than this, that there is a personal being of great +power, who carries on organized opposition to the divine government. + + + Crane, The Religion of To-morrow, 299 sq.—“We well say ‘personal + devil,’ for there is no devil but personality.” We cannot deny the + personality of Satan except upon principles which would compel us + to deny the existence of good angels, the personality of the Holy + Spirit, and the personality of God the Father,—we may add, even + the personality of the human soul. Says Nigel Penruddock in Lord + Beaconsfield’s “Endymion”: “Give me a single argument against his + [Satan’s] personality, which is not applicable to the personality + of the Deity.” One of the most ingenious devices of Satan is that + of persuading men that he has no existence. Next to this is the + device of substituting for belief in a personal devil the belief + in a merely impersonal spirit of evil. Such a substitution we find + in Pfleiderer, Philosophy of Religion, 1:311—“The idea of the + devil was a welcome expedient for the need of advanced religious + reflection, to put God out of relation to the evil and badness of + the world.” Pfleiderer tells us that the early optimism of the + Hebrews, like that of the Greeks, gave place in later times to + pessimism and despair. But the Hebrews still had hope of + deliverance by the Messiah and an apocalyptic reign of good. + + For the view that Satan is merely a collective term for all evil + beings, see Bushnell, Nature and the Supernatural, 131-137. + Bushnell, holding moral evil to be a necessary “condition + privative” of all finite beings as such, believes that “good + angels have all been passed through and helped up out of a fall, + as the redeemed of mankind will be.” “_Elect angels_” (_1 Tim. + 5:21_) then would mean those saved _after_ falling, not those + saved _from_ falling; and “_Satan_” would be, not the name of a + particular person, but the all or total of all bad minds and + powers. _Per contra_, see Smith’s Bible Dictionary, arts.: Angels, + Demons, Demoniacs, Satan; Trench, Studies in the Gospels, 16-26. + For a comparison of Satan in the Book of Job, with Milton’s Satan + in “Paradise Lost,” and Goethe’s Mephistopheles in “Faust,” see + Masson, The Three Devils. We may add to this list Dante’s Satan + (or Dis) in the “Divine Comedy,” Byron’s Lucifer in “Cain,” and + Mrs. Browning’s Lucifer in her “Drama of Exile”; see Gregory, + Christian Ethics, 219. + + +2. As to their number and organization. + + +(_a_) They are of great multitude. + + + _Deut. 33:2_—“_Jehovah ... came from the ten thousands of holy + ones_”; _Ps. 68:17_—“_The chariots of God are twenty thousand, + even thousands upon thousands_”; _Dan. 7:10_—“_thousands of + thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand + stood before him_”; _Rev. 5:11_—“_I heard a voice of many angels + ... and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, + and thousands of thousands._” Anselm thought that the number of + lost angels was filled up by the number of elect men. Savage, Life + after Death, 61—The Pharisees held very exaggerated notions of the + number of angelic spirits. They “said that a man, if he threw a + stone over his shoulder or cast away a broken piece of pottery, + asked pardon of any spirit that he might possibly have hit in so + doing.” So in W. H. H. Murray’s time it was said to be dangerous + in the Adirondack to fire a gun,—you might hit a man. + + +(_b_) They constitute a company, as distinguished from a race. + + + _Mat. 22:30_—“_they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but + are as angels in heaven_”; _Luke 20:36_—“_neither can they die any + more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are sons of God._” + We are called “_sons of men_,” but angels are never called “_sons + of angels_,” but only “_sons of God_.” They are not developed from + one original stock, and no such common nature binds them together + as binds together the race of man. They have no common character + and history. Each was created separately, and each apostate angel + fell by himself. Humanity fell all at once in its first father. + Cut down a tree, and you cut down its branches. But angels were so + many separate trees. Some lapsed into sin, but some remained holy. + See Godet, Bib. Studies O. T., 1-29. This may be one reason why + salvation was provided for fallen man, but not for fallen angels. + Christ could join himself to humanity by taking the common nature + of all. There was no common nature of angels which he could take. + See _Heb. 2:16_—“_not to angels doth he give help._” The angels + are “_sons of God_,” as having no earthly parentage and no + parentage at all except the divine. _Eph. 3:14, 15_—“_the Father, + of whom every fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named,_”—not + “_every family_,” as in R. V., for there are no families among the + angels. The marginal rendering “_fatherhood_” is better than + “_family_,”—all the πατριαί are named from the πατήρ. Dodge, + Christian Theology, 172—“The bond between angels is simply a + mental and moral one. They can gain nothing by inheritance, + nothing through domestic and family life, nothing through a + society held together by a bond of blood.... Belonging to two + worlds and not simply to one, the human soul has in it the springs + of a deeper and wider experience than angels can have.... God + comes nearer to man than to his angels.” Newman Smyth, Through + Science to Faith, 191—“In the resurrection life of man, the + species has died; man the individual lives on. Sex shall be no + more needed for the sake of life; they shall no more marry, but + men and women, the children of marriage, shall be as the angels. + Through the death of the human species shall be gained, as the + consummation of all, the immortality of the individuals.” + + +(_c_) They are of various ranks and endowments. + + + _Col. 1:16_—“_thrones or dominions or principalities or powers_”; + _1 Thess. 4:16_—“_the voice of the archangel_”; _Jude 9_—“_Michael + the archangel._” Michael (= who is like God?) is the only one + expressly called an archangel in Scripture, although Gabriel (= + God’s hero) has been called an archangel by Milton. In Scripture, + Michael seems the messenger of law and judgment; Gabriel, the + messenger of mercy and promise. The fact that Scripture has but + one archangel is proof that its doctrine of angels was not, as has + sometimes been charged, derived from Babylonian and Persian + sources; for there we find seven archangels instead of one. There, + moreover, we find the evil spirit enthroned as a god, while in + Scripture he is represented as a trembling slave. + + Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 1:51—“The devout and trustful + consciousness of the immediate nearness of God, which is expressed + in so many beautiful utterances of the Psalmist, appears to be + supplanted in later Judaism by a belief in angels, which is + closely analogous to the superstitious belief in the saints on the + part of the Romish church. It is very significant that the Jews in + the time of Jesus could no longer conceive of the promulgation of + the law on Sinai, which was to them the foundation of their whole + religion, as an immediate revelation of Jehovah to Moses, except + as instituted through the mediation of angels (_Acts 7:38, 53_; + _Gal. 3:19_; _Heb. 2:2_; Josephus, Ant. 15:5, 3).” + + +(_d_) They have an organization. + + + _1 Sam. 1:11_—“_Jehovah of hosts_”; _1 K. 22:19_—“_Jehovah sitting + on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his + right hand and on his left_”; _Mat. 26:53_—“_twelve legions of + angels_”—suggests the organization of the Roman army; + _25:41_—“_the devil and his angels_”; _Eph. 2:2_—“_the prince of + the powers in the air_”; _Rev. 2:13_—“_Satan’s throne_” (not + “_seat_”); _16:10_—“_throne of the beast_”—“a hellish parody of + the heavenly kingdom” (Trench). The phrase “_host of heaven_,” in + _Deut. 4:19_; _17:3_; _Acts 7:42_, probably = the stars; but in + _Gen. 32:2_, “_God’s host_” = angels, for when Jacob saw the + angels he said “_this is God’s host_.” In general the phrases + “_God of hosts_”, “_Lord of hosts_” seem to mean “God of angels”, + “Lord of angels”: compare _2 Chron. 18:18_; _Luke 2:13_; _Rev. + 19:14_—“_the armies which are in heaven._” Yet in _Neh. 9:6_ and + _Ps. 33:6_ the word “_host_” seems to include both angels and + stars. + + Satan is “the ape of God.” He has a throne. He is “_the prince of + the world_” (_John 14:30; 16:11_), “_the prince of the powers of + the air_” (_Eph. 2:2_). There is a cosmos and order of evil, as + well as a cosmos and order of good, though Christ is stronger than + the strong man armed (_Luke 11:21_) and rules even over Satan. On + Satan in the Old Testament, see art. by T. W. Chambers, in Presb. + and Ref. Rev., Jan. 1892:22-34. The first mention of Satan is in + the account of the Fall in _Gen. 3:1-15_; the second in _Lev. + 16:8_, where one of the two goats on the day of atonement is said + to be “_for Azazel_,” or Satan; the third where Satan moved David + to number Israel (_1 Chron. 21:1_); the fourth in the book of _Job + 1:6-12_; the fifth in _Zech. 3:1-3_, where Satan stands as the + adversary of Joshua the high priest, but Jehovah addresses Satan + and rebukes him. Cheyne, Com. on Isaiah, vol. 1, p. 11, thinks + that the stars were first called the hosts of God, with the notion + that they were animated creatures. In later times the belief in + angels threw into the background the belief in the stars as + animated beings; the angels however were connected very closely + with the stars. Marlowe, in his Tamburlaine, says: “The moon, the + planets, and the meteors light, These angels in their crystal + armor fight A doubtful battle.” + + +With regard to the “cherubim” of Genesis, Exodus, and Ezekiel,—with which +the “seraphim” of Isaiah and the “living creatures” of the book of +Revelation are to be identified,—the most probable interpretation is that +which regards them, not as actual beings of higher rank than man, but as +symbolic appearances, intended to represent redeemed humanity, endowed +with all the creature perfections lost by the Fall, and made to be the +dwelling-place of God. + + + Some have held that the cherubim are symbols of the divine + attributes, or of God’s government over nature; see Smith’s Bib. + Dict., art.: Cherub; Alford, Com. on _Rev. 4:6-8_, and Hulsean + Lectures, 1841: vol. 1, Lect. 2; Ebrard, Dogmatik, 1:278. But + whatever of truth belongs to this view may be included in the + doctrine stated above. The cherubim are indeed symbols of nature + pervaded by the divine energy and subordinated to the divine + purposes, but they are symbols of nature only because they are + symbols of man in his twofold capacity of _image of God_ and + _priest of nature_. Man, as having a body, is a part of nature; as + having a soul, he emerges from nature and gives to nature a voice. + Through man, nature, otherwise blind and dead, is able to + appreciate and to express the Creator’s glory. + + The doctrine of the cherubim embraces the following points: 1. The + cherubim are not personal beings, but are artificial, temporary, + symbolic figures. 2. While they are not themselves personal + existences, they are symbols of personal existence—symbols not of + divine or angelic perfections but of human nature (_Ex. + 1:5_—“_they had the likeness of a man_”; _Rev. 5:9_—A. V.—“_thou + hast redeemed us to God by thy blood_”—so read א, B, and + Tregelles; the Eng. and Am. Rev. Vers., however, follow A and + Tischendorf, and omit the word “_us_”). 3. They are emblems of + human nature, not in its present stage of development, but + possessed of all its original perfections; for this reason the + most perfect animal forms—the kinglike courage of the lion, the + patient service of the ox, the soaring insight of the eagle—are + combined with that of man (_Ez. 1_ and _10_; _Rev. 4:6-8_). 4. + These cherubic forms represent, not merely material or earthly + perfections, but human nature spiritualized and sanctified. They + are “_living creatures_” and their life is a holy life of + obedience to the divine will (_Ez. 1:12_—“_whither the spirit was + to go, they went_”). 5. They symbolize a human nature exalted to + be the dwelling-place of God. Hence the inner curtains of the + tabernacle were inwoven with cherubic figures, and God’s glory was + manifested on the mercy-seat between the cherubim (_Ex. 37:6-9_). + While the flaming sword at the gates of Eden was the symbol of + justice, the cherubim were symbols of mercy—keeping the “_way of + the tree of life_” for man, until by sacrifice and renewal + Paradise should be regained (_Gen. 3:24_). + + In corroboration of this general view, note that angels and + cherubim never go together; and that in the closing visions of the + book of Revelation these symbolic forms are seen no longer. When + redeemed humanity has entered heaven, the figures which typified + that humanity, having served their purpose, finally disappear. For + fuller elaboration, see A. H. Strong, The Nature and Purpose of + the Cherubim, in Philosophy and Religion, 391-399; Fairbairn, + Typology, 1:185-208; Elliott, Horæ Apocalypticæ, 1:87; Bib. Sac., + 1876:32-51; Bib. Com., 1:49-52—“The winged lions, eagles, and + bulls, that guard the entrances of the palace of Nineveh, are + worshipers rather than divinities.” It has lately been shown that + the winged bull of Assyria was called “Kerub” almost as far back + as the time of Moses. The word appears in its Hebrew form 500 + years before the Jews had any contact with the Persian dominion. + The Jews did not derive it from any Aryan race. It belonged to + their own language. + + The variable form of the cherubim seems to prove that they are + symbolic appearances rather than real beings. A parallel may be + found in classical literature. In Horace, Carmina, 3:11, 15, + Cerberus has three heads; in 2:13, 34, he has a hundred. Bréal, + Semantics suggests that the three heads may be dog-heads, while + the hundred heads may be snake-heads. But Cerberus is also + represented in Greece as having only one head. Cerberus must + therefore be a symbol rather than an actually existing creature. + H. W. Congdon of Wyoming, N. Y., held, however, that the cherubim + are symbols of God’s life in the universe as a whole. _Ez. + 28:14-19_—“_the anointed cherub that covereth_”—the power of the + King of Tyre was so all-pervading throughout his dominion, his + sovereignty so absolute, and his decrees so instantly obeyed, that + his rule resembled the divine government over the world. Mr. + Congdon regarded the cherubim as a proof of monism. See + Margoliouth, The Lord’s Prayer, 159-180. On animal characteristics + in man, see Hopkins, Scriptural Idea of Man, 105. + + +3. As to their moral character. + + +(_a_) They were all created holy. + + + _Gen. 1:31_—“_God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it + was very good_”; _Jude 6_—“_angels that kept not their own + beginning_”—ἀρχήν seems here to mean their beginning in holy + character, rather than their original lordship and dominion. + + +(_b_) They had a probation. + + + This we infer from _1 Tim. 5:21_—“_the elect angels_”; _cf._ _1 + Pet. 1:1, 2_—“_elect ... unto obedience._” If certain angels, like + certain men, are “_elect ... unto obedience_,” it would seem to + follow that there was a period of probation, during which their + obedience or disobedience determined their future destiny; see + Ellicott on _1 Tim. 5:21_. Mason, Faith of the Gospel, + 106-108—“_Gen. 3:14_—‘_Because thou hast done this, cursed art + thou_’—in the sentence on the serpent, seems to imply that Satan’s + day of grace was ended when he seduced man. Thenceforth he was + driven to live on dust, to triumph only in sin, to pick up a + living out of man, to possess man’s body or soul, to tempt from + the good.” + + +(_c_) Some preserved their integrity. + + + _Ps. 89:7_—“_the council of the holy ones_”—a designation of + angels; _Mark 8:38_—“_the holy angels._” Shakespeare, Macbeth, + 4:3—“Angels are bright still, though the brightest fell.” + + +(_d_) Some fell from their state of innocence. + + + _John 8:44_—“_He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth + not in the truth, because there is no truth in him_”; _2 Pet. + 2:4_—“_angels when they sinned_”; _Jude 6_—“_angels who kept not + their own beginning, but left their proper habitation._” + Shakespeare, Henry VIII, 3:2—“Cromwell, I charge thee, fling away + ambition; By that sin fell the angels; how can man then, The image + of his Maker, hope to win by it?... How wretched Is that poor man + that hangs on princes’ favors!... When he falls, he falls like + Lucifer, Never to hope again.” + + +(_e_) The good are confirmed in good. + + + _Mat. 6:10_—“_Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth_”; + _18:10_—“_in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my + Father who is in heaven_”; _2 Cor. 11:14_—“_an angel of light._” + + +(_f_) The evil are confirmed in evil. + + + _Mat. 13:19_—“_the evil one_”; _1 John 5:18, 19_—“_the evil one + toucheth him not ... the whole world lieth in the evil one_”; + _cf._ _John 8:44_—“_Ye are of your father the devil ... When he + speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the + father thereof_”; _Mat. 6:13_—“_deliver us from the evil one._” + + From these Scriptural statements we infer that all free creatures + pass through a period of probation; that probation does not + necessarily involve a fall; that there is possible a sinless + development of moral beings. Other Scriptures seem to intimate + that the revelation of God in Christ is an object of interest and + wonder to other orders of intelligence than our own; that they are + drawn in Christ more closely to God and to us; in short, that they + are confirmed in their integrity by the cross. See _1 Pet. + 1:12_—“_which things angels desire to look into_”; _Eph. + 3:10_—“_that now unto the principalities and the powers in the + heavenly places might be made known through the church the + manifold wisdom of God_”; _Col. 1:20_—“_through him to reconcile + all things unto himself ... whether things upon the earth, or + things in the heavens_”; _Eph. 1:10_—“_to sum up all things in + Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the + earth_”—“the unification of the whole universe in Christ as the + divine centre.... The great system is a harp all whose strings are + in tune but one, and that one jarring string makes discord + throughout the whole. The whole universe shall feel the influence, + and shall be reduced to harmony, when that one string, the world + in which we live, shall be put in tune by the hand of love and + mercy”—freely quoted from Leitch, God’s Glory in the Heavens, + 327-330. + + It is not impossible that God is using this earth as a + breeding-ground from which to populate the universe. Mark Hopkins, + Life, 317—“While there shall be gathered at last and preserved, as + Paul says, a holy church, and every man shall be perfect and the + church shall be spotless.... there will be other forms of + perfection in other departments of the universe. And when the + great day of restitution shall come and God shall vindicate his + government, there may be seen to be coming in from other + departments of the universe a long procession of angelic forms, + great white legions from Sirius, from Arcturus and the chambers of + the South, gathering around the throne of God and that centre + around which the universe revolves.” + + +4. As to their employments. + + +A. The employments of good angels. + + +(_a_) They stand in the presence of God and worship him. + + + _Ps. 29:1, 2_—“_Ascribe unto Jehovah, O ye sons of the mighty, + Ascribe unto Jehovah glory and strength. Ascribe unto Jehovah the + glory due unto his name. Worship Jehovah in holy array_”—Perowne: + “Heaven being thought of as one great temple, and all the + worshipers therein as clothed in priestly vestments.” _Ps. + 89:7_—“_a God very terrible in the council of the holy ones,_” _i. + e._, angels—Perowne: “Angels are called an assembly or + congregation, as the church above, which like the church below + worships and praises God.” _Mat. 18:10_—“_in heaven their angels + do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven._” In + apparent allusion to this text, Dante represents the saints as + dwelling in the presence of God yet at the same time rendering + humble service to their fellow men here upon the earth. Just in + proportion to their nearness to God and the light they receive + from him, is the influence they are able to exert over others. + + +(_b_) They rejoice in God’s works. + + + _Job 38:7_—“_all the sons of God shouted for joy_”; _Luke + 15:10_—“_there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over + one sinner that repenteth_”; _cf._ _2 Tim. 2:25_—“_if peradventure + God may give them repentance._” Dante represents the angels that + are nearest to God, the infinite source of life, as ever advancing + toward the spring-time of youth, so that the oldest angels are the + youngest. + + +(_c_) They execute God’s will,—by working in nature; + + + _Ps. 103:20_—“_Ye his angels ... that fulfil his word, Hearkening + unto the voice of his word_”; _104:4_ marg.—“_Who maketh his + angels winds_; _His ministers a flaming fire_,” _i. e._, + lightnings. See Alford on _Heb. 1:7_—“The order of the Hebrew + words here [in _Ps. 104:4_] is not the same as in the former + verses (see especially _v. 3_), where we have: ‘_Who maketh the + clouds his chariot_.’ For this transposition, those who insist + that the passage means ‘he maketh winds his messengers’ can give + no reason.” + + Farrar on _Heb. 1:7_—“_He maketh his angels winds_”; “The Rabbis + often refer to the fact that God makes his angels assume any form + he pleases, whether man (_Gen. 18:2_) or woman (_Zech 5:9_—‘_two + women, and the wind was in their wings_’), or wind or flame (_Ex. + 3:2_—‘_angel ... in a flame of fire_’; _2 K. 6:17_). But that + untenable and fleeting form of existence which is the glory of the + angels would be an inferiority in the Son. He could not be + clothed, as they are at God’s will, in the fleeting robes of + material phenomena.” John Henry Newman, in his Apologia, sees an + angel in every flower. Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 82—“Origen + thought not a blade of grass nor a fly was without its angel. + _Rev. 14:18_—an angel ‘_that hath power over fire_’; _John + 5:4_—intermittent spring under charge of an angel; _Mat. + 28:2_—descent of an angel caused earthquake on the morning of + Christ’s resurrection; _Luke 13:11_—control of diseases is + ascribed to angels.” + + +(_d_) by guiding the affairs of nations; + + + _Dan. 10:12, 13, 21_—“_I come for thy words’ sake. But the prince + of the kingdom of Persia withstood me ... Michael, one of the + chief princes, came to help me ... Michael your prince_”; + _11:1_—“_And as for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I + stood up to confirm and strengthen him_”; _12:1_—“_at that time + shall Michael stand up, the great prince who standeth for the + children of thy people._” Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 87, suggests + the question whether “the spirit of the age” or “the national + character” in any particular case may not be due to the unseen + “principalities” under which men live. Paul certainly recognizes, + in _Eph. 2:2_, “_the prince of the powers of the air, ... the + spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience._” May not + good angels be entrusted with influence over nations’ affairs to + counteract the evil and help the good? + + +(_e_) by watching over the interests of particular churches; + + + _1 Cor. 11:10_—“_for this cause ought the women to have a sign of + authority_ [_i. e._, a veil] _on her head, because of the + angels_”—who watch over the church and have care for its order. + Matheson, Spiritual Development of St. Paul, 242—“Man’s covering + is woman’s power. Ministration _is_ her power and it allies her + with a greater than man—the angel. Christianity is a feminine + strength. Judaism had made woman only a means to an end—the + multiplication of the race. So it had degraded her. Paul will + restore woman to her original and equal dignity.” _Col. + 2:18_—“_Let no man rob you of your prize by a voluntary humility + and worshiping of the angels_”—a false worship which would be very + natural if angels were present to guard the meetings of the + saints. _1 Tim. 5:21_—“_I charge thee in the sight of God, and + Christ Jesus, and the elect angels, that thou observe these + things_”—the public duties of the Christian minister. + + Alford regards “_the angels of the seven churches_” (_Rev. 1:20_) + as superhuman beings appointed to represent and guard the + churches, and that upon the grounds: (1) that the word is used + elsewhere in the book of Revelation only in this sense; and (2) + that nothing in the book is addressed to a teacher individually, + but all to some one who reflects the complexion and fortunes of + the church as no human person could. We prefer, however, to regard + “_the angels of the seven churches_” as meaning simply the pastors + of the seven churches. The word “_angel_” means simply + “messenger,” and may be used of human as well as of superhuman + beings—see _Hag. 1:13_—“_Haggai, Jehovah’s messenger_”—literally, + “_the angel of Jehovah_.” The use of the word in this figurative + sense would not be incongruous with the mystical character of the + book of Revelation (see Bib. Sac. 12:339). John Lightfoot, Heb. + and Talmud. Exerc., 2:90, says that “angel” was a term designating + officer or elder of a synagogue. See also Bp. Lightfoot, Com. on + Philippians, 187, 188; Jacobs, Eccl. Polity, 100 and note. In the + Irvingite church, accordingly, “angels” constitute an official + class. + + +(_f_) by assisting and protecting individual believers; + + + _1 K. 19:5_—“_an angel touched him_ [Elijah], _and said unto him, + Arise and eat_”; _Ps. 91:11_—“_he will give his angels charge over + thee, To keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in + their hands, Lest thou dash thy foot against a stone_”; _Dan. + 6:22_—“_My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions’ + mouths, and they have not hurt me_”; _Mat. 4:11_—“_angels came and + ministered unto him_”—Jesus was the type of all believers; + _18:10_—“_despise not one of these little ones, for I say unto + you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my + Father_”; compare _verse 6_—“_one of these little ones that + believe on me_”; see Meyer, Com. _in loco_, who regards these + passages as proving the doctrine of guardian angels. _Luke + 16:22_—“_the beggar died, and ... was carried away by the angels + into Abraham’s bosom_”; _Heb. 1:14_—“_Are they not all ministering + spirits, sent forth to do service for the sake of them that shall + inherit salvation?_” Compare _Acts 12:15_—“_And they said, It is + his angel_”—of Peter standing knocking; see Hackett, Com. _in + loco_: the utterance “expresses a popular belief prevalent among + the Jews, which is neither affirmed nor denied.” Shakespeare, + Henry IV, 2nd part, 2:2—“For the boy—there is a good angel about + him.” _Per contra_, see Broadus, Com. on _Mat. 18:10_—“It is + simply said of believers as a class that there are angels which + are ‘_their angels_’; but there is nothing here or elsewhere to + show that one angel has special charge of one believer.” + + +(_g_) by punishing God’s enemies. + + + _2 K. 19:35_—“_it came to pass that night, that the angel of + Jehovah went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an + hundred fourscore and five thousand_”; _Acts 12:23_—“_And + immediately an angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not + God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost._” + + +A general survey of this Scripture testimony as to the employments of good +angels leads us to the following conclusions: + +First,—that good angels are not to be considered as the mediating agents +of God’s regular and common providence, but as the ministers of his +special providence in the affairs of his church. He “maketh his angels +winds” and “a flaming fire,” not in his ordinary procedure, but in +connection with special displays of his power for moral ends (Deut. 33:2; +Acts 7:53; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2). Their intervention is apparently +occasional and exceptional—not at their own option, but only as it is +permitted or commanded by God. Hence we are not to conceive of angels as +coming between us and God, nor are we, without special revelation of the +fact, to attribute to them in any particular case the effects which the +Scriptures generally ascribe to divine providence. Like miracles, +therefore, angelic appearances generally mark God’s entrance upon new +epochs in the unfolding of his plans. Hence we read of angels at the +completion of creation (Job 38:7); at the giving of the law (Gal 3:19); at +the birth of Christ (Luke 2:13); at the two temptations in the wilderness +and in Gethsemane (Mat. 4:11, Luke 22:43); at the resurrection (Mat. +28:2); at the ascension (Acts 1:10); at the final judgment (Mat. 25:31). + + + The substance of these remarks may be found in Hodge, Systematic + Theology, 1:637-645. Milton tells us that “Millions of spiritual + creatures walk the earth Unseen, both when we wake and when we + sleep.” Whether this be true or not, it is a question of interest + why such angelic beings as have to do with human affairs are not + at present seen by men. Paul’s admonition against the “_worshiping + of the angels_” (_Col. 2:18_) seems to suggest the reason. If men + have not abstained from worshiping their fellow-men, when these + latter have been priests or media of divine communications, the + danger of idolatry would be much greater if we came into close and + constant contact with angels; see _Rev. 22:8, 9_—“_I fell down to + worship before the feet of the angel which showed me these things. + And he saith unto me, See thou do it not._” + + The fact that we do not in our day see angels should not make us + sceptical as to their existence any more than the fact that we do + not in our day see miracles should make us doubt the reality of + the New Testament miracles. As evil spirits were permitted to work + most actively when Christianity began its appeal to men, so good + angels were then most frequently recognized as executing the + divine purposes. Nevius, Demon-Possession, 278, thinks that evil + spirits are still at work where Christianity comes in conflict + with heathenism, and that they retire into the background as + Christianity triumphs. This may be true also of good angels. + Otherwise we might be in danger of overestimating their greatness + and authority. Father Taylor was right when he said: “Folks are + better than angels.” It is vain to sing: “I want to be an angel.” + We never shall be angels. Victor Hugo is wrong when he says: “I am + the tadpole of an archangel.” John Smith is not an angel, and he + never will be. But he may be far greater than an angel, because + Christ took, not the nature of angels, but the nature of man + (_Heb. 2:16_). + + As intimated above, there is no reason to believe that even the + invisible presence of angels is a constant one. Doddridge’s dream + of accident prevented by angelic interposition seems to embody the + essential truth. We append the passages referred to in the text. + _Job 38:7_—“_When the morning stars sang together, And all the + sons of God shouted for joy_”; _Deut. 33:2_—“_Jehovah came from + Sinai ... he came from the ten thousands of holy ones: At his + right hand was a fiery law for them_”; _Gal. 3:19_—“_it_ [the law] + _was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator_”; _Heb. + 2:2_—“_the word spoken through angels_”; _Acts 7:53_—“_who + received the law as it was ordained by angels_”; _Luke + 2:13_—“_suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the + heavenly host_”; _Mat. 4:11_—“_Then the devil leaveth him; and + behold, angels came and ministered unto him_”; _Luke 22:43_—“_And + there appeared unto him an angel from heaven, strengthening him_”; + _Mat. 28:2_—“_an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came + and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it_”; _Acts 1:10_—“_And + while they were looking steadfastly into heaven as he went, + behold, two men stood by them in white apparel_”; _Mat. + 25:31_—“_when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the + angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory._” + + +Secondly,—that their power, as being in its nature dependent and derived, +is exercised in accordance with the laws of the spiritual and natural +world. They cannot, like God, create, perform miracles, act without means, +search the heart. Unlike the Holy Spirit, who can influence the human mind +directly, they can influence men only in ways analogous to those by which +men influence each other. As evil angels may tempt men to sin, so it is +probable that good angels may attract men to holiness. + + + Recent psychical researches disclose almost unlimited + possibilities of influencing other minds by suggestion. Slight + physical phenomena, as the odor of a violet or the sight in a book + of a crumpled roseleaf, may start trains of thought which change + the whole course of a life. A word or a look may have great power + over us. Fisher, Nature and Method of Revelation, 276—“The facts + of hypnotism illustrate the possibility of one mind falling into a + strange thraldom under another.” If other men can so powerfully + influence us, it is quite possible that spirits which are not + subject to limitations of the flesh may influence us yet more. + + Binet, in his Alterations of Personality, says that experiments on + hysterical patients have produced in his mind the conviction that, + in them at least, “a plurality of persons exists.... We have + established almost with certainty that in such patients, side by + side with the principal personality, there is a secondary + personality, which is unknown by the first, which sees, hears, + reflects, reasons and acts”; see Andover Review, April, 1890:422. + Hudson, Law of Psychic Phenomena, 81-143, claims that we have two + minds, the objective and conscious, and the subjective and + unconscious. The latter works automatically upon suggestion from + the objective or from other minds. In view of the facts referred + to by Binet and Hudson, we claim that the influence of angelic + spirits is no more incredible than is the influence of suggestion + from living men. There is no need of attributing the phenomena of + hypnotism to spirits of the dead. Our human nature is larger and + more susceptible to spiritual influence than we have commonly + believed. These psychical phenomena indeed furnish us with a + corroboration of our Ethical Monism, for if in one human being + there may be two or more consciousnesses, then in the one God + there may be not only three infinite personalities but also + multitudinous finite personalities. See T. H. Wright, The Finger + of God, 124-133. + + +B. The employments of evil angels. + + +(_a_) They oppose God and strive to defeat his will. This is indicated in +the names applied to their chief. The word “Satan” means +“adversary”—primarily to God, secondarily to men; the term “devil” +signifies “slanderer”—of God to men, and of men to God. It is indicated +also in the description of the “man of sin” as “he that opposeth and +exalteth himself against all that is called God.” + + + _Job 1:6_—Satan appears among “_the sons of God_”; _Zech. + 3:1_—“_Joshua the high priest ... and Satan standing at his right + hand to be his adversary_”; _Mat. 13:39_—“_the enemy that sowed + them is the devil_”; _1 Pet. 5:8_—“_your adversary the devil._” + Satan slanders God to men, in _Gen. 3:1, 4_—“_Yea, hath God + said?... Ye shall not surely die_”; men to God, in _Job 1:9, + 11_—“_Doth Job fear God for naught?... put forth thy hand now, and + touch all that he hath, and he will renounce thee to thy face_”; + _2:4, 5_—“_Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give + for his life. But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and + his flesh, and he will renounce thee to thy face_”; _Rev. + 12:10_—“_the accuser of our brethren is cast down, who accuseth + them before our God night and day._” + + Notice how, over against the evil spirit who thus accuses God to + man and man to God, stands the Holy Spirit, the Advocate, who + pleads God’s cause with man and man’s cause with God: _John + 16:8_—“_he, when he is come, will convict the world in respect of + sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment_”; _Rom. 8:26_—“_the + Spirit also helpeth our infirmity: for we know not how to pray as + we ought; but the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us with + groanings which cannot be uttered._” Hence Balaam can say: _Num. + 23:21_, “_He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, Neither hath he + seen perverseness in Israel_”; and the Lord can say to Satan as he + resists Joshua: “_Jehovah rebuke thee, O Satan; yea, Jehovah that + hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee_” (_Zech. 3:2_). “Thus he puts + himself between his people and every tongue that would accuse + them” (C. H. M.). For the description of the “_man of sin_,” see + _2 Thess. 2:3, 4_—“_he that opposeth_”; _cf._ _verse 9_—“_whose + coming is according to the working of Satan._” + + On the “_man of sin_,” see Wm. Arnold Stevens, in Bap. Quar. Rev., + July, 1889:328-360. As in _Daniel 11:36_, the great enemy of the + faith, he who “_shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above + every God_”, is the Syrian King, Antiochus Epiphanes, so the man + of lawlessness described by Paul in _2 Thess. 2:3, 4_ was “the + corrupt and impious Judaism of the apostolic age.” This only had + its seat in the temple of God. It was doomed to destruction when + the Lord should come at the fall of Jerusalem. But this fulfilment + does not preclude a future and final fulfilment of the prophecy. + + +Contrasts between the Holy Spirit and the spirit of evil: 1. The dove, and +the serpent; 2. the father of lies, and the Spirit of truth; 3. men +possessed by dumb spirits, and men given wonderful utterance in diverse +tongues; 4. the murderer from the beginning, and the life-giving Spirit, +who regenerates the soul and quickens our mortal bodies; 5. the adversary, +and the Helper; 6. the slanderer, and the Advocate; 7. Satan’s sifting, +and the Master’s winnowing; 8. the organizing intelligence and malignity +of the evil one, and the Holy Spirit’s combination of all the forces of +matter and mind to build up the kingdom of God; 9. the strong man fully +armed, and a stronger than he; 10. the evil one who works only evil, and +the holy One who is the author of holiness in the hearts of men. The +opposition of evil angels, at first and ever since their fall, may be a +reason why they are incapable of redemption. + +(_b_) They hinder man’s temporal and eternal welfare,—sometimes by +exercising a certain control over natural phenomena, but more commonly by +subjecting man’s soul to temptation. Possession of man’s being, either +physical or spiritual, by demons, is also recognized in Scripture. + + + Control of natural phenomena is ascribed to evil spirits in _Job + 1:12, 16, 19_ and _2:7_—“_all that he hath is in thy power_”—and + Satan uses lightning, whirlwind, disease, for his purposes; _Luke + 13:11, 16_—“_a woman that had a spirit of infirmity ... whom Satan + had bound, lo, these eighteen years_”; _Acts 10:38_—“_healing all + that were oppressed of the devil_”; _2 Cor. 12:7_—“_a thorn in the + flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet me_”; _1 Thess. 2:18_—“_we + would fain have come unto you, I Paul once and again; and Satan + hindered us_”; _Heb. 2:14_—“_him that had the power of death, that + is, the devil._” Temptation is ascribed to evil spirits in _Gen. + 3:1_ _sq._—“_Now the serpent was more subtle_”; _cf._ _Rev. + 20:2_—“_the old serpent, which is the Devil and Satan_”; _Mat. + 4:3_—“_the tempter came_”; _John 13:27_—“_after the sop, then + entered Satan into him_”; _Acts 5:3_—“_why hath Satan filled thy + heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?_” _Eph. 2:2_—“_the spirit that + now worketh in the sons of disobedience_”; _1 Thess. 3:5_—“_lest + by any means the tempter had tempted you_”; _1 Pet 5:8_—“_your + adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking + whom he may devour._” + + At the time of Christ, popular belief undoubtedly exaggerated the + influence of evil spirits. Savage, Life after Death, 113—“While + God was at a distance, the demons were very, very near. The air + about the earth was full of these evil tempting spirits. They + caused shipwreck at sea, and sudden death on land; they blighted + the crops; they smote and blasted in the tempests; they took + possession of the bodies and the souls of men. They entered into + compacts, and took mortgages on men’s souls.” If some good end has + been attained in spite of them they feel that “Their labor must be + to pervert that end. And out of good still to find means of evil.” + In Goethe’s Faust, Margaret detects the evil in Mephistopheles: + “You see that he with no soul sympathizes. ’Tis written on his + face—he never loved.... Whenever he comes near, I cannot pray.” + Mephistopheles describes himself as “Ein Theil von jener Kraft Die + stäts das Böse will Und stäts das Gute schafft”—“Part of that + power not understood, which always wills the bad, and always works + the good”—through the overruling Providence of God. “The devil + says his prayers backwards.” “He tried to learn the Basque + language, but had to give it up, having learned only three words + in two years.” Walter Scott tells us that a certain sulphur spring + in Scotland was reputed to owe its quality to an ancient + compulsory immersion of Satan in it. + + Satan’s temptations are represented as both negative and + positive,—he takes away the seed sown, and he sows tares. He + controls many subordinate evil spirits; there is only one devil, + but there are many angels or demons, and through their agency + Satan may accomplish his purposes. + + Satan’s negative agency is shown in _Mark 4:15_—“_when they have + heard, straightway cometh Satan, and taketh away the word which + hath been sown in them_”; his positive agency in _Mat. 13:38, + 39_—“_the tares are the sons of the evil one; and the enemy that + sowed them is the devil._” One devil, but many angels: see _Mat. + 25:41_—“_the devil and his angels_”; _Mark 5:9_—“_My name is + Legion, for we are many_”; _Eph. 2:2_—“_the prince of the powers + of the air_”; _6:12_—“_principalities ... powers ... world-rulers + of this darkness ... spiritual hosts of wickedness._” The mode of + Satan’s access to the human mind we do not know. It may be that by + moving upon our physical organism he produces subtle signs of + thought and so reaches the understanding and desires. He certainly + has the power to present in captivating forms the objects of + appetite and selfish ambition, as he did to Christ in the + wilderness (_Mat. 4:3, 6, 9_), and to appeal to our love for + independence by saying to us, as he did to our first parents—“_ye + shall be as God_” (_Gen. 3:5_). + + C. C. Everett, Essays Theol. and Lit., 186-218, on The Devil: “If + the supernatural powers would only hold themselves aloof and not + interfere with the natural processes of the world, there would be + no sickness, no death, no sorrow.... This shows a real, though + perhaps unconscious, faith in the goodness and trustworthiness of + nature. The world in itself is a source only of good. Here is the + germ of a positive religion, though this religion when it appears, + may adopt the form of supernaturalism.” If there was no Satan, + then Christ’s temptations came from within, and showed a + predisposition to evil on his own part. + + +Possession is distinguished from bodily or mental disease, though such +disease often accompanies possession or results from it.—The demons speak +in their own persons, with supernatural knowledge, and they are directly +addressed by Christ. Jesus recognizes Satanic agency in these cases of +possession, and he rejoices in the casting out of demons, as a sign of +Satan’s downfall. These facts render it impossible to interpret the +narratives of demoniac possession as popular descriptions of abnormal +physical or mental conditions. + + + Possession may apparently be either physical, as in the case of + the Gerasene demoniacs (_Mark 5:2-4_), or spiritual, as in the + case of the “_maid having a spirit of divination_” (_Acts 16:16_), + where the body does not seem to have been affected. It is + distinguished from bodily disease: see _Mat. 17:15, + 18_—“_epileptic ... the demon went out from him: and the boy was + cured_”; _Mark 9:25_—“_Thou dumb and deaf spirit_”; _3:11, + 12_—“_the unclean spirits ... cried, saying, Thou art the Son of + God. And he charged them much that they should not make him + known_”; _Luke 8:30, 31_—“_And Jesus asked him, What is thy name? + And he said, Legion; for many demons were entered unto him. And + they entreated him that he would not command them to depart into + the abyss_”; _10:17, 18_—“_And the seventy returned with joy, + saying, Lord, even the demons are subject unto us in thy name. And + he said unto them, I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from + heaven._” + + +These descriptions of personal intercourse between Christ and the demons +cannot be interpreted as metaphorical. “In the temptation of Christ and in +the possession of the swine, imagination could have no place. Christ was +_above_ its delusions; the brutes were _below_ them.” Farrar (Life of +Christ, 1:337-341, and 2:excursus vii), while he admits the existence and +agency of good angels, very inconsistently gives a metaphorical +interpretation to the Scriptural accounts of evil angels. We find +corroborative evidence of the Scripture doctrine in the domination which +one wicked man frequently exercises over others; in the opinion of some +modern physicians in charge of the insane, that certain phenomena in their +patients’ experience are best explained by supposing an actual subjection +of the will to a foreign power; and, finally, in the influence of the Holy +Spirit upon the human heart. See Trench, Miracles, 125-136; Smith’s Bible +Dictionary, 1:586—“Possession is distinguished from mere temptation by the +complete or incomplete loss of the sufferer’s reason or power of will; his +actions, words, and almost his thoughts, are mastered by the evil spirit, +till his personality seems to be destroyed, or at least so overborne as to +produce the consciousness of a twofold will within him like that in a +dream. In the ordinary assaults and temptations of Satan, the will itself +yields consciously, and by yielding gradually assumes, without losing its +apparent freedom of action, the characteristics of the Satanic nature. It +is solicited, urged, and persuaded against the strivings of grace, but it +is not overborne.” + +T. H. Wright, The Finger of God, argues that Jesus, in his mention of +demoniacs, accommodated himself to the beliefs of his time. Fisher, Nature +and Method of Revelation, 274, with reference to Weiss’s Meyer on _Mat. +4:24_, gives Meyer’s arguments against demoniacal possession as follows: +1. the absence of references to demoniacal possession in the Old +Testament, and the fact that so-called demoniacs were cured by exorcists; +2. that no clear case of possession occurs at present; 3. that there is no +notice of demoniacal possession in John’s Gospel, though the overcoming of +Satan is there made a part of the Messiah’s work and Satan is said to +enter into a man’s mind and take control there (_John 13:27_); 4. and that +the so-called demoniacs are not, as would be expected, of a diabolic +temper and filled with malignant feelings toward Christ. Harnack, Wesen +des Christenthums, 38—“The popular belief in demon-possession gave form to +the conceptions of those who had nervous diseases, so that they expressed +themselves in language proper only to those who were actually possessed. +Jesus is no believer in Christian Science: he calls sickness sickness and +health health; but he regards all disease as a proof and effect of the +working of the evil one.” + + + On _Mark 1:21-34_, see Maclaren in S. S. Times, Jan. 23, 1904—“We + are told by some that this demoniac was an epileptic. Possibly; + but, if the epilepsy was not the result of possession, why should + it take the shape of violent hatred of Jesus? And what is there in + epilepsy to give discernment of his character and the purpose of + his mission?” Not Jesus’ exorcism of demons as a fact, but his + casting them out by a word, was our Lord’s wonderful + characteristic. Nevius, Demon-Possession, 240—“May not + demon-possession be only a different, a more advanced, form of + hypnotism?... It is possible that these evil spirits are familiar + with the organism of the nervous system, and are capable of acting + upon and influencing mankind in accordance with physical and + psychological laws.... The hypnotic trance may be effected, + without the use of physical organs, by the mere force of + will-power, spirit acting upon spirit.” Nevius quotes F. W. A. + Myers, Fortnightly Rev., Nov. 1885—“One such discovery, that of + telepathy, or the transference of thought and sensation from mind + to mind without the agency of the recognized organs of sense, has, + as I hold, been already achieved.” See Bennet, Diseases of the + Bible; Kedney, Diabolology; and references in Poole’s Synopsis, + 1:343; also Bramwell, Hypnotism, 358-398. + + +(_c_) Yet, in spite of themselves, they execute God’s plans of punishing +the ungodly, of chastening the good, and of illustrating the nature and +fate of moral evil. + + + Punishing the ungodly: _Ps. 78:49_—“_He cast upon them the + fierceness of his anger, Wrath and indignation, and trouble, A + band of angels of evil_”; _1 K. 22:23_—“_Jehovah hath put a lying + spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets; and Jehovah hath + spoken evil concerning thee._” In _Luke 22:31_, Satan’s sifting + accomplishes the opposite of the sifter’s intention, and the same + as the Master’s winnowing (Maclaren). + + Chastening the good: see _Job, chapters 1_ and _2_; _1 Cor. + 5:5_—“_deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the + flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord + Jesus_”; _cf._ _1 Tim. 1:20_—“_Hymenæus and Alexander; whom I + delivered onto Satan, that they might be taught not to + blaspheme._” This delivering to Satan for the destruction of the + flesh seems to have involved four things: (1) excommunication from + the church; (2) authoritative infliction of bodily disease or + death; (3) loss of all protection from good angels, who minister + only to saints; (4) subjection to the buffetings and tormentings + of the great accuser. Gould, in Am. Com. on _1 Cor. 5:5_, regards + “delivering to Satan” as merely putting a man out of the church by + excommunication. This of itself was equivalent to banishing him + into “the world,” of which Satan was the ruler. + + Evil spirits illustrate the nature and fate of moral evil: see + _Mat 8:29_—“_art thou come hither to torment us before the time?_” + _25:41_—“_eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his + angels_”; _2 Thess. 2:8_—“_then shall be revealed the lawless + one_”; _James 2:19_—“_the demons also believe, and shudder_”; + _Rev. 12:9, 12_—“_the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole + world ... the devil is gone down unto you, having great wrath, + knowing that he hath but a short time_”; _20:10_—“_cast into the + lake of fire ... tormented day and night for ever and ever._” + + It is an interesting question whether Scripture recognizes any + special connection of evil spirits with the systems of idolatry, + witchcraft, and spiritualism which burden the world. _1 Cor. + 10:20_—“_the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice + to demons, and not to God_”; _2 Thess. 2:9_—“_the working of Satan + with all power and signs of lying wonders_”—would seem to favor an + affirmative answer. But _1 Cor. 8:4_—“_concerning therefore the + eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that no idol is + anything in the world_”—seems to favor a negative answer. This + last may, however, mean that “the beings whom the idols are + designed to _represent_ have no existence, although it is + afterwards shown (_10:20_) that there are _other_ beings connected + with false worship” (Ann. Par. Bible, _in loco_). “Heathenism is + the reign of the devil” (Meyer), and while the heathen think + themselves to be sacrificing to Jupiter or Venus, they are really + “_sacrificing to demons_,” and are thus furthering the plans of a + malignant spirit who uses these forms of false religion as a means + of enslaving their souls. In like manner, the network of + influences which support the papacy, spiritualism, modern + unbelief, is difficult of explanation, unless we believe in a + superhuman intelligence which organizes these forces against God. + In these, as well as in heathen religions, there are facts + inexplicable upon merely natural principles of disease and + delusion. + + Nevius, Demon-Possession, 294—“Paul teaches that the gods + mentioned under different names are imaginary and non-existent; + but that, behind and in connection with these gods, there are + demons who make use of idolatry to draw men away from God; and it + is to these that the heathen are unconsciously rendering obedience + and service.... It is most reasonable to believe that the + sufferings of people bewitched were caused by the devil, not by + the so-called witches. Let us substitute ‘devilcraft’ for + ‘witchcraft.’... Had the courts in Salem proceeded on the + Scriptural presumption that the testimony of those under the + control of evil spirits would, in the nature of the case, be + false, such a thing as the Salem tragedy would never have been + known.” + + +A survey of the Scripture testimony with regard to the employments of evil +spirits leads to the following general conclusions: + +First,—the power of evil spirits over men is not independent of the human +will. This power cannot be exercised without at least the original consent +of the human will, and may be resisted and shaken off through prayer and +faith in God. + + + _Luke 22:31, 40_—“_Satan asked to have you, that he might sift you + as wheat.... Pray that ye enter not into temptation_”; _Eph. + 6:11_—“_Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to + stand against the wiles of the devil_”; _16_—“_the shield of + faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of + the evil one_”; _James 4:7_—“_resist the devil, and he will flee + from you_”; _1 Pet. 5:9_—“_whom withstand stedfast in your + faith._” The coals are already in the human heart, in the shape of + corrupt inclinations; Satan only blows them into flame. The double + source of sin is illustrated in _Acts 5:3, 4_—“_Why hath Satan + filled thy heart?... How is it that thou hast conceived this thing + in thine heart?_” The Satanic impulse could have been resisted, + and “_after it was_” suggested, it was still “_in his own power_,” + as was the land that he had sold (Maclaren). + + The soul is a castle into which even the king of evil spirits + cannot enter without receiving permission from within. Bp. + Wordsworth: “The devil may _tempt_ us to fall, but he cannot + _make_ us fall; he may persuade us to cast _ourselves_ down, but + he cannot _cast_ us down.” E. G. Robinson: “It is left to us + whether the devil shall get control of us. We pack off on the + devil’s shoulders much of our own wrong doing, just as Adam had + the impertinence to tell God that the woman did the mischief.” + Both God and Satan stand at the door and knock, but neither heaven + nor hell can come in unless we will. “We cannot prevent the birds + from flying over our heads, but we can prevent them from making + their nests in our hair.” _Mat 12:43-45_—“_The unclean spirit, + when he is gone out of a man_”—suggests that the man who gets rid + of one vice but does not occupy his mind with better things is + ready to be repossessed. “_Seven other spirits more evil than + himself_” implies that some demons are more wicked than others and + so are harder to cast out (_Mark 9:29_). The Jews had cast out + idolatry, but other and worse sins had taken possession of them. + + Hudson, Law of Psychic Phenomena, 129—“The hypnotic subject cannot + be controlled so far as to make him do what he knows to be wrong, + unless he himself voluntarily assents.” A. S. Hart: “Unless one is + willing to be hypnotized, no one can put him under the influence. + The more intelligent one is, the more susceptible. Hypnotism + requires the subject to do two-thirds of the work, while the + instructor does only one-third—that of telling the subject what to + do. It is not an inherent influence, nor a gift, but can be + learned by any one who can read. It is impossible to compel a + person to do wrong while under the influence, for the subject + retains a consciousness of the difference between right and + wrong.” + + Höffding, Outlines of Psychology, 330-335—“Some persons have the + power of intentionally calling up hallucinations; but it often + happens to them as to Goethe’s Zauberlehrling, or + apprentice-magician, that the phantoms gain power over them and + will not be again dispersed. Goethe’s Fischer—‘Half she drew him + down and half he sank’—repeats the duality in the second term; for + to sink is to let one’s self sink.” Manton, the Puritan: “A + stranger cannot call off a dog from the flock, but the Shepherd + can do so with a word; so the Lord can easily rebuke Satan when he + finds him most violent.” Spurgeon, the modern Puritan, remarks on + the above: “O Lord, when I am worried by my great enemy, call him + off, I pray thee! Let me hear a voice saying: ‘_Jehovah rebuke + thee, O Satan; even Jehovah that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke + thee!_’ (_Zech. 3:2)_. By thine election of me, rebuke him, I pray + thee, and deliver me from ‘_the power of the dog_’! (_Ps. + 22:20)_.” + + +Secondly,—their power is limited, both in time and in extent, by the +permissive will of God. Evil spirits are neither omnipotent, omniscient, +nor omnipresent. We are to attribute disease and natural calamity to their +agency, only when this is matter of special revelation. Opposed to God as +evil spirits are, God compels them to serve his purposes. Their power for +harm lasts but for a season, and ultimate judgment and punishment will +vindicate God’s permission of their evil agency. + + + _1 Cor. 10:13_—“_God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be + tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation make + also the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it_”; _Jude + 6_—“_angels which kept not their own beginning, but left their + proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under + darkness unto the judgment of the great day._” + + +Luther saw Satan nearer to man than his coat, or his shirt, or even his +skin. In all misfortune he saw the devil’s work. Was there a conflagration +in the town? By looking closely you might see a demon blowing upon the +flame. Pestilence and storm he attributed to Satan. All this was a relic +of the mediæval exaggerations of Satan’s power. It was then supposed that +men might make covenants with the evil one, in which supernatural power +was purchased at the price of final perdition (see Goethe’s Faust). + + + Scripture furnishes no warrant for such representations. There + seems to have been permitted a special activity of Satan in + temptation and possession during our Savior’s ministry, in order + that Christ’s power might be demonstrated. By his death Jesus + brought “_to naught him that had the power of death, that is, the + devil_” (_Heb. 2:14)_ and “_having despoiled the principalities + and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over + them in it_,” _i. e._, in the Cross (_Col. 2:15_). _1 John + 3:8_—“_To this end was the Son of God manifested, that he might + destroy the works of the devil._” Evil spirits now exist and act + only upon sufferance. McLeod, Temptation of our Lord, 24—“Satan’s + power is limited, (1) by the fact that he is a creature; (2) by + the fact of God’s providence; (3) by the fact of his own + wickedness.” + + Genung, Epic of the Inner Life, 136—“Having neither fixed + principle in himself nor connection with the source of order + outside, Satan has not prophetic ability. He can appeal to chance, + but he cannot foresee. So Goethe’s Mephistopheles insolently + boasts that he can lead Faust astray: ‘What will you bet? There’s + still a chance to gain him, If unto me full leave you give Gently + upon _my_ road to train him!’ And in _Job 1:11; 2:5_, Satan + wagers: ‘_He will renounce thee to thy face._’ ” William Ashmore: + “Is Satan omnipresent? No, but he is very spry. Is he bound? Yes, + but with a rather loose rope.” In the Persian story, God scattered + seed. The devil buried it, and sent the rain to rot it. But soon + it sprang up, and the wilderness blossomed as the rose. + + +II. Objections to the Doctrine of Angels. + + +1. To the doctrine of angels in general. + + +It is objected: + +(_a_) That it is opposed to the modern scientific view of the world, as a +system of definite forces and laws.—We reply that, whatever truth there +may be in this modern view, it does not exclude the play of divine or +human free agency. It does not, therefore, exclude the possibility of +angelic agency. + + + Ladd, Philosophy of Knowledge, 332—“It is easier to believe in + angels than in ether; in God rather than atoms; and in the history + of his kingdom as a divine self-revelation rather than in the + physicist’s or the biologist’s purely mechanical process of + evolution.” + + +(_b_) That it is opposed to the modern doctrine of infinite space above +and beneath us—a space peopled with worlds. With the surrender of the old +conception of the firmament, as a boundary separating this world from the +regions beyond, it is claimed that we must give up all belief in a heaven +of the angels.—We reply that the notions of an infinite universe, of +heaven as a definite place, and of spirits as confined to fixed locality, +are without certain warrant either in reason or in Scripture. We know +nothing of the modes of existence of pure spirits. + + + What we know of the universe is certainly finite. Angels are + apparently incorporeal beings, and as such are free from all laws + of matter and space. Heaven and hell are essentially conditions, + corresponding to character—conditions in which the body and the + surroundings of the soul express and reflect its inward state. The + main thing to be insisted on is therefore the state; place is + merely incidental. The fact that Christ ascended to heaven with a + human body, and that the saints are to possess glorified bodies, + would seem to imply that heaven is a place. Christ’s declaration + with regard to him who is “_able to destroy both soul and body in + hell_” (_Mat. 10:28_) affords some reason for believing that hell + is also a place. + + Where heaven and hell are, is not revealed to us. But it is not + necessary to suppose that they are in some remote part of the + universe; for aught we know, they may be right about us, so that + if our eyes were opened, like those of the prophet’s servant (_2 + Kings 6:17_), we ourselves should behold them. Upon ground of + _Eph. 2:2_—“_prince of the __ powers of the air_”—and _3:10_—“_the + principalities and the powers in the heavenly places_”—some have + assigned the atmosphere of the earth as the abode of angelic + spirits, both good and evil. But the expressions “_air_” and + “_heavenly places_” may be merely metaphorical designations of + their spiritual method of existence. + + The idealistic philosophy, which regards time and space as merely + subjective forms of our human thinking and as not conditioning the + thought of God, may possibly afford some additional aid in the + consideration of this problem. If matter be only the expression of + God’s mind and will, having no existence apart from his + intelligence and volition, the question of place ceases to have + significance. Heaven is in that case simply the state in which God + manifests himself in his grace, and hell is the state in which a + moral being finds himself in opposition to God, and God in + opposition to him. Christ can manifest himself to his followers in + all parts of the earth and to all the inhabitants of heaven at one + and the same time (_John 14:21_; _Mat. 28:20_; _Rev. 1:7_). Angels + in like manner, being purely spiritual beings, may be free from + the laws of space and time, and may not be limited to any fixed + locality. + + We prefer therefore to leave the question of place undecided, and + to accept the existence and working of angels both good and evil + as a matter of faith, without professing to understand their + relations to space. For the rationalistic view, see Strauss, + Glaubenslehre, 1:670-675. _Per contra_, see Van Oosterzee, + Christian Dogmatics, 1:308-317; Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, + 127-136. + + +2. To the doctrine of evil angels in particular. + + +It is objected that: + +(_a_) The idea of the fall of angels is self-contradictory, since a fall +determined by pride presupposes pride—that is, a fall before the fall.—We +reply that the objection confounds the occasion of sin with the sin +itself. The outward motive to disobedience is not disobedience. The fall +took place only when that outward motive was chosen by free will. When the +motive of independence was selfishly adopted, only then did the innocent +desire for knowledge and power become pride and sin. How an evil volition +could originate in spirits created pure is an insoluble problem. Our faith +in God’s holiness, however, compels us to attribute the origin of this +evil volition, not to the Creator, but to the creature. + + + There can be no sinful propensity before there is sin. The reason + of the _first_ sin can not be sin itself. This would be to make + sin a necessary development; to deny the holiness of God the + Creator; to leave the ground of theism for pantheism. + + +(_b_) It is irrational to suppose that Satan should have been able to +change his whole nature by a single act, so that he thenceforth willed +only evil.—But we reply that the circumstances of that decision are +unknown to us; while the power of single acts permanently to change +character is matter of observation among men. + + + Instance the effect, upon character and life, of a single act of + falsehood or embezzlement. The first glass of intoxicating drink, + and the first yielding to impure suggestion, often establish + nerve-tracts in the brain and associations in the mind which are + not reversed and overcome for a whole lifetime. “Sow an act, and + you reap a habit; sow a habit, and you reap a character; sow a + character, and you reap a destiny.” And what is true of men, may + be also true of angels. + + +(_c_) It is impossible that so wise a being should enter upon a hopeless +rebellion.—We answer that no amount of mere knowledge ensures right moral +action. If men gratify present passion, in spite of their knowledge that +the sin involves present misery and future perdition, it is not impossible +that Satan may have done the same. + + + Scherer, Essays on English Literature, 139, puts this objection as + follows: “The idea of Satan is a contradictory idea; for it is + contradictory to know God and yet attempt rivalry with him.” But + we must remember that understanding is the servant of will, and is + darkened by will. Many clever men fail to see what belongs to + their peace. It is the very madness of sin, that it persists in + iniquity, even when it sees and fears the approaching judgment of + God. Jonathan Edwards: “Although the devil be exceedingly crafty + and subtle, yet he is one of the greatest fools and blockheads in + the world, as the subtlest of wicked men are. Sin is of such a + nature that it strangely infatuates and stultifies the mind.” One + of Ben Jonson’s plays has, for its title: “The Devil is an Ass.” + + Schleiermacher, Die Christliche Glaube, 1:210, urges that + continual wickedness must have weakened Satan’s understanding, so + that he could be no longer feared, and he adds: “Nothing is easier + than to contend against emotional evil.” On the other hand, there + seems evidence in Scripture of a progressive rage and devastating + activity in the case of the evil one, beginning in Genesis and + culminating in the Revelation. With this increasing malignity + there is also abundant evidence of his unwisdom. We may instance + the devil’s mistakes in misrepresenting 1. God to man (_Gen. + 3:1_—“_hath God said?_”). 2. Man to himself (_Gen. 3:4_—“_Ye shall + not surely die_”). 3. Man to God (_Job 1:9_—“_Doth Job fear God + for naught?_”). 4. God to himself (_Mat. 4:3_—“_If thou art the + Son of God_”). 5. Himself to man (_2 Cor. 11:14_—“_Satan + fashioneth himself into an angel of light_”). 6. Himself to + himself (_Rev. 12:12_—“_the devil is gone down unto you, having + great wrath_”—thinking he could successfully oppose God or destroy + man). + + +(_d_) It is inconsistent with the benevolence of God to create and uphold +spirits, who he knows will be and do evil.—We reply that this is no more +inconsistent with God’s benevolence than the creation and preservation of +men, whose action God overrules for the furtherance of his purposes, and +whose iniquity he finally brings to light and punishes. + + + Seduction of the pure by the impure, piracy, slavery, and war, + have all been permitted among men. It is no more inconsistent with + God’s benevolence to permit them among angelic spirits. Caroline + Fox tells of Emerson and Carlyle that the latter once led his + friend, the serene philosopher, through the abominations of the + streets of London at midnight, asking him with grim humor at every + few steps: “Do you believe in the devil now?” Emerson replied that + the more he saw of the English people, the greater and better he + thought them. It must have been because with such depths beneath + them they could notwithstanding reach such heights of + civilization. Even vice and misery can be overruled for good, and + the fate of evil angels may be made a warning to the universe. + + +(_e_) The notion of organization among evil spirits is self-contradictory, +since the nature of evil is to sunder and divide.—We reply that such +organization of evil spirits is no more impossible than the organization +of wicked men, for the purpose of furthering their selfish ends. Common +hatred to God may constitute a principle of union among them, as among +men. + + + Wicked men succeed in their plans only by adhering in some way to + the good. Even a robber-horde must have laws, and there is a sort + of “honor among thieves.” Else the world would be a pandemonium, + and society would be what Hobbes called it: “bellum omnium contra + omnes.” See art. on Satan, by Whitehouse, in Hastings, Dictionary + of the Bible: “Some personalities are ganglionic centres of a + nervous system, incarnations of evil influence. The Bible teaches + that Satan is such a centre.” + + But the organizing power of Satan has its limitations. Nevius, + Demon-Possession, 279—“Satan is not omniscient, and it is not + certain that all demons are perfectly subject to his control. Want + of vigilance on his part, and personal ambition in them, may + obstruct and delay the execution of his plans, as among men.” An + English parliamentarian comforted himself by saying: “If the fleas + were all of one mind, they would have us out of bed.” Plato, + Lysis, 214—“The good are like one another, and friends to one + another, and the bad are never at unity with one another or with + themselves; for they are passionate and restless, and anything + which is at variance and enmity with itself is not likely to be in + union or harmony with any other thing.” + + +(_f_) The doctrine is morally pernicious, as transferring the blame of +human sin to the being or beings who tempt men thereto.—We reply that +neither conscience nor Scripture allows temptation to be an excuse for +sin, or regards Satan as having power to compel the human will. The +objection, moreover, contradicts our observation,—for only where the +personal existence of Satan is recognized, do we find sin recognized in +its true nature. + + + The diabolic character of sin makes it more guilty and abhorred. + The immorality lies, not in the maintenance, but in the denial, of + the doctrine. Giving up the doctrine of Satan is connected with + laxity in the administration of criminal justice. Penalty comes to + be regarded as only deterrent or reformatory. + + +(_g_) The doctrine degrades man, by representing him as the tool and slave +of Satan.—We reply that it does indeed show his actual state to be +degraded, but only with the result of exalting our idea of his original +dignity, and of his possible glory in Christ. The fact that man’s sin was +suggested from without, and not from within, may be the one mitigating +circumstance which renders possible his redemption. + + + It rather puts a stigma upon human nature to say that it is _not_ + fallen—that its present condition is its original and normal + state. Nor is it worth while to attribute to man a dignity he does + not possess, if thereby we deprive him of the dignity that may be + his. Satan’s sin was, in its essence, sin against the Holy Ghost, + for which there can be no “_Father, forgive them, for they know + not what they do_” (_Luke 23:34_), since it was choosing evil with + the _mala gaudia mentis_, or the clearest intuition that it was + evil. If there be no devil, then man himself is devil. It has been + said of Voltaire, that without believing in a devil, he saw him + everywhere—even where he was not. Christian, in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s + Progress, takes comfort when he finds that the blasphemous + suggestions which came to him in the dark valley were suggestions + from the fiend that pursued him. If all temptation is from within, + our case would seem hopeless. But if “_an enemy hath done this_” + (_Mat. 13:28_), then there is hope. And so we may accept the + maxim: “Nullus diabolus, nullus Redemptor.” Unitarians have no + Captain of their Salvation, and so have no Adversary against whom + to contend. See Trench, Studies in the Gospels, 17; Birks, + Difficulties of Belief, 78-100; Ebrard, Dogmatik, 1:291-293. Many + of the objections and answers mentioned above have been taken from + Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 3:251-284, where a fuller statement of + them may be found. + + +III. Practical uses of the Doctrine of Angels. + + +A. Uses of the doctrine of good angels. + + +(_a_) It gives us a new sense of the greatness of the divine resources, +and of God’s grace in our creation, to think of the multitude of unfallen +intelligences who executed the divine purposes before man appeared. + +(_b_) It strengthens our faith in God’s providential care, to know that +spirits of so high rank are deputed to minister to creatures who are +environed with temptations and are conscious of sin. + +(_c_) It teaches us humility, that beings of so much greater knowledge and +power than ours should gladly perform these unnoticed services, in behalf +of those whose only claim upon them is that they are children of the same +common Father. + +(_d_) It helps us in the struggle against sin, to learn that these +messengers of God are near, to mark our wrong doing if we fall, and to +sustain us if we resist temptation. + +(_e_) It enlarges our conceptions of the dignity of our own being, and of +the boundless possibilities of our future existence, to remember these +forms of typical innocence and love, that praise and serve God unceasingly +in heaven. + + + Instance the appearance of angels in Jacob’s life at Bethel (_Gen. + 28:12_—Jacob’s conversion?) and at Mahanaim (_Gen. 32:1, 2_—two + camps, of angels, on the right hand and on the left; _cf._ _Ps. + 34:7_—“_The angel of Jehovah encampeth round about them that fear + him, And delivereth them_”); so too the Angel at Penuel that + struggled with Jacob at his entering the promised land (_Gen. + 32:24_; _cf._ _Hos. 12:3, 4_—“_in his manhood he had power with + God: yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed_”), and “_the + angel who hath redeemed me from all evil_” (_Gen. 48:16_) to whom + Jacob refers on his dying bed. Edmund Spenser, The Faerie Queene: + “And is there care in heaven? and is there love In heavenly + spirits to these creatures base That may compassion of their evils + move? There is; else much more wretched were the case Of men than + beasts. But O, th’ exceeding grace Of highest God that loves his + creatures so, And all his works with mercy doth embrace, That + blessed angels he sends to and fro To serve to wicked man, to + serve his wicked foe! How oft do they their silver bowers leave + And come to succor us who succor want! How oft do they with golden + pinions cleave The flitting skies like flying pursuivant, Against + foul fiends to aid us militant! They for us fight; they watch and + duly ward, And their bright squadrons round about us plant; And + all for love, and nothing for reward. Oh, why should heavenly God + for men have such regard!” + + It shows us that sin is not mere finiteness, to see these finite + intelligences that maintained their integrity. Shakespeare, Henry + VIII, 2:2—“He counsels a divorce—a loss of her That, like a jewel, + has hung twenty years About his neck, yet never lost her lustre; + Of her that loves him with that excellence That angels love good + men with; even of her That, when the greatest stroke of fortune + falls, Will bless the king.” Measure for Measure, 2:2—“Man, proud + man, Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven, As makes the + angels weep.” + + +B. Uses of the doctrine of evil angels. + + +(_a_) It illustrates the real nature of sin, and the depth of the ruin to +which it may bring the soul, to reflect upon the present moral condition +and eternal wretchedness to which these spirits, so highly endowed, have +brought themselves by their rebellion against God. + +(_b_) It inspires a salutary fear and hatred of the first subtle +approaches of evil from within or from without, to remember that these may +be the covert advances of a personal and malignant being, who seeks to +overcome our virtue and to involve us in his own apostasy and destruction. + +(_c_) It shuts us up to Christ, as the only Being who is able to deliver +us or others from the enemy of all good. + +(_d_) It teaches us that our salvation is wholly of grace, since for such +multitudes of rebellious spirits no atonement and no renewal were +provided—simple justice having its way, with no mercy to interpose or +save. + + + Philippi, in his Glaubenslehre, 3:151-284, suggests the following + relations of the doctrine of Satan to the doctrine of sin: 1. + Since Satan is a fallen _angel_, who once was pure, evil is not + self-existent or necessary. Sin does not belong to the substance + which God created, but is a later addition. 2. Since Satan is a + purely _spiritual_ creature, sin cannot have its origin in mere + sensuousness, or in the mere possession of a physical nature. 3. + Since Satan is not a _weak_ and _poorly endowed_ creature, sin is + not a necessary result of weakness and limitation. 4. Since Satan + is _confirmed in evil_, sin is not necessarily a transient or + remediable act of will. 5. Since in Satan sin _does not come to an + end_, sin is not a step of creaturely development, or a stage of + progress to something higher and better. On the uses of the + doctrine, see also Van Oosterzee, Christian Dogmatics, 1:316; + Robert Hall, Works, 3:35-51; Brooks, Satan and his Devices. + + “They never sank so low, They are not raised so high; They never + knew such depths of woe, Such heights of majesty. The Savior did + not join Their nature to his own; For them he shed no blood + divine. Nor heaved a single groan.” If no redemption has been + provided for them, it may be because: 1. sin originated with them; + 2. the sin which they committed was “_an eternal sin_” (_cf._ + _Mark 3:29_); 3. they sinned with clearer intellect and fuller + knowledge than ours (_cf._ _Luke 23:34_); 4. their incorporeal + being aggravated their sin and made it analogous to our sinning + against the Holy Spirit (_cf._ _Mat. 12:31, 32_); 5. this + incorporeal being gave no opportunity for Christ to objectify his + grace and visibly to join himself to them (_cf._ _Heb. 2:16_); 6. + their persistence in evil, in spite of their growing knowledge of + the character of God as exhibited in human history, has resulted + in a hardening of heart which is not susceptible of salvation. + + Yet angels were created in Christ (_Col. 1:16_); they consist in + him (_Col. 1:17_); he must suffer in their sin; God would save + them, if he consistently could. Dr. G. W. Samson held that the + Logos became an angel before he became man, and that this explains + his appearances as “_the angel of Jehovah_” in the Old Testament + (_Gen. 22:11_). It is not asserted that _all_ fallen angels shall + be eternally tormented (_Rev. 14:10_). In terms equally strong + (_Mat. 25:41_; _Rev. 20:10_) the existence of a place of eternal + punishment for wicked men is declared, but nevertheless we do not + believe that all men will go there, in spite of the fact that all + men are wicked. The silence of Scripture with regard to a + provision of salvation for fallen angels does not prove that there + is no such provision. _2 Pet. 2:4_ shows that evil angels have not + received _final_ judgment, but are in a temporary state of + existence, and their final state is yet to be revealed. If God has + not already provided, may he not yet provide redemption for them, + and the “_elect angels_” (_1 Tim. 5:21_) be those whom God has + predestinated to stand this future probation and be saved, while + only those who persist in their rebellion will be consigned to the + lake of fire and brimstone (_Rev. 20:10_)? + + The keeper of a young tigress patted her head and she licked his + hand. But when she grew older she seized his hand with her teeth + and began to craunch it. He pulled away his hand in shreds. He + learned not to fondle a tigress. Let us learn not to fondle Satan. + Let us not be “_ignorant of his devices_” (_2 Cor. 2:11_). It is + not well to keep loaded firearms in the chimney corner. “They who + fear the adder’s sting will not come near her hissing.” Talmage: + “O Lord, help us to hear the serpent’s rattle before we feel its + fangs.” Ian Maclaren, Cure of Souls, 215—The pastor trembles for a + soul, “when he sees the destroyer hovering over it like a hawk + poised in midair, and would have it gathered beneath Christ’s + wing.” + + Thomas K. Beecher: “Suppose I lived on Broadway where the crowd + was surging past in both directions all the time. Would I leave my + doors and windows open, saying to the crowd of strangers: ‘Enter + my door, pass through my hall, come into my parlor, make + yourselves at home in my dining-room, go up into my bedchambers’? + No! I would have my windows and doors barred and locked against + intruders, to be opened only to me and mine and those I would have + as companions. Yet here we see foolish men and women stretching + out their arms and saying to the spirits of the vasty deep: ‘Come + in, and take possession of me. Write with my hands, think with my + brain, speak with my lips, walk with my feet, use me as a medium + for whatever you will.’ God respects the sanctity of man’s spirit. + Even Christ stands at the door and knocks. Holy Spirit, fill me, + so that there shall be room for no other!” (_Rev. 3:20_; _Eph. + 5:18_.) + + + + + +PART V. ANTHROPOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF MAN. + + + + +Chapter I. Preliminary. + + + +I. Man a Creation of God and a Child of God. + + +The fact of man’s creation is declared in Gen. 1:27—“And God created man +in his own image, in the image of God created he him”; 2:7—“And Jehovah +God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils +the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” + +(_a_) The Scriptures, on the one hand, negate the idea that man is the +mere product of unreasoning natural forces. They refer his existence to a +cause different from mere nature, namely, the creative act of God. + + + Compare _Hebrews 12:9_—“_the Father of spirits_”; _Num. + 16:22_—“_the God of the spirits of all flesh_”; _27:16_—“_Jehovah, + the God of the spirits of all flesh_”; _Rev. 22:6_—“_the God of + the spirits of the prophets._” Bruce, The Providential Order, + 25—“Faith in God may remain intact, though we concede that man in + all his characteristics, physical and psychical, is no exception + to the universal law of growth, no breach in the continuity of the + evolutionary process.” By “_mere_ nature” we mean nature apart + from God. Our previous treatment of the doctrine of creation in + general has shown that the laws of nature are only the regular + methods of God, and that the conception of a nature apart from God + is an irrational one. If the evolution of the lower creation + cannot be explained without taking into account the originating + agency of God, much less can the coming into being of man, the + crown of all created things. Hudson, Divine Pedigree of Man: + “Spirit in man is linked with, because derived from, God, who is + spirit.” + + +(_b_) But, on the other hand, the Scriptures do not disclose the method of +man’s creation. Whether man’s physical system is or is not derived, by +natural descent, from the lower animals, the record of creation does not +inform us. As the command “Let the earth bring forth living creatures” +(Gen. 1:24) does not exclude the idea of mediate creation, through natural +generation, so the forming of man “of the dust of the ground” (Gen. 2:7) +does not in itself determine whether the creation of man’s body was +mediate or immediate. + + + We may believe that man sustained to the highest preceding brute + the same relation which the multiplied bread and fish sustained to + the five loaves and two fishes (_Mat. 14:19_), or which the wine + sustained to the water which was transformed at Cana (_John + 2:7-10_), or which the multiplied oil sustained to the original + oil in the O. T. miracle (_2 K. 4:1-7_). The “_dust_,” before the + breathing of the spirit into it, may have been animated dust. + Natural means may have been used, so far as they would go. + Sterrett, Reason and Authority in Religion, 39—“Our heredity is + from God, even though it be from lower forms of life, and our goal + is also God, even though it be through imperfect manhood.” + + Evolution does not make the idea of a Creator superfluous, because + evolution is only the method of God. It is perfectly consistent + with a Scriptural doctrine of Creation that man should emerge at + the proper time, governed by different laws from the brute + creation yet growing out of the brute, just as the foundation of a + house built of stone is perfectly consistent with the wooden + structure built upon it. All depends upon the plan. An atheistic + and undesigning evolution cannot include man without excluding + what Christianity regards as essential to man; see Griffith-Jones, + Ascent through Christ, 43-73. But a theistic evolution can + recognize the whole process of man’s creation as equally the work + of nature and the work of God. + + Schurman, Agnosticism and Religion, 42—“You are not what you have + come from, but what you have become.” Huxley said of the brutes: + “Whether _from_ them or not, man is assuredly not _of_ them.” + Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 1:289—“The religious dignity of man + rests after all upon what he _is_, not upon the mode and manner in + which he has _become_ what he is.” Because he came _from_ a beast, + it does not follow that he _is_ a beast. Nor does the fact that + man’s existence can be traced back to a brute ancestry furnish any + proper reason why the brute should become man. Here is a teleology + which requires a divine Creatorship. + + J. M. Bronson: “The theist must accept evolution if he would keep + his argument for the existence of God from the unity of design in + nature. Unless man is an _end_, he is an _anomaly_. The greatest + argument for God is the fact that all animate nature is one vast + and connected unity. Man has developed not _from_ the ape, but + _away from_ the ape. He was never anything but potential man. He + did not, as man, come into being until he became a conscious moral + agent.” This conscious moral nature, which we call personality, + requires a divine Author, because it surpasses all the powers + which can be found in the animal creation. Romanes, Mental + Evolution in Animals, tells us that: 1. Mollusca learn by + experience; 2. Insects and spiders recognize offspring; 3. Fishes + make mental association of objects by their similarity; 4. + Reptiles recognize persons; 5. Hymenoptera, as bees and ants, + communicate ideas; 6. Birds recognize pictorial representations + and understand words; 7. Rodents, as rats and foxes, understand + mechanisms; 8. Monkeys and elephants learn to use tools; 9. + Anthropoid apes and dogs have indefinite morality. + + But it is definite and not indefinite morality which differences + man from the brute. Drummond, in his Ascent of Man, concedes that + man passed through a period when he resembled the ape more than + any known animal, but at the same time declares that no anthropoid + ape could develop into a man. The brute can be defined in terms of + man, but man cannot be defined in terms of the brute. It is + significant that in insanity the higher endowments of man + disappear in an order precisely the reverse of that in which, + according to the development theory, they have been acquired. The + highest part of man totters first. The last added is first to + suffer. Man moreover can transmit his own acquisitions to his + posterity, as the brute cannot. Weismann, Heredity, 2:69—“The + evolution of music does not depend upon any increase of the + musical faculty or any alteration in the inherent physical nature + of man, but solely upon the power of transmitting the intellectual + achievements of each generation to those which follow. This, more + than anything, is the cause of the superiority of men over + animals—this, and not merely human faculty, although it may be + admitted that this latter is much higher than in animals.” To this + utterance of Weismann we would add that human progress depends + quite as much upon man’s power of reception as upon man’s power of + transmission. Interpretation must equal expression; and, in this + interpretation of the past, man has a guarantee of the future + which the brute does not possess. + + +(_c_) Psychology, however, comes in to help our interpretation of +Scripture. The radical differences between man’s soul and the principle of +intelligence in the lower animals, especially man’s possession of +self-consciousness, general ideas, the moral sense, and the power of +self-determination, show that that which chiefly constitutes him man could +not have been derived, by any natural process of development, from the +inferior creatures. We are compelled, then, to believe that God’s +“breathing into man’s nostrils the breath of life” (Gen. 2:7), though it +was a mediate creation as presupposing existing material in the shape of +animal forms, was yet an immediate creation in the sense that only a +divine reinforcement of the process of life turned the animal into man. In +other words, man came not _from_ the brute, but _through_ the brute, and +the same immanent God who had previously created the brute created also +the man. + + + Tennyson, In Memoriam, XLV—“The baby new to earth and sky, What + time his tender palm is pressed Against the circle of the breast, + Has never thought that ‘this is I’: But as he grows he gathers + much, And learns the use of ‘I’ and ‘me,’ And finds ‘I am not what + I see, And other than the things I touch.’ So rounds he to a + separate mind From whence clear memory may begin, As thro’ the + frame that binds him in His isolation grows defined.” Fichte + called that the birthday of his child, when the child awoke to + self-consciousness and said “I.” Memory goes back no further than + language. Knowledge of the ego is objective, before it is + subjective. The child at first speaks of himself in the third + person: “Henry did so and so.” Hence most men do not remember what + happened before their third year, though Samuel Miles Hopkins, + Memoir, 20, remembered what must have happened when he was only 23 + months old. Only a conscious person remembers, and he remembers + only as his will exerts itself in attention. + + Jean Paul Richter, quoted in Ladd, Philosophy of Mind, 110—“Never + shall I forget the phenomenon in myself, never till now recited, + when I stood by the birth of my own self-consciousness, the place + and time of which are distinct in my memory. On a certain + forenoon, I stood, a very young child, within the house-door, and + was looking out toward the wood-pile, as in an instant the inner + revelation ‘I am I,’ like lightning from heaven, flashed and stood + brightly before me; in that moment I had seen myself as I, for the + first time and forever.” + + Höffding, Outlines of Psychology, 3—“The beginning of conscious + life is to be placed probably before birth.... Sensations only + faintly and dimly distinguished from the general feeling of + vegetative comfort and discomfort. Still the experiences undergone + before birth perhaps suffice to form the foundation of the + consciousness of an external world.” Hill, Genetic Philosophy, + 282, suggests that this early state, in which the child speaks of + self in the third person and is devoid of _self_-consciousness, + corresponds to the brute condition of the race, before it had + reached self-consciousness, attained language, and become man. In + the race, however, there was no heredity to predetermine + self-consciousness—it was a new acquisition, marking transition to + a superior order of being. + + Connecting these remarks with our present subject, we assert that + no brute ever yet said, or thought, “I.” With this, then, we may + begin a series of simple distinctions between man and the brute, + so far as the immaterial principle in each is concerned. These are + mainly compiled from writers hereafter mentioned. + + 1. The brute is conscious, but man is self-conscious. The brute + does not objectify self. “If the pig could once say, ‘I am a pig,’ + it would at once and thereby cease to be a pig.” The brute does + not distinguish itself from its sensations. The brute has + perception, but only the man has apperception, _i. e._, perception + accompanied by reference of it to the self to which it belongs. + + 2. The brute has only percepts; man has also concepts. The brute + knows white things, but not whiteness. It remembers things, but + not thoughts. Man alone has the power of abstraction, _i. e._, the + power of deriving abstract ideas from particular things or + experiences. + + 3. Hence the brute has no language. “Language is the expression of + general notions by symbols” (Harris). Words are the symbols of + concepts. Where there are no concepts there can be no words. The + parrot utters cries; but “no parrot ever yet spoke a true word.” + Since language is a sign, it presupposes the existence of an + intellect capable of understanding the sign,—in short, language is + the effect of mind, not the cause of mind. See Mivart, in Brit. + Quar., Oct. 1881:154-172. “The ape’s tongue is eloquent in his own + dispraise.” James, Psychology, 2:356—“The notion of a sign as + such, and the general purpose to apply it to everything, is the + distinctive characteristic of man.” Why do not animals speak? + Because they have nothing to say, _i. e._, have no general ideas + which words might express. + + 4. The brute forms no judgments, _e. g._, that _this_ is like + _that_, accompanied with belief. Hence there is no sense of the + ridiculous, and no laughter. James, Psychology, 2:360—“The brute + does not associate ideas by similarity.... Genius in man is the + possession of this power of association in an extreme degree.” + + 5. The brute has no reasoning—no sense that _this_ follows from + _that_, accompanied by a feeling that the sequence is necessary. + Association of ideas without judgment is the typical process of + the brute mind, though not that of the mind of man. See Mind, + 5:402-409, 575-581. Man’s dream-life is the best analogue to the + mental life of the brute. + + 6. The brute has no general ideas or intuitions, as of space, + time, substance, cause, right. Hence there is no generalizing, and + no proper experience or progress. There is no capacity for + improvement in animals. The brute cannot be trained, except in + certain inferior matters of association, where independent + judgment is not required. No animal makes tools, uses clothes, + cooks food, breeds other animals for food. No hunter’s dog, + however long its observation of its master, ever learned to put + wood on a fire to keep itself from freezing. Even the rudest stone + implements show a break in continuity and mark the introduction of + man; see J. P. Cook, Credentials of Science, 14. “The dog can see + the printed page as well as a man can, but no dog was ever taught + to read a book. The animal cannot create in its own mind the + thoughts of the writer. The physical in man, on the contrary, is + only an aid to the spiritual. Education is a trained capacity to + discern the inner meaning and deeper relations of things. So the + universe is but a symbol and expression of spirit, a garment in + which an invisible Power has robed his majesty and glory”; see S. + S. Times, April 7, 1900. In man, mind first became supreme. + + 7. The brute has determination, but not self-determination. There + is no freedom of choice, no conscious forming of a purpose, and no + self-movement toward a predetermined end. The donkey is + determined, but not self-determined; he is the victim of heredity + and environment; he acts only as he is acted upon. Harris, Philos. + Basis of Theism, 537-554—“Man, though implicated in nature through + his bodily organization, is in his personality supernatural; the + brute is wholly submerged in nature.... Man is like a ship in the + sea—in it, yet above it—guiding his course, by observing the + heavens, even against wind and current. A brute has no such power; + it is in nature like a balloon, wholly immersed in air, and driven + about by its currents, with no power of steering.” Calderwood, + Philosophy of Evolution, chapter on Right and Wrong: “The grand + distinction of human life is self-control in the field of + action—control over all the animal impulses, so that these do not + spontaneously and of themselves determine activity” [as they do in + the brute]. By what Mivart calls a process of “inverse + anthropomorphism,” we clothe the brute with the attributes of + freedom; but it does not really possess them. Just as we do not + transfer to God all our human imperfections, so we ought not to + transfer all our human perfections to the brute, “reading our full + selves in life of lower forms.” The brute has no power to choose + between motives; it simply obeys motive. The necessitarian + philosophy, therefore, is a correct and excellent philosophy for + the brute. But man’s power of initiative—in short, man’s free + will—renders it impossible to explain his higher nature as a mere + natural development from the inferior creatures. Even Huxley has + said that, taking mind into the account, there is between man and + the highest beasts an “enormous gulf,” a “divergence immeasurable” + and “practically infinite.” + + 8. The brute has no conscience and no religious nature. No dog + ever brought back to the butcher the meat it had stolen. “The + aspen trembles without fear, and dogs skulk without guilt.” The + dog mentioned by Darwin, whose behavior in presence of a newspaper + moved by the wind seemed to testify to “a sense of the + supernatural,” was merely exhibiting the irritation due to the + sense of an unknown future; see James, Will to Believe, 79. The + bearing of flogged curs does not throw light upon the nature of + conscience. If ethics is not hedonism, if moral obligation is not + a refined utilitarianism, if the right is something distinct from + the good we get out of it, then there must be a flaw in the theory + that man’s conscience is simply a development of brute instincts; + and a reinforcement of brute life from the divine source of life + must be postulated in order to account for the appearance of man. + Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 165-167—“Is the spirit of man derived + from the soul of the animal? No, for neither one of these has + self-existence. Both are self-differentiations of God. The latter + is simply God’s preparation for the former.” Calderwood, Evolution + and Man’s Place in Nature, 337, speaks of “the impossibility of + tracing the origin of man’s rational life to evolution from a + lower life.... There are no physical forces discoverable in nature + sufficient to account for the appearance of this life.” Shaler, + Interpretation of Nature, 186—“Man’s place has been won by an + entire change in the limitations of his psychic development.... + The old bondage of the mind to the body is swept away.... In this + new freedom we find the one dominant characteristic of man, the + feature which entitles us to class him as an entirely new class of + animal.” + + John Burroughs, Ways of Nature: “Animal life parallels human life + at many points, but it is in another plane. Something guides the + lower animals, but it is not thought; something restrains them, + but it is not judgment; they are provident without prudence; they + are active without industry; they are skilful without practice; + they are wise without knowledge; they are rational without reason; + they are deceptive without guile.... When they are joyful, they + sing or they play; when they are distressed, they moan or they + cry; ... and yet I do not suppose they experience the emotion of + joy or sorrow, or anger or love, as we do, because these feelings + in them do not involve reflection, memory, and what we call the + higher nature, as with us. Their instinct is intelligence directed + outward, never inward, as in man. They share with man the emotions + of his animal nature, but not of his moral or æsthetic nature; + they know no altruism, no moral code.” Mr. Burroughs maintains + that we have no proof that animals in a state of nature can + reflect, form abstract ideas, associate cause and effect. Animals, + for instance, that store up food for the winter simply follow a + provident instinct but do not take thought for the future, any + more than does the tree that forms new buds for the coming season. + He sums up his position as follows: “To attribute human motives + and faculties to the animals is to caricature them; but to put us + in such relation to them that we feel their kinship, that we see + their lives embosomed in the same iron necessity as our own, that + we see in their minds a humbler manifestation of the same psychic + power and intelligence that culminates and is conscious of itself + in man—that, I take it, is the true humanization.” We assent to + all this except the ascription to human life of the same iron + necessity that rules the animal creation. Man is man, because his + free will transcends the limitations of the brute. + + While we grant, then, that man is the last stage in the + development of life and that he has a brute ancestry, we regard + him also as the offspring of God. The same God who was the author + of the brute became in due time the creator of man. Though man + came _through_ the brute, he did not come _from_ the brute, but + from God, the Father of spirits and the author of all life. + Œdipus’ terrific oracle: “Mayst thou ne’er know the truth of what + thou art!” might well be uttered to those who believe only in the + brute origin of man. Pascal says it is dangerous to let man see + too clearly that he is on a level with the animals unless at the + same time we show him his greatness. The doctrine that the brute + is imperfect man is logically connected with the doctrine that man + is a perfect brute. Thomas Carlyle: “If this brute philosophy is + true, then man should go on all fours, and not lay claim to the + dignity of being moral.” G. F. Wright, Ant. and Origin of Human + Race, lecture IX—“One or other of the lower animals may exhibit + all the faculties used by a child of fifteen months. The + difference may seem very little, but what there is is very + important. It is like the difference in direction in the early + stages of two separating curves, which go on forever diverging.... + The probability is that both in his bodily and in his mental + development man appeared as a _sport_ in nature, and leaped at + once in some single pair from the plane of irrational being to the + possession of the higher powers that have ever since characterized + him and dominated both his development and his history.” + + Scripture seems to teach the doctrine that man’s nature is the + creation of God. _Gen. 2:7_—“_Jehovah God formed man of the dust + of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; + and man became a living soul_”—appears, says Hovey (State of the + Impen. Dead, 14), “to distinguish the vital informing principle of + human nature from its material part, pronouncing the former to be + more directly from God, and more akin to him, than the latter.” So + in _Zech. 12:1_—“_Jehovah, who stretcheth forth the heavens, and + layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man + within him_”—the soul is recognized as distinct in nature from the + body, and of a dignity and value far beyond those of any material + organism. _Job 32:8_—“_there is a spirit in man, and the breath of + the Almighty giveth them understanding_”; _Eccl. 12:7_—“_the dust + returneth to the earth as it was, and the spirit returneth unto + God who gave it._” A sober view of the similarities and + differences between man and the lower animals may be found in + Lloyd Morgan, Animal Life and Intelligence. See also Martineau, + Types, 2:65, 140, and Study, 1:180; 2:9, 13, 184, 350; Hopkins, + Outline Study of Man, 8:23; Chadbourne, Instinct, 187-211; Porter, + Hum. Intellect, 384, 386, 397; Bascom, Science of Mind, 295-305; + Mansel, Metaphysics, 49, 50; Princeton Rev., Jan. 1881:104-128; + Henslow, in Nature, May 1, 1879:21, 22; Ferrier, Remains, 2:39; + Argyll, Unity of Nature, 117-119; Bib. Sac., 29:275-282; Max + Müller, Lectures on Philos. of Language, no. 1, 2, 3; F. W. + Robertson, Lectures on Genesis, 21; Le Conte, in Princeton Rev., + May, 1884:238-261; Lindsay, Mind in Lower Animals; Romanes, Mental + Evolution in Animals; Fiske, The Destiny of Man. + + +(_d_) Comparative physiology, moreover, has, up to the present time, done +nothing to forbid the extension of this doctrine to man’s body. No single +instance has yet been adduced of the transformation of one animal species +into another, either by natural or artificial selection; much less has it +been demonstrated that the body of the brute has ever been developed into +that of man. All evolution implies progress and reinforcement of life, and +is unintelligible except as the immanent God gives new impulses to the +process. Apart from the direct agency of God, the view that man’s physical +system is descended by natural generation from some ancestral simian form +can be regarded only as an irrational hypothesis. Since the soul, then, is +an immediate creation of God, and the forming of man’s body is mentioned +by the Scripture writer in direct connection with this creation of the +spirit, man’s body was in this sense an immediate creation also. + + + For the theory of natural selection, see Darwin, Origin of + Species, 398-424, and Descent of Man, 2:368-387; Huxley, Critiques + and Addresses, 241-269, Man’s Place in Nature, 71-138, Lay + Sermons, 323, and art.: Biology, in Encyc. Britannica, 9th ed.; + Romanes, Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution. The theory + holds that, in the struggle for existence, the varieties best + adapted to their surroundings succeed in maintaining and + reproducing themselves, while the rest die out. Thus, by gradual + change and improvement of lower into higher forms of life, man has + been evolved. We grant that Darwin has disclosed one of the + important features of God’s method. We concede the partial truth + of his theory. We find it supported by the vertebrate structure + and nervous organization which man has in common with the lower + animals; by the facts of embryonic development; of rudimentary + organs; of common diseases and remedies; and of reversion to + former types. But we refuse to regard natural selection as a + complete explanation of the history of life, and that for the + following reasons: + + 1. It gives no account of the origin of substance, nor of the + origin of variations. Darwinism simply says that “round stones + will roll down hill further than flat ones” (Gray, Natural Science + and Religion). It accounts for the selection, not for the + creation, of forms. “Natural selection originates nothing. It is a + destructive, not a creative, principle. If we must idealize it as + a positive force, we must think of it, not as the preserver of the + fittest, but as the destroyer, that follows ever in the wake of + creation and devours the failures; the scavenger of creation, that + takes out of the way forms which are not fit to live and reproduce + themselves” (Johnson, on Theistic Evolution, in Andover Review, + April, 1884:363-381). Natural selection is only unintelligent + repression. Darwin’s Origin of Species is in fact “not the + Genesis, but the Exodus, of living forms.” Schurman: “The + _survival_ of the fittest does nothing to explain the _arrival_ of + the fittest”; see also DeVries, Species and Varieties, _ad finem_. + Darwin himself acknowledged that “Our ignorance of the laws of + variation is profound.... The cause of each slight variation and + of each monstrosity lies much more in the nature or constitution + of the organism than in the nature of the surrounding conditions” + (quoted by Mivart, Lessons from Nature, 280-301). Weismann has + therefore modified the Darwinian theory by asserting that there + would be no development unless there were a spontaneous, innate + tendency to variation. In this innate tendency we see, not mere + nature, but the work of an originating and superintending God. E. + M. Caillard, in Contemp. Rev., Dec. 1893:873-881—“Spirit was the + moulding power, from the beginning, of those lower forms which + would ultimately become man. Instead of the physical derivation of + the soul, we propose the spiritual derivation of the body.” + + 2. Some of the most important forms appear suddenly in the + geological record, without connecting links to unite them with the + past. The first fishes are the Ganoid, large in size and advanced + in type. There are no intermediate gradations between the ape and + man. Huxley, in Man’s Place in Nature, 94, tells us that the + lowest gorilla has a skull capacity of 24 cubic inches, whereas + the highest gorilla has 34-½. Over against this, the lowest man + has a skull capacity of 62; though men with less than 65 are + invariably idiotic; the highest man has 114. Professor Burt G. + Wilder of Cornell University: “The largest ape-brain is only half + as large as the smallest normal human.” Wallace, Darwinism, + 458—“The average human brain weighs 48 or 49 ounces; the average + ape’s brain is only 18 ounces.” The brain of Daniel Webster + weighed 53 ounces; but Dr. Bastian tells of an imbecile whose + intellectual deficiency was congenital, yet whose brain weighed 55 + ounces. Large heads do not always indicate great intellect. + Professor Virchow points out that the Greeks, one of the most + intellectual of nations, are also one of the smallest-headed of + all. Bain: “While the size of the brain increases in arithmetical + proportion, intellectual range increases in geometrical + proportion.” + + Respecting the Enghis and Neanderthal crania, Huxley says: “The + fossil remains of man hitherto discovered do not seem to me to + take us appreciably nearer to that lower pithecoid form by the + modification of which he has probably become what he is.... In + vain have the links which should bind man to the monkey been + sought: not a single one is there to show. The so-called + _Protanthropos_ who should exhibit this link has not been + found.... None have been found that stood nearer the monkey than + the men of to-day.” Huxley argues that the difference between man + and the gorilla is smaller than that between the gorilla and some + apes; if the gorilla and the apes constitute one family and have a + common origin, may not man and the gorilla have a common ancestry + also? We reply that the space between the lowest ape and the + highest gorilla is filled in with numberless intermediate + gradations. The space between the lowest man and the highest man + is also filled in with many types that shade off one into the + other. But the space between the highest gorilla and the lowest + man is absolutely vacant; there are no intermediate types; no + connecting links between the ape and man have yet been found. + + Professor Virchow has also very recently expressed his belief that + no relics of any predecessor of man have yet been discovered. He + said: “In my judgment, no skull hitherto discovered can be + regarded as that of a predecessor of man. In the course of the + last fifteen years we have had opportunities of examining skulls + of all the various races of mankind—even of the most savage + tribes; and among them all no group has been observed differing in + its essential characters from the general human type.... Out of + all the skulls found in the lake-dwellings there is not one that + lies outside the boundaries of our present population.” Dr. Eugene + Dubois has discovered in the Post-pliocene deposits of the island + of Java the remains of a preeminently hominine anthropoid which he + calls _Pithecanthropus erectus_. Its cranial capacity approaches + the physiological minimum in man, and is double that of the + gorilla. The thigh bone is in form and dimensions the absolute + analogue of that of man, and gives evidence of having supported a + habitually erect body. Dr. Dubois unhesitatingly places this + extinct Javan ape as the intermediate form between man and the + true anthropoid apes. Haeckel (in The Nation, Sept. 15, 1898) and + Keane (in Man Past and Present, 3), regard the _Pithecanthropus_ + as a “missing link.” But “Nature” regards it as the remains of a + human microcephalous idiot. In addition to all this, it deserves + to be noticed that man does not degenerate as we travel back in + time. “The Enghis skull, the contemporary of the mammoth and the + cave-bear, is as large as the average of to-day, and might have + belonged to a philosopher.” The monkey nearest to man in physical + form is no more intelligent than the elephant or the bee. + + 3. There are certain facts which mere heredity cannot explain, + such for example as the origin of the working-bee from the queen + and the drone, neither of which produces honey. The working-bee, + moreover, does not transmit the honey-making instinct to its + posterity; for it is sterile and childless. If man had descended + from the conscienceless brute, we should expect him, when + degraded, to revert to his primitive type. On the contrary, he + does not revert to the brute, but dies out instead. The theory can + give no explanation of beauty in the lowest forms of life, such as + molluscs and diatoms. Darwin grants that this beauty must be of + use to its possessor, in order to be consistent with its + origination through natural selection. But no such use has yet + been shown; for the creatures which possess the beauty often live + in the dark, or have no eyes to see. So, too, the large brain of + the savage is beyond his needs, and is inconsistent with the + principle of natural selection which teaches that no organ can + permanently attain a size unrequired by its needs and its + environment. See Wallace, Natural Selection, 338-360. G. F. + Wright, Man and the Glacial Epoch, 242-301—“That man’s bodily + organization is in some way a development from some extinct member + of the animal kingdom allied to the anthropoid apes is scarcely + any longer susceptible of doubt.... But he is certainly not + descended from any _existing_ species of anthropoid apes.... When + once _mind_ became supreme, the bodily adjustment must have been + rapid, if indeed it is not necessary to suppose that the bodily + preparation for the highest mental faculties was instantaneous, or + by what is called in nature a _sport_.” With this statement of Dr. + Wright we substantially agree, and therefore differ from Shedd + when he says that there is just as much reason for supposing that + monkeys are degenerate men, as that men are improved monkeys. + Shakespeare, Timon of Athens, 1:1:249, seems to have hinted the + view of Dr. Shedd: “The strain of man’s bred out into baboon and + monkey.” Bishop Wilberforce asked Huxley whether he was related to + an ape on his grandfather’s or grandmother’s side. Huxley replied + that he should prefer such a relationship to having for an + ancestor a man who used his position as a minister of religion to + ridicule truth which he did not comprehend. “Mamma, am I descended + from a monkey?” “I do not know, William, I never met any of your + father’s people.” + + 4. No species is yet known to have been produced either by + artificial or by natural selection. Huxley, Lay Sermons, 323—“It + is not absolutely proven that a group of animals having all the + characters exhibited by species in nature has ever been originated + by selection, whether artificial or natural”; Man’s Place in + Nature, 107—“Our acceptance of the Darwinian hypothesis must be + provisional, so long as one link in the chain of evidence is + wanting; and so long as all the animals and plants certainly + produced by selective breeding from a common stock are fertile + with one another, that link will be wanting.” Huxley has more + recently declared that the missing proof has been found in the + descent of the modern horse with one toe, from Hipparion with two + toes, Anchitherium with three, and Orohippus with four. Even if + this were demonstrated, we should still maintain that the only + proper analogue was to be found in that artificial selection by + which man produces new varieties, and that natural selection can + bring about no useful results and show no progress, unless it be + the method and revelation of a wise and designing mind. In other + words, selection implies intelligence and will, and therefore + cannot be exclusively natural. Mivart, Man and Apes, 192—“If it is + inconceivable and impossible for man’s body to be developed or to + exist without his informing soul, we conclude that, as no natural + process accounts for the different kind of soul—one capable of + articulately expressing general conceptions,—so no merely natural + process can account for the origin of the body informed by it—a + body to which such an intellectual faculty was so essentially and + intimately related.” Thus Mivart, who once considered that + evolution could account for man’s body, now holds instead that it + can account neither for man’s body nor for his soul, and calls + natural selection “a puerile hypothesis” (Lessons from Nature, + 300; Essays and Criticisms, 2:289-314). + + +(_e_) While we concede, then, that man has a brute ancestry, we make two +claims by way of qualification and explanation: first, that the laws of +organic development which have been followed in man’s origin are only the +methods of God and proofs of his creatorship; secondly, that man, when he +appears upon the scene, is no longer brute, but a self-conscious and +self-determining being, made in the image of his Creator and capable of +free moral decision between good and evil. + + + Both man’s original creation and his new creation in regeneration + are creations from within, rather than from without. In both + cases, God builds the new upon the basis of the old. Man is not a + product of blind forces, but is rather an emanation from that same + divine life of which the brute was a lower manifestation. The fact + that God used preëxisting material does not prevent his authorship + of the result. The wine in the miracle was not water because water + had been used in the making of it, nor is man a brute because the + brute has made some contributions to his creation. Professor John + H. Strong: “Some who freely allow the presence and power of God in + the age-long process seem nevertheless not clearly to see that, in + the final result of finished man, God successfully revealed + himself. God’s work was never really or fully done; man was a + compound of brute and man; and a compound of two such elements + could not be said to possess the qualities of either. God did not + really succeed in bringing moral personality to birth. The + evolution was incomplete; man is still on all fours; he cannot + sin, because he was begotten of the brute; no fall, and no + regeneration, is conceivable. We assert, on the contrary, that, + though man came _through_ the brute, he did not come _from_ the + brute. He came from God, whose immanent life he reveals, whose + image he reflects in a finished moral personality. Because God + succeeded, a fall was possible. We can believe in the age-long + creation of evolution, provided only that this evolution completed + itself. With that proviso, sin remains and the fall.” See also A. + H. Strong, Christ in Creation, 163-180. + + An atheistic and unteleological evolution is a reversion to the + savage view of animals as brethren, and to the heathen idea of a + sphynx-man growing out of the brute. Darwin himself did not deny + God’s authorship. He closes his first great book with the + declaration that life, with all its potencies, was originally + breathed “by the Creator” into the first forms of organic being. + And in his letters he refers with evident satisfaction to Charles + Kingsley’s finding nothing in the theory which was inconsistent + with an earnest Christian faith. It was not Darwin, but disciples + like Haeckel, who put forward the theory as making the hypothesis + of a Creator superfluous. We grant the principle of evolution, but + we regard it as only the method of the divine intelligence, and + must moreover consider it as preceded by an original creative act, + introducing vegetable and animal life, and as supplemented by + other creative acts, at the introduction of man and at the + incarnation of Christ. Chadwick, Old and New Unitarianism, + 33—“What seemed to wreck our faith in human nature [its origin + from the brute] has been its grandest confirmation. For nothing + argues the essential dignity of man more clearly than his triumph + over the limitations of his brute inheritance, while the long way + that he has come is prophecy of the moral heights undreamed of + that await his tireless feet.” All this is true if we regard human + nature, not as an undesigned result of atheistic evolution, but as + the efflux and reflection of the divine personality. R. E. + Thompson, in S. S. Times, Dec. 29, 1906—“The greatest fact in + heredity is our descent from God, and the greatest fact in + environment is his presence in human life at every point.” + + The atheistic conception of evolution is well satirized in the + verse: “There was an ape in days that were earlier; Centuries + passed and his hair became curlier; Centuries more and his thumb + gave a twist, And he was a man and a Positivist.” That this + conception is not a necessary conclusion of modern science, is + clear from the statements of Wallace, the author with Darwin of + the theory of natural selection. Wallace believes that man’s body + was developed from the brute, but he thinks there have been three + breaks in continuity: 1. the appearance of life; 2. the appearance + of sensation and consciousness; and 3. the appearance of spirit. + These seem to correspond to 1. vegetable; 2. animal; and 3. human + life. He thinks natural selection may account for man’s place _in_ + nature, but not for man’s place _above_ nature, as a spiritual + being. See Wallace, Darwinism, 445-478—“I fully accept Mr. + Darwin’s conclusion as to the essential identity of man’s bodily + structure with that of the higher mammalia, and his descent from + some ancestral form common to man and the anthropoid apes.” But + the conclusion that man’s higher faculties have also been derived + from the lower animals “appears to me not to be supported by + adequate evidence, and to be directly opposed to many + well-ascertained facts” (461).... The mathematical, the artistic + and musical faculties, are results, not causes, of + advancement,—they do not help in the struggle for existence and + could not have been developed by natural selection. The + introduction of life (vegetable), of consciousness (animal), of + higher faculty (human), point clearly to a world of spirit, to + which the world of matter is subordinate (474-476).... Man’s + intellectual and moral faculties could not have been developed + from the animal, but must have had another origin; and for this + origin we can find an adequate cause only in the world of spirit. + + Wallace, Natural Selection, 338—“The average cranial capacity of + the lowest savage is probably not less than five-sixths of that of + the highest civilized races, while the brain of the anthropoid + apes scarcely amounts to one-third of that of man, in both cases + taking the average; or the proportions may be represented by the + following figures: anthropoid apes, 10; savages, 26; civilized + man, 32.” _Ibid._, 360—“The inference I would draw from this class + of phenomena is, that a superior intelligence has guided the + development of man in a definite direction and for a special + purpose, just as man guides the development of many animal and + vegetable forms.... The controlling action of a higher + intelligence is a necessary part of the laws of nature, just as + the action of all surrounding organisms is one of the agencies in + organic development,—else the laws which govern the material + universe are insufficient for the production of man.” Sir Wm. + Thompson: “That man could be evolved out of inferior animals is + the wildest dream of materialism, a pure assumption which offends + me alike by its folly and by its arrogance.” Hartmann, in his + Anthropoid Apes, 302-306, while not despairing of “the possibility + of discovering the true link between the world of man and + mammals,” declares that “that purely hypothetical being, the + common ancestor of man and apes, is still to be found,” and that + “man cannot have descended from any of the fossil species which + have hitherto come to our notice, nor yet from any of the species + of apes now extant.” See Dana, Amer. Journ. Science and Arts, + 1876:251, and Geology, 603, 604; Lotze, Mikrokosmos, vol. I, bk. + 3, chap. 1; Mivart, Genesis of Species, 202-222, 259-307, Man and + Apes, 88, 149-192, Lessons from Nature, 128-242, 280-301, The Cat. + and Encyclop. Britannica, art.: Apes; Quatrefages, Natural History + of Man, 64-87; Bp. Temple, Bampton Lect., 1884:161-189; Dawson, + Story of the Earth and Man, 321-329; Duke of Argyll, Primeval Man, + 38-75; Asa Gray, Natural Science and Religion; Schmid, Theories of + Darwin, 115-140; Carpenter, Mental Physiology, 59; McIlvaine, + Wisdom of Holy Scripture, 55-86; Bible Commentary, 1:43; + Martensen, Dogmatics, 136; LeConte, in Princeton Rev., Nov. + 1878:776-803; Zöckler, Urgeschichte, 81-105; Shedd, Dogm. Theol., + 1:499-515. Also, see this Compendium, pages 392, 393. + + +(_f_) The truth that man is the offspring of God implies the correlative +truth of a common divine Fatherhood. God is Father of all men, in that he +originates and sustains them as personal beings like in nature to himself. +Even toward sinners God holds this natural relation of Father. It is his +fatherly love, indeed, which provides the atonement. Thus the demands of +holiness are met and the prodigal is restored to the privileges of sonship +which have been forfeited by transgression. This natural Fatherhood, +therefore, does not exclude, but prepares the way for, God’s special +Fatherhood toward those who have been regenerated by his Spirit and who +have believed on his Son; indeed, since all God’s creations take place in +and through Christ, there is a natural and physical sonship of all men, by +virtue of their relation to Christ, the eternal Son, which antedates and +prepares the way for the spiritual sonship of those who join themselves to +him by faith. Man’s natural sonship underlies the history of the fall, and +qualifies the doctrine of Sin. + + + Texts referring to God’s natural and common Fatherhood are: _Mal. + 2:10_—“_Have we not all one father_ [Abraham]? _hath not one God + created us?_” _Luke 3:38_—“_Adam, the son of God_”; _15:11-32_—the + parable of the prodigal son, in which the father is father even + before the prodigal returns; _John 3:16_—“_God so loved the world, + that he gave his only begotten Son_”; _John 15:6_—“_If a man abide + not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and they + gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are + burned_”;—these words imply a natural union of all men with + Christ,—otherwise they would teach that those who are spiritually + united to him can perish everlastingly. _Acts 17:28_—“_For we are + also his offspring_”—words addressed by Paul to a heathen + audience; _Col. 1:16, 17_—“_in him were all things created ... and + in him all things consist_”; _Heb. 12:9_—“_the Father of + spirits._” Fatherhood, in this larger sense, implies: 1. + Origination; 2. Impartation of life; 3. Sustentation; 4. Likeness + in faculties and powers; 5. Government; 6. Care; 7. Love. In all + these respects God is the Father of all men, and his fatherly love + is both preserving and atoning. God’s natural fatherhood is + mediated by Christ, through whom all things were made, and in whom + all things, even humanity, consist. We are naturally children of + God, as we were _created_ in Christ; we are spiritually sons of + God, as we have been _created anew_ in Christ Jesus. G. W. + Northrop: “God never _becomes_ Father to any men or class of men; + he only becomes a _reconciled_ and _complacent_ Father to those + who become ethically like him. Men are not sons in the full ideal + sense until they comport themselves as sons of God.” Chapman, + Jesus Christ and the Present Age, 39—“While God is the Father of + all men, all men are not the children of God: in other words, God + always realizes completely the idea of Father to every man; but + the majority of men realize only partially the idea of sonship.” + + Texts referring to the special Fatherhood of grace are: _John + 1:12, 13_—“_as many as received him, to them gave he the right to + become children of God, even to them that believe on his name; who + were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the + will of man, but of God_”; _Rom. 8:14_—“_for as many as are led by + the Spirit of God, these are sons of God_”; _15_—“_ye received the + spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father_”; _2 Cor. + 6:17_—“_Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the + Lord, and touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you, and will + be to you a Father, and ye shall be to me sons and daughters, + saith the Lord Almighty_”; _Eph. 1:5, 6_—“_having foreordained us + unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself_”; _3:14, + 15_—“_the Father, from whom every family_ [marg. “fatherhood”] _in + heaven and on earth is named_” (= every race among angels or + men—so Meyer, Romans, 158, 159); _Gal 3:26_—“_for ye are all sons + of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus_”; _4:6_—“_And because ye + are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, + crying, Abba, Father_”; _1 John 3:1, 2_—“_Behold what manner of + love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called + children of God; __ and such we are.... Beloved, now are we + children of God._” The sonship of the race is only rudimentary. + The actual realization of sonship is possible only through Christ. + _Gal. 4:1-7_ intimates a universal sonship, but a sonship in which + the child “_differeth nothing from a bondservant though he is lord + of all_,” and needs still to “_receive the adoption of sons_.” + Simon, Reconciliation, 81—“It is one thing to be a father; another + to discharge all the fatherly functions. Human fathers sometimes + fail to behave like fathers for reasons lying solely in + themselves; sometimes because of hindrances in the conduct or + character of their children. No father can normally discharge his + fatherly functions toward children who are unchildlike. So even + the rebellious son is a son, but he does not act like a son.” + Because all men are naturally sons of God, it does not follow that + all men will be saved. Many who are naturally sons of God are not + spiritually sons of God; they are only “_servants_” who “_abide + not in the house forever_” (_John 8:35_). God is their Father, but + they have yet to “_become_” his children (_Mat. 5:45_). + + The controversy between those who maintain and those who deny that + God is the Father of all men is a mere logomachy. God is + physically and naturally the Father of all men; he is morally and + spiritually the Father only of those who have been renewed by his + Spirit. All men are sons of God in a lower sense by virtue of + their natural union with Christ; only those are sons of God in the + higher sense who have joined themselves by faith to Christ in a + spiritual union. We can therefore assent to much that is said by + those who deny the universal divine fatherhood, as, for example, + C. M. Mead, in Am. Jour. Theology, July, 1897:577-600, who + maintains that sonship consists in spiritual kinship with God, and + who quotes, in support of this view, _John 8:41-44_—“_If God were + your Father, ye would love me.... Ye are of your father, the + devil_” = the Fatherhood of God is not universal; _Mat. 5:44, + 45_—“_Love your enemies ... in order that ye may become sons of + your Father who is in heaven_”; _John 1:12_—“_as many as received + him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to + them that believe on his name._” Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, + 103—“That God has created all men does not constitute them his + sons in the evangelical sense of the word. The sonship on which + the N. T. dwells so constantly is based solely on the experience + of the new birth, while the doctrine of universal sonship rests + either on a daring denial or a daring assumption—the denial of the + universal fall of man through sin, or the assumption of the + universal regeneration of man through the Spirit. In either case + the teaching belongs to ‘_another gospel_’ (_Gal. 1:7_), the + recompense of whose preaching is not a beatitude, but an + ‘_anathema_’ (_Gal 1:8._)” + + But we can also agree with much that is urged by the opposite + party, as for example, Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 1:193—“God does + not _become_ the Father, but _is_ the heavenly Father, even of + those who become his sons.... This Fatherhood of God, instead of + the kingship which was the dominant idea of the Jews, Jesus made + the primary doctrine. The relation is ethical, not the Fatherhood + of mere origination, and therefore only those who live aright are + true sons of God.... 209—Mere kingship, or exaltation above the + world, led to Pharisaic legal servitude and external ceremony and + to Alexandrian philosophical speculation. The Fatherhood + apprehended and announced by Jesus was essentially a relation of + love and holiness.” A. H. Bradford, Age of Faith, 116-120—“There + is something sacred in humanity. But systems of theology once + began with the essential and natural worthlessness of man.... If + there is no Fatherhood, then selfishness is logical. But + Fatherhood carries with it identity of nature between the parent + and the child. Therefore every laborer is of the nature of God, + and he who has the nature of God cannot be treated like the + products of factory and field.... All the children of God are by + nature partakers of the life of God. They are called ‘_children of + wrath_’ (_Eph. 2:3_), or ‘_of perdition_’ (_John 17:12_), only to + indicate that their proper relations and duties have been + violated.... Love for man is dependent on something worthy of + love, and that is found in man’s essential divinity.” We object to + this last statement, as attributing to man at the beginning what + can come to him only through grace. Man was indeed created in + Christ (_Col. 1:16_) and was a son of God by virtue of his union + with Christ (_Luke 3:38_; _John 15:6_). But since man has sinned + and has renounced his sonship, it can be restored and realized. In + a moral and spiritual sense, only through the atoning work of + Christ and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit (_Eph. + 2:10_—“_created in Christ Jesus for good works_”; _2 Pet + 1:4_—“_his precious and exceeding great promises; that through + these ye may become partakers of the divine nature_”). + + Many who deny the universal Fatherhood of God refuse to carry + their doctrine to its logical extreme. To be consistent they + should forbid the unconverted to offer the Lord’s Prayer or even + to pray at all. A mother who did not believe God to be the Father + of all actually said: “My children are not converted, and if I + were to teach them the Lord’s Prayer, I must teach them to say: + ‘Our father who art in hell’; for they are only children of the + devil.” Papers on the question: Is God the Father of all Men? are + to be found in the Proceedings of the Baptist Congress, + 1896:106-136. Among these the essay of F. H. Rowley asserts God’s + universal Fatherhood upon the grounds: 1. Man is created in the + image of God; 2. God’s fatherly treatment of man, especially in + the life of Christ among men; 3. God’s universal claim on man for + his filial love and trust; 4. Only God’s Fatherhood makes + incarnation possible, for this implies oneness of nature between + God and man. To these we may add: 5. The atoning death of Christ + could be efficacious only upon the ground of a common nature in + Christ and in humanity; and 6. The regenerating work of the Holy + Spirit is intelligible only as the restoration of a filial + relation which was native to man, but which his sin had put into + abeyance. For denial that God is Father to any but the regenerate, + see Candlish, Fatherhood of God; Wright, Fatherhood of God. For + advocacy of the universal Fatherhood, see Crawford, Fatherhood of + God; Lidgett, Fatherhood of God. + + + +II. Unity of the Human Race. + + +(_a_) The Scriptures teach that the whole human race is descended from a +single pair. + + + _Gen. 1:27, 28_—“_And God created man in his own image, in the + image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And + God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and + multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it_”; _2:7_—“_And + Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed + into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living + soul_”; _22_—“_and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the + man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man_”; _3:20_—“_And + the man called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of + all living_” = even Eve is traced back to Adam; _9:19_—“_These + three were the sons of Noah; and of these was the whole earth + overspread._” Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 110—“Logically, it seems + easier to account for the divergence of what was at first one, + than for the union of what was at first heterogeneous.” + + +(_b_) This truth lies at the foundation of Paul’s doctrine of the organic +unity of mankind in the first transgression, and of the provision of +salvation for the race in Christ. + + + _Rom. 5:12_—“_Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the + world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, + for that all sinned_”; _19_—“_For as through the one man’s + disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the + obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous_”; _1 Cor. + 15:21, 22_—“_For since by man came death, by man came also the + resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in + Christ shall all be made alive_”; _Heb. 2:16_—“_For verily not of + angels doth he take hold, but he taketh hold of the seed of + Abraham._” One of the most eminent ethnologists and + anthropologists, Prof. D. G. Brinton, said not long before his + death that all scientific research and teaching tended to the + conviction that mankind has descended from one pair. + + +(_c_) This descent of humanity from a single pair also constitutes the +ground of man’s obligation of natural brotherhood to every member of the +race. + + + _Acts 17:26_—“_he made of one every nation of men to dwell on all + the face of the earth_”—here the Rev. Vers. omits the word + “_blood_” (“_made of one blood_”—Auth. Vers.). The word to be + supplied is possibly “father,” but more probably “body”; _cf._ + _Heb. 2:11_—“_for both he that sanctifieth and they that are + sanctified are all of one_ [father or body]: _for which cause he + is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will declare thy + name unto my brethren, In the midst of the congregation will I + sing thy praise._” + + Winchell, in his Preadamites, has recently revived the theory + broached in 1655 by Peyrerius, that there were men before Adam: + “Adam is descended from a black race—not the black races from + Adam.” Adam is simply “the remotest ancestor to whom the Jews + could trace their lineage.... The derivation of Adam from an older + human stock is essentially the creation of Adam.” Winchell does + not deny the unity of the race, nor the retroactive effect of the + atonement upon those who lived before Adam; he simply denies that + Adam was the first man. 297—He “regards the Adamic stock as + derived from an older and humbler human type,” originally as low + in the scale as the present Australian savages. + + Although this theory furnishes a plausible explanation of certain + Biblical facts, such as the marriage of Cain (_Gen. 4:17_), Cain’s + fear that men would slay him (_Gen. 4:14_), and the distinction + between “_the sons of God_” and “_the daughters of men_” (_Gen. + 6:1, 2_), it treats the Mosaic narrative as legendary rather than + historical. Shem, Ham, and Japheth, it is intimated, may have + lived hundreds of years apart from one another (409). Upon this + view, Eve could not be “_the mother of all living_” (_Gen. 3:20_), + nor could the transgression of Adam be the cause and beginning of + condemnation to the whole race (_Rom. 5:12, 19_). As to Cain’s + fear of other families who might take vengeance upon him, we must + remember that we do not know how many children were born to Adam + between Cain and Abel, nor what the age of Cain and Abel was, nor + whether Cain feared only those that were then living. As to Cain’s + marriage, we must remember that even if Cain married into another + family, his wife, upon any hypothesis of the unity of the race, + must have been descended from some other original Cain that + married his sister. + + See Keil and Delitzsch, Com. on Pentateuch, 1:116—“The marriage of + brothers and sisters was inevitable in the case of children of the + first man, in case the human race was actually to descend from a + single pair, and may therefore be justified, in the face of the + Mosaic prohibition of such marriages, on the ground that the sons + and daughters of Adam represented not merely the family but the + genus, and that it was not till after the rise of several families + that the bonds of fraternal and conjugal love became distinct from + one another and assumed fixed and mutually exclusive forms, the + violation of which is sin.” Prof. W. H. Green: “_Gen. 20:12_ shows + that Sarah was Abraham’s half-sister;...the regulations + subsequently ordained in the Mosaic law were not then in force.” + G. H. Darwin, son of Charles Darwin, has shown that marriage + between cousins is harmless where there is difference of + temperament between the parties. Modern palæontology makes it + probable that at the beginning of the race there was greater + differentiation of brothers and sisters in the same family than + obtains in later times. See Ebrard, Dogmatik, 1:275. For criticism + of the doctrine that there were men before Adam, see Methodist + Quar. Rev., April, 1881:205-231; Presb. Rev., 1881:440-444. + + +The Scripture statements are corroborated by considerations drawn from +history and science. Four arguments may be briefly mentioned: + + +1. The argument from history. + + +So far as the history of nations and tribes in both hemispheres can be +traced, the evidence points to a common origin and ancestry in central +Asia. + + + The European nations are acknowledged to have come, in successive + waves of migration, from Asia. Modern ethnologists generally agree + that the Indian races of America are derived from Mongoloid + sources in Eastern Asia, either through Polynesia or by way of the + Aleutian Islands. Bunsen, Philos. of Universal History, 2:112—the + Asiatic origin of all the North American Indians “is as fully + proved as the unity of family among themselves.” Mason, Origins of + Invention, 361—“Before the time of Columbus, the Polynesians made + canoe voyages from Tahiti to Hawaii, a distance of 2300 miles.” + Keane, Man Past and Present, 1-15, 349-440, treats of the American + Aborigines under two primitive types: Longheads from Europe and + Roundheads from Asia. The human race, he claims, originated in + Indomalaysia and spread thence by migration over the globe. The + world was peopled from one center by Pleistocene man. The primary + groups were evolved each in its special habitat, but all sprang + from a Pleiocene precursor 100,000 years ago. W. T. Lopp, + missionary to the Eskimos, at Port Clarence, Alaska, on the + American side of Bering Strait, writes under date of August 31, + 1892: “No thaws during the winter, and ice blocked in the Strait. + This has always been doubted by whalers. Eskimos have told them + that they sometimes crossed the Strait on ice, but they have never + believed them. Last February and March our Eskimos had a tobacco + famine. Two parties (five men) went with dogsleds to East Cape, on + the Siberian coast, and traded some beaver, otter and marten skins + for Russian tobacco, and returned safely. It is only during an + occasional winter that they can do this. But every summer they + make several trips in their big wolf-skin boats—forty feet long. + These observations may throw some light upon the origin of the + prehistoric races of America.” + + Tylor, Primitive Culture, 1:48—“The semi-civilized nations of Java + and Sumatra are found in possession of a civilization which at + first glance shows itself to have been borrowed from Hindu and + Moslem sources.” See also Sir Henry Rawlinson, quoted in Burgess, + Antiquity and Unity of the Race, 156, 157; Smyth, Unity of Human + Races, 223-236; Pickering, Races of Man, Introd., synopsis, and + page 316; Guyot, Earth and Man, 298-334; Quatrefages, Natural + History of Man, and Unité de l’Espèce Humaine; Godron, Unité de + l’Espèce Humaine, 2:412 _sq._ _Per contra_, however, see Prof. A. + H. Sayce: “The evidence is now all tending to show that the + districts in the neighborhood of the Baltic were those from which + the Aryan languages first radiated, and where the race or races + who spoke them originally dwelt. The Aryan invaders of + Northwestern India could only have been a late and distant + offshoot of the primitive stock, speedily absorbed into the + earlier population of the country as they advanced southward; and + to speak of ‘our Indian brethren’ is as absurd and false as to + claim relationship with the negroes of the United States because + they now use an Aryan language.” Scribner, Where Did Life Begin? + has lately adduced arguments to prove that life on the earth + originated at the North Pole, and Prof. Asa Gray favors this view; + see his Darwiniana, 205, and Scientific Papers, 2:152; so also + Warren, Paradise Found; and Wieland, in Am. Journal of Science, + Dec. 1903:401-430. Dr. J. L. Wortman, in Yale Alumni Weekly, Jan. + 14, 1903:129—“The appearance of all these primates in North + America was very abrupt at the beginning of the second stage of + the Eocene. And it is a striking coincidence that approximately + the same forms appear in beds of exactly corresponding age in + Europe. Nor does this synchronism stop with the apes. It applies + to nearly all the other types of Eocene mammalia in the Northern + Hemisphere, and to the accompanying flora as well. These facts can + be explained only on the hypothesis that there was a common centre + from which these plants and animals were distributed. Considering + further that the present continental masses were essentially the + same in the Eocene time as now, and that the North Polar region + then enjoyed a subtropical climate, as is abundantly proved by + fossil plants, we are forced to the conclusion that this common + centre of dispersion lay approximately within the Arctic + Circle.... The origin of the human species did not take place on + the Western Hemisphere.” + + +2. The argument from language. + + +Comparative philology points to a common origin of all the more important +languages, and furnishes no evidence that the less important are not also +so derived. + + + On Sanskrit as a connecting link between the Indo-Germanic + languages, see Max Müller, Science of Language, 1:146-165, + 326-342, who claims that all languages pass through the three + stages: monosyllabic, agglutinative, inflectional; and that + nothing necessitates the admission of different independent + beginnings for either the material or the formal elements of the + Turanian, Semitic, and Aryan branches of speech. The changes of + language are often rapid. Latin becomes the Romance languages, and + Saxon and Norman are united into English, in three centuries. The + Chinese may have departed from their primitive abodes while their + language was yet monosyllabic. + + G. J. Romanes, Life and Letters, 195—“Children are the + constructors of all _languages_, as distinguished from + _language_.” Instance Helen Keller’s sudden acquisition of + language, uttering publicly a long piece only three weeks after + she first began to imitate the motions of the lips. G. F. Wright, + Man and the Glacial Period, 242-301—“Recent investigations show + that children, when from any cause isolated at an early age, will + often produce at once a language _de novo_. Thus it would appear + by no means improbable that various languages in America, and + perhaps the earliest languages of the world, may have arisen in a + short time where conditions were such that a family of small + children could have maintained existence when for any cause + deprived of parental and other fostering care.... Two or three + thousand years of prehistoric time is perhaps all that would be + required to produce the diversification of languages which appears + at the dawn of history.... The prehistoric stage of Europe ended + less than a thousand years before the Christian Era.” In a people + whose speech has not been fixed by being committed to writing, + baby-talk is a great source of linguistic corruption, and the + changes are exceedingly rapid. Humboldt took down the vocabulary + of a South American tribe, and after fifteen years of absence + found their speech so changed as to seem a different language. + + Zöckler, in Jahrbuch für deutsche Theologie, 8:68 _sq._, denies + the progress from lower methods of speech to higher, and declares + the most highly developed inflectional languages to be the oldest + and most widespread. Inferior languages are a degeneration from a + higher state of culture. In the development of the Indo-Germanic + languages (such as the French and the English), we have instances + of change from more full and luxuriant expression to that which is + monosyllabic or agglutinative. The theory of Max Müller is also + opposed by Pott, Die Verschiedenheiten der menschlichen Rassen, + 202, 242. Pott calls attention to the fact that the Australian + languages show unmistakable similarity to the languages of Eastern + and Southern Asia, although the physical characteristics of these + tribes are far different from the Asiatic. + + On the old Egyptian language as a connecting link between the + Indo-European and the Semitic tongues, see Bunsen, Egypt’s Place, + 1: preface, 10; also see Farrar, Origin of Language, 213. Like the + old Egyptian, the Berber and the Touareg are Semitic in parts of + their vocabulary, while yet they are Aryan in grammar. So the + Tibetan and Burmese stand between the Indo-European languages, on + the one hand, and the monosyllabic languages, as of China, on the + other. A French philologist claims now to have interpreted the + _Yh-King_, the oldest and most unintelligible monumental writing + of the Chinese, by regarding it as a corruption of the old + Assyrian or Accadian cuneiform characters, and as resembling the + syllabaries, vocabularies, and bilingual tablets in the ruined + libraries of Assyria and Babylon; see Terrien de Lacouperie, The + Oldest Book of the Chinese and its Authors, and The Languages of + China before the Chinese, 11, note; he holds to “the + non-indigenousness of the Chinese civilization and its derivation + from the old Chaldæo-Babylonian focus of culture by the medium of + Susiana.” See also Sayce, in Contemp. Rev., Jan. 1884:934-936; + also, The Monist, Oct. 1906:562-596, on The Ideograms of the + Chinese and the Central American Calendars. The evidence goes to + show that the Chinese came into China from Susiana in the 23d + century before Christ. Initial G wears down in time into a Y + sound. Many words which begin with Y in Chinese are found in + Accadian beginning with G, as Chinese Ye, “night,” is in Accadian + Ge, “night.” The order of development seems to be: 1. picture + writing; 2. syllabic writing; 3. alphabetic writing. + + In a similar manner, there is evidence that the Pharaonic + Egyptians were immigrants from another land, namely, Babylonia. + Hommel derives the hieroglyphs of the Egyptians from the pictures + out of which the cuneiform characters developed, and he shows that + the elements of the Egyptian language itself are contained in that + mixed speech of Babylonia which originated in the fusion of + Sumerians and Semites. The Osiris of Egypt is the Asari of the + Sumerians. Burial in brick tombs in the first two Egyptian + dynasties is a survival from Babylonia, as are also the + seal-cylinders impressed on clay. On the relations between Aryan + and Semitic languages, see Renouf, Hibbert Lectures, 55-61; + Murray, Origin and Growth of the Psalms, 7; Bib. Sac., 1870:162; + 1876:352-380; 1879:674-706. See also Pezzi, Aryan Philology, 125; + Sayce, Principles of Comp. Philology, 132-174; Whitney, art. on + Comp. Philology in Encyc. Britannica, also Life and Growth of + Language, 269, and Study of Language, 307, 308—“Language affords + certain indications of doubtful value, which, taken along with + certain other ethnological considerations, also of questionable + pertinency, furnish ground for suspecting an ultimate + relationship.... That more thorough comprehension of the history + of Semitic speech will enable us to determine this ultimate + relationship, may perhaps be looked for with hope, though it is + not to be expected with confidence.” See also Smyth, Unity of + Human Races, 199-222; Smith’s Bib. Dict., art.: Confusion of + Tongues. + + We regard the facts as, on the whole, favoring an opposite + conclusion from that in Hastings’s Bible Dictionary, art.: Flood: + “The diversity of the human race and of language alike makes it + improbable that men were derived from a single pair.” E. G. + Robinson: “The only trustworthy argument for the unity of the race + is derived from comparative philology. If it should be established + that one of the three families of speech was more ancient than the + others, and the source of the others, the argument would be + unanswerable. Coloration of the skin seems to lie back of climatic + influences. We believe in the unity of the race because in this + there are the fewest difficulties. We would not know how else to + interpret Paul in _Romans 5_.” Max Müller has said that the + fountain head of modern philology as of modern freedom and + international law is the change wrought by Christianity, + superseding the narrow national conception of patriotism by the + recognition of all the nations and races as members of one great + human family. + + +3. The argument from psychology. + + +The existence, among all families of mankind, of common mental and moral +characteristics, as evinced in common maxims, tendencies and capacities, +in the prevalence of similar traditions, and in the universal +applicability of one philosophy and religion, is most easily explained +upon the theory of a common origin. + + + Among the widely prevalent traditions may be mentioned the + tradition of the fashioning of the world and man, of a primeval + garden, of an original innocence and happiness, of a tree of + knowledge, of a serpent, of a temptation and fall, of a division + of time into weeks, of a flood, of sacrifice. It is possible, if + not probable, that certain myths, common to many nations, may have + been handed down from a time when the families of the race had not + yet separated. See Zöckler, in Jahrbuch für deutsche Theologie, + 8:71-90; Max Müller, Science of Language, 2:444-455; Prichard, + Nat. Hist. of Man, 2:657-714; Smyth, Unity of Human Races, + 236-240; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:77-91; Gladstone, Juventus Mundi. + + +4. The argument from physiology. + + +A. It is the common judgment of comparative physiologists that man +constitutes but a single species. The differences which exist between the +various families of mankind are to be regarded as varieties of this +species. In proof of these statements we urge: (_a_) The numberless +intermediate gradations which connect the so-called races with each other. +(_b_) The essential identity of all races in cranial, osteological, and +dental characteristics. (_c_) The fertility of unions between individuals +of the most diverse types, and the continuous fertility of the offspring +of such unions. + + + Huxley, Critiques and Addresses, 163—“It may be safely affirmed + that, even if the differences between men are specific, they are + so small that the assumption of more than one primitive stock for + all is altogether superfluous. We may admit that Negroes and + Australians are distinct species, yet be the strictest + monogenists, and even believe in Adam and Eve as the primeval + parents of mankind, _i. e._, on Darwin’s hypothesis”; Origin of + Species, 118—“I am one of those who believe that at present there + is no evidence whatever for saying that mankind sprang originally + from more than a single pair; I must say that I cannot see any + good ground whatever, or any tenable evidence, for believing that + there is more than one species of man.” Owen, quoted by Burgess, + Ant. and Unity of Race, 185—“Man forms but one species, and + differences are but indications of varieties. These variations + merge into each other by easy gradations.” Alex. von Humboldt: + “The different races of men are forms of one sole species,—they + are not different species of a genus.” + + Quatrefages, in Revue d. deux Mondes, Dec. 1860:814—“If one places + himself exclusively upon the plane of the natural sciences, it is + impossible not to conclude in favor of the monogenist doctrine.” + Wagner, quoted in Bib. Sac., 19:607—“Species—the collective total + of individuals which are capable of producing one with another an + uninterruptedly fertile progeny.” Pickering, Races of Man, + 316—“There is no middle ground between the admission of eleven + distinct species in the human family and their reduction to one. + The latter opinion implies a central point of origin.” + + There is an impossibility of deciding how many races there are, if + we once allow that there are more than one. While Pickering would + say eleven, Agassiz says eight, Morton twenty-two, and Burke + sixty-five. Modern science all tends to the derivation of each + family from a single germ. Other common characteristics of all + races of men, in addition to those mentioned in the text, are the + duration of pregnancy, the normal temperature of the body, the + mean frequency of the pulse, the liability to the same diseases. + Meehan, State Botanist of Pennsylvania, maintains that hybrid + vegetable products are no more sterile than are ordinary plants + (Independent, Aug. 21, 1884). + + E. B. Tylor, art.: Anthropology, in Encyc. Britannica: “On the + whole it may be asserted that the doctrine of the unity of mankind + now stands on a firmer basis than in previous ages.” Darwin, + Animals and Plants under Domestication, 1:39—“From the resemblance + in several countries of the half-domesticated dogs to the wild + species still living there, from the facility with which they can + be crossed together, from even half tamed animals being so much + valued by savages, and from the other circumstances previously + remarked on which favor domestication, it is highly probable that + the domestic dogs of the world have descended from two good + species of wolf (_viz._, _Canis lupus_ and _Canis latrans_), and + from two or three other doubtful species of wolves (namely, the + European, Indian and North American forms); from at least one or + two South American canine species; from several races or species + of the jackal; and perhaps from one or more extinct species.” Dr. + E. M. Moore tried unsuccessfully to produce offspring by pairing a + Newfoundland dog and a wolf-like dog from Canada. He only proved + anew the repugnance of even slightly separated species toward one + another. + + +B. Unity of species is presumptive evidence of unity of origin. Oneness of +origin furnishes the simplest explanation of specific uniformity, if +indeed the very conception of species does not imply the repetition and +reproduction of a primordial type-idea impressed at its creation upon an +individual empowered to transmit this type-idea to its successors. + + + Dana, quoted in Burgess, Antiq. and Unity of Race, 185, 186—“In + the ascending scale of animals, the number of species in any genus + diminishes as we rise, and should by analogy be smallest at the + head of the series. Among mammals, the higher genera have few + species, and the highest group next to man, the orang-outang, has + only eight, and these constitute but two genera. Analogy requires + that man should have preëminence and should constitute only one.” + 194—“A species corresponds to a specific amount or condition of + concentrated force defined in the act or law of creation.... The + species in any particular case began its existence when the first + germ-cell or individual was created. When individuals multiply + from generation to generation, it is but a repetition of the + primordial type-idea.... The specific is based on a numerical + unity, the species being nothing else than an enlargement of the + individual.” For full statement of Dana’s view, see Bib. Sac., Oct + 1857:862-866. On the idea of species, see also Shedd, Dogm. + Theol., 2:63-74. + + +(_a_) To this view is opposed the theory, propounded by Agassiz, of +different centres of creation, and of different types of humanity +corresponding to the varying fauna and flora of each. But this theory +makes the plural origin of man an exception in creation. Science points +rather to a single origin of each species, whether vegetable or animal. If +man be, as this theory grants, a single species, he should be, by the same +rule, restricted to one continent in his origin. This theory, moreover, +applies an unproved hypothesis with regard to the distribution of +organized beings in general to the very being whose whole nature and +history show conclusively that he is an exception to such a general rule, +if one exists. Since man can adapt himself to all climes and conditions, +the theory of separate centres of creation is, in his case, gratuitous and +unnecessary. + + + Agassiz’s view was first published in an essay on the Provinces of + the Animal World, in Nott and Gliddon’s Types of Mankind, a book + gotten up in the interest of slavery. Agassiz held to eight + distinct centres of creation, and to eight corresponding types of + humanity—the Arctic, the Mongolian, the European, the American, + the Negro, the Hottentot, the Malay, the Australian. Agassiz + regarded Adam as the ancestor only of the white race, yet like + Peyrerius and Winchell be held that man in all his various races + constitutes but one species. + + The whole tendency of recent science, however, has been adverse to + the doctrine of separate centres of creation, even in the case of + animal and vegetable life. In temperate North America there are + two hundred and seven species of quadrupeds, of which only eight, + and these polar animals, are found in the north of Europe or Asia. + If North America be an instance of a separate centre of creation + for its peculiar species, why should God create the same species + of man in eight different localities? This would make man an + exception in creation. There is, moreover, no need of creating man + in many separate localities; for, unlike the polar bears and the + Norwegian firs, which cannot live at the equator, man can adapt + himself to the most varied climates and conditions. For replies to + Agassiz, see Bib. Sac., 19:607-632; Princeton Rev., 1862:435-464. + + +(_b_) It is objected, moreover, that the diversities of size, color, and +physical conformation, among the various families of mankind, are +inconsistent with the theory of a common origin. But we reply that these +diversities are of a superficial character, and can be accounted for by +corresponding diversities of condition and environment. Changes which have +been observed and recorded within historic times show that the differences +alluded to may be the result of slowly accumulated divergences from one +and the same original and ancestral type. The difficulty in the case, +moreover, is greatly relieved when we remember (1) that the period during +which these divergences have arisen is by no means limited to six thousand +years (see note on the antiquity of the race, pages 224-226); and (2) +that, since species in general exhibit their greatest power of divergence +into varieties immediately after their first introduction, all the +varieties of the human species may have presented themselves in man’s +earliest history. + + + Instances of physiological change as the result of new conditions: + The Irish driven by the English two centuries ago from Armagh and + the south of Down, have become prognathous like the Australians. + The inhabitants of New England have descended from the English, + yet they have already a physical type of their own. The Indians of + North America, or at least certain tribes of them, have + permanently altered the shape of the skull by bandaging the head + in infancy. The Sikhs of India, since the establishment of Bába + Nának’s religion (1500 A. D.) and their consequent advance in + civilization, have changed to a longer head and more regular + features, so that they are now distinguished greatly from their + neighbors, the Afghans, Tibetans, Hindus. The Ostiak savages have + become the Magyar nobility of Hungary. The Turks in Europe are, in + cranial shape, greatly in advance of the Turks in Asia from whom + they descended. The Jews are confessedly of one ancestry; yet we + have among them the light-haired Jews of Poland, the dark Jews of + Spain, and the Ethiopian Jews of the Nile Valley. The Portuguese + who settled in the East Indies in the 16th century are now as dark + in complexion as the Hindus themselves. Africans become lighter in + complexion as they go up from the alluvial river-banks to higher + land, or from the coast; and on the contrary the coast tribes + which drive out the negroes of the interior and take their + territory end by becoming negroes themselves. See, for many of the + above facts, Burgess, Antiquity and Unity of the Race, 195-202. + + The law of originally greater plasticity, mentioned in the text, + was first hinted by Hall, the palæontologist of New York. It is + accepted and defined by Dawson, Story of the Earth and Man, 360—“A + new law is coming into view: that species when first introduced + have an innate power of expansion, which enables them rapidly to + extend themselves to the limit of their geographical range, and + also to reach the limit of their divergence into races. This limit + once reached, these races run on in parallel lines until they one + by one run out and disappear. According to this law the most + aberrant races of men might be developed in a few centuries, after + which divergence would cease, and the several lines of variation + would remain permanent, at least so long as the conditions under + which they originated remained.” See the similar view of Von Baer + in Schmid, Theories of Darwin, 55, note. Joseph Cook: Variability + is a lessening quantity; the tendency to change is greatest at the + first, but, like the rate of motion of a stone thrown upward, it + lessens every moment after. Ruskin, Seven Lamps, 125—“The life of + a nation is usually, like the flow of a lava-stream, first bright + and fierce, then languid and covered, at last advancing only by + the tumbling over and over of its frozen blocks.” Renouf, Hibbert + Lectures, 54—“The further back we go into antiquity, the more + closely does the Egyptian type approach the European.” Rawlinson + says that negroes are not represented in the Egyptian monuments + before 1500 B. C. The influence of climate is very great, + especially in the savage state. + + In May, 1891, there died in San Francisco the son of an + interpreter at the Merchants’ Exchange. He was 21 years of age. + Three years before his death his clear skin was his chief claim to + manly beauty. He was attacked by “Addison’s disease,” a gradual + darkening of the color of the surface of the body. At the time of + his death his skin was as dark as that of a full-blooded negro. + His name was George L. Sturtevant. Ratzel, History of Mankind, + 1:9, 10—As there is only one species of man, “the reunion into one + real whole of the parts which have diverged after the fashion of + sports” is said to be “the unconscious ultimate aim of all the + movements” which have taken place since man began his wanderings. + “With Humboldt we can only hold fast to the external unity of the + race.” See Sir Wm. Hunter, The Indian Empire, 223, 410; Encyc. + Britannica, 12:808; 20:110; Zöckler, Urgeschichte, 109-132, and in + Jahrbuch für deutsche Theologie, 8:51-71; Prichard, Researches, + 5:547-552, and Nat. Hist. of Man, 2:644-656; Duke of Argyll, + Primeval Man, 96-108; Smith, Unity of Human Races, 255-283; + Morris, Conflict of Science and Religion, 325-385; Rawlinson, in + Journ. Christ. Philosophy, April, 1883:359. + + + +III. Essential Elements of Human Nature. + + +1. The Dichotomous Theory. + + +Man has a two-fold nature,—on the one hand material, on the other hand +immaterial. He consists of body, and of spirit, or soul. That there are +two, and only two, elements in man’s being, is a fact to which +consciousness testifies. This testimony is confirmed by Scripture, in +which the prevailing representation of man’s constitution is that of +dichotomy. + + + Dichotomous, from δίχα, “in two,” and τέμνω, “to cut,” = composed + of two parts. Man is as conscious that his immaterial part is a + unity, as that his body is a unity. He knows two, and only two, + parts of his being—body and soul. So man is the true Janus + (Martensen), Mr. Facing-both-ways (Bunyan). That the Scriptures + favor dichotomy will appear by considering: + + +(_a_) The record of man’s creation (Gen. 2:7), in which, as a result of +the inbreathing of the divine Spirit, the body becomes possessed and +vitalized by a single principle—the living soul. + + + _Gen. 2:7_—“_And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, + and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became + a living soul_”—here it is not said that man was first a living + soul, and that then God breathed into him a spirit; but that God + inbreathed spirit, and man became a living soul = God’s life took + possession of clay, and as a result, man had a soul. _Cf._ _Job + 27:3_—“_for my life is yet whole in me, And the spirit of God is + in my nostrils_”; _32:8_—“_there is a spirit in man, And the + breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding_”; _33:4_—“_The + Spirit of God hath made me, And the breath of the Almighty giveth + me life._” + + +(_b_) Passages in which the human soul, or spirit, is distinguished, both +from the divine Spirit from whom it proceeded, and from the body which it +inhabits. + + + _Num. 16:22_—“_O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh_”; + _Zech. 12:1_—“_Jehovah, who ... formeth the spirit of man within + him_”; _1 Cor. 2:11_—“_the spirit of the man which is in him ... + the Spirit of God_”; _Heb. 12:9_—“_the Father of spirits._” The + passages just mentioned distinguish the spirit of man from the + Spirit of God. The following distinguish the soul, or spirit, of + man from the body which it inhabits: _Gen, 35:18_—“_it came to + pass, as her soul was departing (for she died)_”; _1 K. 17:21_—“_O + Jehovah my God, I pray thee, let this child’s soul come into him + again_”; _Eccl. 12:7_—“_the dust returneth to the earth as it was, + and the spirit returneth unto God who gave it_”; _James + 2:26_—“_the body apart from the spirit is dead._” The first class + of passages refutes pantheism; the second refutes materialism. + + +(_c_) The interchangeable use of the terms “soul” and “spirit.” + + + _Gen. 41:8_—“_his spirit was troubled_”; _cf._ _Ps. 42:6_—“_my + soul is cast down within me._” _John 12:27_—“_Now is my soul + troubled_”; _cf._ _13:21_—“_he was troubled in the spirit._” _Mat. + 20:28_—“_to give his life (ψυχήν) a ransom for many_”; _cf._ + _27:50_—“_yielded up his spirit (πνεῦμα)._” _Heb. 12:23_—“_spirits + of just men made perfect_”; _cf._ _Rev. 6:9_—“_I saw underneath + the altar the souls of them that had been slain for the word of + God._” In these passages “_spirit_” and “_soul_” seem to be used + interchangeably. + + +(_d_) The mention of body and soul (or spirit) as together constituting +the whole man. + + + _Mat 10:28_—“_able to destroy both soul and body in hell_”; _1 + Cor. 5:3_—“_absent in body but present in spirit_”; _3 John 2_—“_I + pray that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul + prospereth._” These texts imply that body and soul (or spirit) + together constitute the whole man. + + For advocacy of the dichotomous theory, see Goodwin, in Journ. + Society Bib. Exegesis, 1881:73-86; Godet, Bib. Studies of the O. + T., 32; Oehler, Theology of the O. T., 1:219; Hahn, Bib. Theol. N. + T., 390 _sq._; Schmid, Bib. Theology N. T., 503; Weiss, Bib. + Theology N. T., 214; Luthardt, Compendium der Dogmatik, 112, 113; + Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, 1:294-298; Kahnis, Dogmatik, 1:549; 3:249; + Harless, Com. on Eph., 4:23, and Christian Ethics, 22; Thomasius, + Christi Person und Werk. 1:164-168; Hodge, in Princeton Review, + 1865:116, and Systematic Theol., 2:47-51; Ebrard, Dogmatik, + 1:261-263; Wm. H. Hodge, in Presb. and Ref. Rev., Apl. 1897. + + +2. The Trichotomous Theory. + + +Side by side with this common representation of human nature as consisting +of two parts, are found passages which at first sight appear to favor +trichotomy. It must be acknowledged that πνεῦμα (spirit) and ψυχή (soul), +although often used interchangeably, and always designating the same +indivisible substance, are sometimes employed as contrasted terms. + +In this more accurate use, ψυχή denotes man’s immaterial part in its +inferior powers and activities;—as ψυχή, man is a conscious individual, +and, in common with the brute creation, has an animal life, together with +appetite, imagination, memory, understanding. Πνεῦμα, on the other hand, +denotes man’s immaterial part in its higher capacities and faculties;—as +πνεῦμα, man is a being related to God, and possessing powers of reason, +conscience, and free will, which difference him from the brute creation +and constitute him responsible and immortal. + + + In the following texts, spirit and soul are distinguished from + each other: _1 Thess. 5:23_—“_And the God of peace himself + sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be + preserved entire, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus + Christ_”; _Heb. 4:12_—“_For the word of God is living, and active, + and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the + dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick + to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart._” Compare _1 + Cor. 2:14_—“_Now the natural_ [Gr. “_psychical_”] _man receiveth + not the things of the Spirit of God_”; _15:44_—“_It is sown a + natural_ [Gr. “_psychical_”] _body; it is raised a spiritual body. + If there is a natural_ [Gr. “psychical”] _body, there is also a + spiritual body_”; _Eph. 4:23_—“_that ye be renewed in the spirit + of your mind_”; _Jude 19_—“_sensual_ [Gr. “_psychical_”], _having + not the Spirit._” + + For the proper interpretation of these texts, see note on the next + page. Among those who cite them as proofs of the trichotomous + theory (trichotomous, from τρίχα, “in three parts,” and τέμνω, “to + cut,” = composed of three parts, _i. e._, spirit, soul, and body) + may be mentioned Olshausen, Opuscula, 134, and Com. on _1 Thess., + 5:23_; Beck, Biblische Seelenlehre, 81; Delitzsch, Biblical + Psychology, 117, 118; Göschel, in Herzog, Realencyclopädie, art.: + Seele; also, art. by Auberlen: Geist des Menschen; Cremer, N. T. + Lexicon, on πνεῦμα and ψυχή; Usteri, Paulin. Lehrbegriff, 384 + _sq._; Neander, Planting and Training, 394; Van Oosterzee, + Christian Dogmatics, 365, 366; Boardman, in Bap. Quarterly, 1:177, + 325, 428; Heard, Tripartite Nature of Man, 62-114; Ellicott, + Destiny of the Creature, 106-125. + + +The element of truth in trichotomy is simply this, that man has a +triplicity of endowment, in virtue of which the single soul has relations +to matter, to self, and to God. The trichotomous theory, however, as it is +ordinarily defined, endangers the unity and immateriality of our higher +nature, by holding that man consists of three _substances_, or three +component _parts_—body, soul and spirit—and that soul and spirit are as +distinct from each other as are soul and body. + + + The advocates of this view differ among themselves as to the + nature of the ψυχή and its relation to the other elements of our + being; some (as Delitzsch) holding that the ψυχή is an efflux of + the πνεῦμα, distinct in substance, but not in essence, even as the + divine Word is distinct from God, while yet he is God; others (as + Göschel) regarding the ψυχή, not as a distinct substance, but as a + resultant of the union of the πνεῦμα and the σῶμα. Still others + (as Cremer) hold the ψυχή to be the subject of the personal life + whose principle is the πνεῦμα. Heard, Tripartite Nature of Man, + 103—“God is the Creator _ex traduce_ of the animal and + intellectual part of every man.... Not so with the spirit.... It + proceeds from God, not by creation, but by emanation.” + + +We regard the trichotomous theory as untenable, not only for the reasons +already urged in proof of the dichotomous theory, but from the following +additional considerations: + +(_a_) Πνεῦμα, as well as ψυχή, is used of the brute creation. + + + _Eccl. 3:21_—“_Who knoweth the spirit of man, whether it goeth_ + [marg. “_that goeth_”] _upward, and the spirit of the beast, + whether it goeth_ [marg. “_that goeth_”] _downward to the earth?_” + _Rev. 16:3_—“_And the second poured out his bowl into the sea; and + it became blood, as of a dead man; and every living soul died, + even the things that were in the sea_” = the fish. + + +(_b_) ψυχή is ascribed to Jehovah. + + + _Amos 6:8_—“_The Lord Jehovah hath sworn by himself_” (lit. “_by + his soul_”) LXX _42:1_—“_my chosen in whom my soul delighteth_”; + _Jer. 9:9_—“_Shall I not visit them for these things? saith + Jehovah; shall not my soul be avenged?_” _Heb. 10:38_—“_my + righteous one shall live by faith: And if he shrink back, my soul + hath no pleasure in him._” + + +(_c_) The disembodied dead are called ψυχαί. + + + _Rev. 6:9_—“_I saw underneath the altar the souls of them that had + been slain for the word of God_”; _cf._ _20:4_—“_souls of them + that had been beheaded._” + + +(_d_) The highest exercises of religion are attributed to the ψυχή. + + + _Mark 12:30_—“_thou shalt love the Lord thy God ... with all thy + soul_”; _Luke 1:46_—“_My soul doth magnify the Lord_”; _Heb. 6:18, + 19_—“_the hope set before us: which we have as an anchor of the + soul_”; _James 1:21_—“_the implanted word, which is able to save + your souls._” + + +(_e_) To lose this ψυχή is to lose all. + + + _Mark 8:36, 37_—“_For what doth it profit a man, to gain the whole + world, and forfeit his life_ [or “_soul_,” ψυχή]? _For what should + a man give in exchange for his life_ [or ‘_soul_,’ ψυχή]?” + + +(_f_) The passages chiefly relied upon as supporting trichotomy may be +better explained upon the view already indicated, that soul and spirit are +not two distinct substances or parts, but that they designate the +immaterial principle from different points of view. + + + _1 Thess. 5:23_—“_may your spirit and soul and body be preserved + entire_” = not a scientific enumeration of the constituent parts + of human nature, but a comprehensive sketch of that nature in its + chief relations; compare _Mark 12:30_—“_thou shalt love the Lord + thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all + thy mind, and with all thy strength_”—where none would think of + finding proof of a fourfold division of human nature. On _1 Thess. + 5:23_, see Riggenbach (in Lange’s Com.), and Commentary of Prof. + W. A. Stevens. _Heb. 4:12_—“_piercing even to the dividing of soul + and spirit, of both joints and marrow_” = not the dividing of soul + _from_ spirit, or of joints _from_ marrow, but rather the piercing + of the soul and of the spirit, even to their very joints and + marrow; _i. e._, to the very depths of the spiritual nature. On + _Heb. 4:12_, see Ebrard (in Olshausen’s Com.), and Lünemann (in + Meyer’s Com.); also Tholuck, Com. _in loco_. _Jude 19_—“_sensual, + having not the Spirit_” (ψυχικοί, πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες)—even though + πνεῦμα = the human spirit, need not mean that there is no spirit + existing, but only that the spirit is torpid and inoperative—as we + say of a weak man: “he has no mind,” or of an unprincipled man: + “he has no conscience”; so Alford; see Nitzsch, Christian + Doctrine, 202. But πνεῦμα here probably = the divine πνεῦμα. Meyer + takes this view, and the Revised Version capitalizes the word + “_Spirit_.” See Goodwin, Soc. Bib. Exegesis, 1881:85—“The + distinction between ψυχή and πνεῦμα is a _functional_, and not a + _substantial_, distinction.” Moule, Outlines of Christian + Doctrine, 161, 162—“Soul = spirit organized, inseparably linked + with the body; spirit = man’s inner being considered as God’s + gift. Soul = man’s inner being viewed as his own; spirit = man’s + inner being viewed as from God. They are not separate elements.” + See Lightfoot, Essay on St. Paul and Seneca, appended to his Com. + on Philippians, on the influence of the ethical language of + Stoicism on the N. T. writers. Martineau, Seat of Authority, + 39—“The difference between man and his companion creatures on this + earth is not that his instinctive life is less than theirs, for in + truth it goes far beyond them; but that in him it acts in the + presence and under the eye of other powers which transform it, and + by giving to it vision as well as light take its blindness away. + He is let into his own secrets.” + + +We conclude that the immaterial part of man, viewed as an individual and +conscious life, capable of possessing and animating a physical organism, +is called ψυχή; viewed as a rational and moral agent, susceptible of +divine influence and indwelling, this same immaterial part is called +πνεῦμα. The πνεῦμα, then, is man’s nature looking Godward, and capable of +receiving and manifesting the Πνεῦμα ἅγιον; the ψυχή is man’s nature +looking earthward, and touching the world of sense. The πνεῦμα is man’s +higher part, as related to spiritual realities or as capable of such +relation; the ψυχή is man’s higher part, as related to the body, or as +capable of such relation. Man’s being is therefore not trichotomous but +dichotomous, and his immaterial part, while possessing duality of powers, +has unity of substance. + + + Man’s nature is not a three-storied house, but a two-storied + house, with windows in the upper story looking in two + directions—toward earth and toward heaven. The lower story is the + physical part of us—the body. But man’s “upper story” has two + aspects; there is an outlook toward things below, and a skylight + through which to see the stars. “Soul” says Hovey, “is spirit as + modified by union with the body.” Is man then the same in kind + with the brute, but different in degree? No, man is different in + kind, though possessed of certain powers which the brute has. The + frog is not a magnified sensitive-plant, though his nerves + automatically respond to irritation. The animal is different in + kind from the vegetable, though he has some of the same powers + which the vegetable has. God’s powers include man’s; but man is + not of the same substance with God, nor could man be enlarged or + developed into God. So man’s powers include those of the brute, + but the brute is not of the same substance with man, nor could he + be enlarged or developed into man. + + Porter, Human Intellect, 39—“The spirit of man, in addition to its + higher endowments, may also possess the lower powers which + vitalize dead matter into a human body.” It does not follow that + the soul of the animal or plant is capable of man’s higher + functions or developments, or that the subjection of man’s spirit + to body, in the present life, disproves his immortality. Porter + continues: “That the soul begins to exist as a vital force, does + not require that it should always exist as such a force or in + connection with a material body. Should it require another such + body, it may have the power to create it for itself, as it has + formed the one it first inhabited; or it may have already formed + it, and may hold it ready for occupation and use as soon as it + sloughs off the one which connects it with the earth.” + + Harris, Philos. Basis of Theism, 547—“Brutes may have organic life + and sensitivity, and yet remain submerged in nature. It is not + life and sensitivity that lift man above nature, but it is the + distinctive characteristic of personality.” Parkhurst, The Pattern + in the Mount, 17-30, on Prov. 20:27—“The spirit of man is the lamp + of Jehovah”—not necessarily lighted, but capable of being lighted, + and intended to be lighted, by the touch of the divine flame. + _Cf._ _Mat. 6:22, 23_—“_The lamp of the body.... If therefore the + light that is in thee be darkness, how great is the darkness._” + + Schleiermacher, Christliche Glaube, 2:487—“We think of the spirit + as soul, only when in the body, so that we cannot speak of an + immortality of the soul, in the proper sense, without bodily + life.” The doctrine of the spiritual body is therefore the + complement to the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. A. A. + Hodge, Pop. Lectures, 221—“By soul we mean only one thing, _i. + e._, an incarnate spirit, a spirit with a body. Thus we never + speak of the souls of angels. They are pure spirits, having no + bodies.” Lisle, Evolution of Spiritual Man, 72—“The animal is the + foundation of the spiritual; it is what the cellar is to the + house; it is the base of supplies.” Ladd, Philosophy of Mind, + 371-378—“Trichotomy is absolutely untenable on grounds of + psychological science. Man’s reason, or the spirit that is in man, + is not to be regarded as a sort of Mansard roof, built on to one + building in a block, all the dwellings in which are otherwise + substantially alike.... On the contrary, in every set of + characteristics, from those called lowest to those pronounced + highest, the soul of man differences itself from the soul of any + species of animals.... The highest has also the lowest. All must + be assigned to one subject.” + + +This view of the soul and spirit as different aspects of the same +spiritual principle furnishes a refutation of six important errors: + +(_a_) That of the Gnostics, who held that the πνεῦμα is part of the divine +essence, and therefore incapable of sin. + +(_b_) That of the Apollinarians, who taught that Christ’s humanity +embraced only σῶμα and ψυχή, while his divine nature furnished the πνεῦμα. + +(_c_) That of the Semi-Pelagians, who excepted the human πνεῦμα from the +dominion of original sin. + +(_d_) That of Placeus, who held that only the πνεῦμα was directly created +by God (see our section on Theories of Imputation). + +(_e_) That of Julius Müller, who held that the ψυχή comes to us from Adam, +but that our πνεῦμα was corrupted in a previous state of being (see page +490). + +(_f_) That of the Annihilationists, who hold that man at his creation had +a divine element breathed into him, which he lost by sin, and which he +recovers only in regeneration; so that only when he has this πνεῦμα +restored by virtue of his union with Christ does man become immortal, +death being to the sinner a complete extinction of being. + + + Tacitus might almost be understood to be a trichotomist when he + writes: “Si ut sapientibus placuit, non extinguuntur cum corpora + _magnæ_ animæ.” Trichotomy allies itself readily with materialism. + Many trichotomists hold that man can exist without a πνεῦμα, but + that the σῶμα and the ψυχή by themselves are mere matter, and are + incapable of eternal existence. Trichotomy, however, when it + speaks of the πνεῦμα as the divine principle in man, seems to + savor of emanation or of pantheism. A modern English poet + describes the glad and winsome child as “A silver stream, Breaking + with laughter from the lake divine, Whence all things flow.” + Another poet, Robert Browning, in his Death in the Desert, 107, + describes body, soul, and spirit, as “What does, what knows, what + is—three souls, one man.” + + The Eastern church generally held to trichotomy, and is best + represented by John of Damascus (11:12) who speaks of the soul as + the sensuous life-principle which takes up the spirit—the spirit + being an efflux from God. The Western church, on the other hand, + generally held to dichotomy, and is best represented by Anselm: + “Constat homo ex duabus naturis, ex natura animæ et ex natura + carnis.” + + Luther has been quoted upon both sides of the controversy: by + Delitzsch, Bib. Psych., 460-462, as trichotomous, and as making + the Mosaic tabernacle with its three divisions an image of the + tripartite man. “The first division,” he says, “was called the + holy of holies, since God dwelt there, and there was no light + therein. The next was denominated the holy place, for within it + stood a candlestick with seven branches and lamps. The third was + called the atrium or court; this was under the broad heaven, and + was open to the light of the sun. A regenerate man is depicted in + this figure. His spirit is the holy of holies, God’s + dwelling-place, in the darkness of faith, without a light, for he + believes what he neither sees, nor feels, nor comprehends. The + _psyche_ of that man is the holy place, whose seven lights + represent the various powers of understanding, the perception and + knowledge of material and visible things. His body is the atrium + or court, which is open to everybody, so that all can see how he + acts and lives.” + + Thomasius, however, in his Christi Person und Werk, 1:164-168, + quotes from Luther the following statement, which is clearly + dichotomous: “The first part, the spirit, is the highest, deepest, + noblest part of man. By it he is fitted to comprehend eternal + things, and it is, in short, the house in which dwell faith and + the word of God. The other, the soul, is this same spirit, + according to nature, but yet in another sort of activity, namely, + in this, that it animates the body and works through it; and it is + its method not to grasp things incomprehensible, but only what + reason can search out, know, and measure.” Thomasius himself says: + “Trichotomy, I hold with Meyer, is not Scripturally sustained.” + Neander, sometimes spoken of as a trichotomist, says that spirit + is soul in its elevated and normal relation to God and divine + things; ψυχή is that same soul in its relation to the sensuous and + perhaps sinful things of this world. Godet, Bib. Studies of O. T., + 32—“Spirit = the breath of God, considered as independent of the + body; soul = that same breath, in so far as it gives life to the + body.” + + The doctrine we have advocated, moreover, in contrast with the + heathen view, puts honor upon man’s body, as proceeding from the + hand of God and as therefore originally pure (_Gen. 1:31_—“_And + God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very + good_”); as intended to be the dwelling place of the divine Spirit + (_1 Cor. 6:19_—“_know ye not that your body is a temple of the + Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God?_”); and as + containing the germ of the heavenly body (_1 Cor. 15:44_—“_it is + sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body_”; _Rom. + 8:11_—“_shall give life also to your mortal bodies through his + Spirit that dwelleth in you_”—here many ancient authorities read + “_because of his Spirit that dwelleth in you_”—διά τὸ ἐνοικοῦν + αὐτοῦ πνεῦμα). Birks, in his Difficulties of Belief, suggests that + man, unlike angels, may have been provided with a fleshly body, + (1) to objectify sin, and (2) to enable Christ to unite himself to + the race, in order to save it. + + + +IV. Origin of the Soul. + + +Three theories with regard to this subject have divided opinion: + + +1. The Theory of Preëxistence. + + +This view was held by Plato, Philo, and Origen; by the first, in order to +explain the soul’s possession of ideas not derived from sense; by the +second, to account for its imprisonment in the body; by the third, to +justify the disparity of conditions in which men enter the world. We +concern ourselves, however, only with the forms which the view has assumed +in modern times. Kant and Julius Müller in Germany, and Edward Beecher in +America, have advocated it, upon the ground that the inborn depravity of +the human will can be explained only by supposing a personal act of +self-determination in a previous, or timeless, state of being. + + + The truth at the basis of the theory of preëxistence is simply the + ideal existence of the soul, before birth, in the mind of God—that + is, God’s foreknowledge of it. The intuitive ideas of which the + soul finds itself in possession, such as space, time, cause, + substance, right, God, are evolved from itself; in other words, + man is so constituted that he perceives these truths upon proper + occasions or conditions. The apparent recollection that we have + seen at some past time a landscape which we know to be now for the + first time before us, is an illusory putting together of + fragmentary concepts or a mistaking of a part for the whole; we + have seen something like a part of the landscape,—we fancy that we + have seen this landscape, and the whole of it. Our recollection of + a past event or scene is one whole, but this one idea may have an + indefinite number of subordinate ideas existing within it. The + sight of something which is similar to one of these parts suggests + the past whole. Coleridge: “The great law of the imagination that + likeness in part tends to become likeness of the whole.” Augustine + hinted that this illusion of memory may have played an important + part in developing the belief in metempsychosis. + + Other explanations are those of William James, in his Psychology: + The brain tracts excited by the event proper, and those excited in + its recall, are different; Baldwin, Psychology, 263, 264: We may + remember what we have seen in a dream, or there may be a revival + of ancestral or race experiences. Still others suggest that the + two hemispheres of the brain act asynchronously; + self-consciousness or apperception is distinguished from + perception; divorce, from fatigue, of the processes of sensation + and perception, causes paramnesia. Sully, Illusions, 280, speaks + of an organic or atavistic memory: “May it not happen that by the + law of hereditary transmission ... ancient experiences will now + and then reflect themselves in our mental life, and so give rise + to apparently personal recollections?” Letson, The Crowd, believes + that the mob is atavistic and that it bases its action upon + inherited impulses: “The inherited reflexes are atavistic + memories” (quoted in Colegrove, Memory, 204). + + Plato held that intuitive ideas are reminiscences of things + learned in a previous state of being; he regarded the body as the + grave of the soul; and urged the fact that the soul had knowledge + before it entered the body, as proof that the soul would have + knowledge after it left the body, that is, would be immortal. See + Plato, Meno, 82-85, Phædo, 72-75, Phædrus, 245-250, Republic, + 5:460 and 10:614. Alexander, Theories of the Will, 36, 37—“Plato + represents preëxistent souls as having set before them a choice of + virtue. The choice is free, but it will determine the destiny of + each soul. Not God, but he who chooses, is responsible for his + choice. After making their choice, the souls go to the fates, who + spin the threads of their destiny, and it is thenceforth + irreversible. As Christian theology teaches that man was free but + lost his freedom by the fall of Adam, so Plato affirms that the + preëxistent soul is free until it has chosen its lot in life.” See + Introductions to the above mentioned works of Plato in Jowett’s + translation. Philo held that all souls are emanations from God, + and that those who allowed themselves, unlike the angels, to be + attracted by matter, are punished for this fall by imprisonment in + the body, which corrupts them, and from which they must break + loose. See Philo, De Gigantibus, Pfeiffer’s ed., 2:360-364. Origen + accounted for disparity of conditions at birth by the differences + in the conduct of these same souls in a previous state. God’s + justice at the first made all souls equal; condition here + corresponds to the degree of previous guilt; _Mat. 20:3_—“_others + standing in the market place idle_” = souls not yet brought into + the world. The Talmudists regarded all souls as created at once in + the beginning, and as kept like grains of corn in God’s granary, + until the time should come for joining each to its appointed body. + See Origen, De Anima, 7; περὶ ἀρχῶν, ii:9:6; _cf._ i:1:2, 4, 18; + 4:36. Origen’s view was condemned at the Synod of Constantinople, + 538. Many of the preceding facts and references are taken from + Bruch, Lehre der Präexistenz, translated in Bib. Sac., 20:681-733. + + For modern advocates of the theory, see Kant, Critique of Pure + Reason, sec. 15; Religion in. d. Grenzen d. bl. Vernunft, 26, 27; + Julius Müller, Doctrine of Sin, 2:357-401; Edward Beecher, + Conflict of Ages. The idea of preëxistence has appeared to a + notable extent in modern poetry. See Vaughan, The Retreate (1621); + Wordsworth, Intimations of Immortality in Early Childhood; + Tennyson, Two Voices, stanzas 105-119, and Early Sonnets, 25—“As + when with downcast eyes we muse and brood, And ebb into a former + life, or seem To lapse far back in some confused dream To states + of mystical similitude; If one but speaks or hems or stirs his + chair, Ever the wonder waxeth more and more, So that we say ‘All + this hath been before, All this hath been, I know not when or + where.’ So, friend, when first I looked upon your face, Our + thought gave answer each to each, so true—Opposed mirrors each + reflecting each—That though I knew not in what time or place, + Methought that I had often met with you, And either lived in + either’s heart and speech.” Robert Browning, La Saisiaz, and + Christina: “Ages past the soul existed; Here an age ’tis resting + merely, And hence fleets again for ages.” Rossetti, House of Life: + “I have been here before, But when or how I cannot tell; I know + the grass beyond the door, The sweet, keen smell, The sighing + sound, the lights along the shore. You have been mine before, How + long ago I may not know; But just when, at that swallow’s soar, + Your neck turned so, Some veil did fall—I knew it all of yore”; + quoted in Colegrove, Memory, 103-106, who holds the phenomenon due + to false induction and interpretation. + + Briggs, School, College and Character, 95—“Some of us remember the + days when we were on earth for the first time;”—which reminds us + of the boy who remembered sitting in a corner before he was born + and crying for fear he would be a girl. A more notable + illustration is that found in the Life of Sir Walter Scott, by + Lockhart, his son-in-law, 8:274—“Yesterday, at dinner time, I was + strangely haunted by what I would call the sense of + preëxistence—viz., a confused idea that nothing that passed was + said for the first time—that the same topics had been discussed + and the same persons had started the same opinions on them. It is + true there might have been some ground for recollections, + considering that three at least of the company were old friends + and had kept much company together.... But the sensation was so + strong as to resemble what is called a mirage in the desert, or a + calenture on board of ship, when lakes are seen in the desert and + sylvan landscapes in the sea. It was very distressing yesterday + and brought to mind the fancies of Bishop Berkeley about an ideal + world. There was a vile sense of want of reality in all I did and + said.... I drank several glasses of wine, but these only + aggravated the disorder. I did not find the _in vino veritas_ of + the philosophers.” + + +To the theory of preëxistence we urge the following objections: + +(_a_) It is not only wholly without support from Scripture, but it +directly contradicts the Mosaic account of man’s creation in the image of +God, and Paul’s description of all evil and death in the human race as the +result of Adam’s sin. + + + _Gen. 1:27_—“_And God created man in his own image, in the image + of God created he him_”; _31_—“_And God saw every thing that he + had made, and, behold, it was very good._” _Rom. + 5:12_—“_Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, + and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that + all sinned._” The theory of preëxistence would still leave it + doubtful whether all men are sinners, or whether God assembles + only sinners upon the earth. + + +(_b_) If the soul in this preëxistent state was conscious and personal, it +is inexplicable that we should have no remembrance of such preëxistence, +and of so important a decision in that previous condition of being;—if the +soul was yet unconscious and impersonal, the theory fails to show how a +moral act involving consequences so vast could have been performed at all. + + + Christ remembered his preëxistent state; why should not we? There + is every reason to believe that in the future state we shall + remember our present existence; why should we not now remember the + past state from which we came? It may be objected that + Augustinians hold to a sin of the race in Adam—a sin which none of + Adam’s descendants can remember. But we reply that no Augustinian + holds to a personal existence of each member of the race in Adam, + and therefore no Augustinian needs to account for lack of memory + of Adam’s sin. The advocate of preëxistence, however, does hold to + a personal existence of each soul in a previous state, and + therefore needs to account for our lack of memory of it. + + +(_c_) The view sheds no light either upon the origin of sin, or upon God’s +justice in dealing with it, since it throws back the first transgression +to a state of being in which there was no flesh to tempt, and then +represents God as putting the fallen into sensuous conditions in the +highest degree unfavorable to their restoration. + + + This theory only increases the difficulty of explaining the origin + of sin, by pushing back its beginning to a state of which we know + less than we do of the present. To say that the soul in that + previous state was only potentially conscious and personal, is to + deny any real probation, and to throw the blame of sin on God the + Creator. Pfleiderer, Philos. of Religion, 1:228—“In modern times, + the philosophers Kant, Schelling and Schopenhauer have explained + the bad from an intelligible act of freedom, which (according to + Schelling and Schopenhauer) also at the same time effectuates the + temporal existence and condition of the individual soul. But what + are we to think of as meant by such a mystical deed or act through + which the subject of it first comes into existence? Is it not + this, that perhaps under this singular disguise there is concealed + the simple thought that the origin of the bad lies not so much in + a _doing_ of the individual freedom as rather in the _rise_ of + it,—that is to say, in the process of development through which + the natural man becomes a moral man, and the merely potentially + rational man becomes an actually rational man?” + + +(_d_) While this theory accounts for inborn spiritual sin, such as pride +and enmity to God, it gives no explanation of inherited sensual sin, which +it holds to have come from Adam, and the guilt of which must logically be +denied. + + + While certain forms of the preëxistence theory are exposed to the + last objection indicated in the text, Julius Müller claims that + his own view escapes it; see Doctrine of Sin, 2:393. His theory, + he says, “would contradict holy Scripture if it derived inborn + sinfulness _solely_ from this extra-temporal act of the + individual, without recognizing in this sinfulness the element of + hereditary depravity in the sphere of the natural life, and its + connection with the sin of our first parents.” Müller, whose + trichotomy here determines his whole subsequent scheme, holds only + the πνεῦμα to have thus fallen in a preëxistent state. The ψυχή + comes, with the body, from Adam. The tempter only brought man’s + latent perversity of will into open transgression. Sinfulness, as + hereditary, does not involve guilt, but the hereditary principle + is the “medium through which the transcendent self-perversion of + the spiritual nature of man is transmitted to his whole temporal + mode of being.” While man is born guilty as to his πνεῦμα, for the + reason that this πνεῦμα sinned in a preëxistent state, he is also + born guilty as to his ψυχή, because this was one with the first + man in his transgression. + + Even upon the most favorable statement of Müller’s view, we fail + to see how it can consist with the organic unity of the race; for + in that which chiefly constitutes us men—the πνεῦμα—we are as + distinct and separate creations as are the angels. We also fail to + see how, upon this view, Christ can be said to take our nature; + or, if he takes it, how it can be without sin. See Ernesti, + Ursprung der Sünde, 2:1-247; Frohschammer, Ursprung der Seele, + 11-17: Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 3:92-122; Bruch, Lehre der + Präexistenz, translated in Bib. Sac., 20:681-733. Also Bib. Sac., + 11:186-191; 12:156; 17:419-427; 20:447; Kahnis, Dogmatik, + 3:250—“This doctrine is inconsistent with the indisputable fact + that the souls of children are like those of the parents; and it + ignores the connection of the individual with the race.” + + +2. The Creatian Theory. + + +This view was held by Aristotle, Jerome, and Pelagius, and in modern times +has been advocated by most of the Roman Catholic and Reformed theologians. +It regards the soul of each human being as immediately created by God and +joined to the body either at conception, at birth, or at some time between +these two. The advocates of the theory urge in its favor certain texts of +Scripture, referring to God as the Creator of the human spirit, together +with the fact that there is a marked individuality in the child, which +cannot be explained as a mere reproduction of the qualities existing in +the parents. + + + Creatianism, as ordinarily held, regards only the body as + propagated from past generations. Creatianists who hold to + trichotomy would say, however, that the animal soul, the ψυχή, is + propagated with the body, while the highest part of man, the + πνεῦμα, is in each case a direct creation of God,—the πνεῦμα not + being created, as the advocates of preëxistence believe, ages + before the body, but rather at the time that the body assumes its + distinct individuality. + + Aristotle (De Anima) first gives definite expression to this view. + Jerome speaks of God as “making souls daily.” The scholastics + followed Aristotle, and through the influence of the Reformed + church, creatianism has been the prevailing opinion for the last + two hundred years. Among its best representatives are Turretin, + Inst., 5:13 (vol. 1:425); Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:65-76; Martensen, + Dogmatics, 141-148; Liddon, Elements of Religion, 99-106. Certain + Reformed theologians have defined very exactly God’s method of + creation. Polanus (5:31:1) says that God breathes the soul into + boys, forty days, and into girls, eighty days, after conception. + Göschel (in Herzog, Encyclop., art.: Seele) holds that while + dichotomy leads to traducianism, trichotomy allies itself to that + form of creatianism which regards the πνεῦμα as a direct creation + of God, but the ψυχή as propagated with the body. To the latter + answers the family name; to the former the Christian name. Shall + we count George Macdonald as a believer in Preëxistence or in + Creatianism, when he writes in his Baby’s Catechism: “Where did + you come from, baby dear? Out of the everywhere into here. Where + did you get your eyes so blue? Out of the sky, as I came through. + Where did you get that little tear? I found it waiting when I got + here. Where did you get that pearly ear? God spoke, and it came + out to hear. How did they all just come to be you? God thought + about me, and so I grew.” + + +Creatianism is untenable for the following reasons: + +(_a_) The passages adduced in its support may with equal propriety be +regarded as expressing God’s mediate agency in the origination of human +souls; while the general tenor of Scripture, as well as its +representations of God as the author of man’s body, favor this latter +interpretation. + + + Passages commonly relied upon by creatianists are the following: + _Eccl. 12:7_—“_the spirit returneth unto God who gave it_”; _Is. + 57:16_—“_the souls that I have made_”; _Zech. 12:1_—“_Jehovah ... + who formeth the spirit of man within him_”; _Heb. 12:9_—“_the + Father of spirits._” But God is with equal clearness declared to + be the former of man’s body: see _Ps. 139:13, 14_—“_thou didst + form my inward parts: Thou didst cover me_ [marg. “_knit me + together_”] _in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks unto thee; + for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: Wonderful are thy + works_”; _Jer. 1:5_—“_I formed thee in the belly._” Yet we do not + hesitate to interpret these latter passages as expressive of + mediate, not immediate, creatorship,—God works through natural + laws of generation and development so far as the production of + man’s body is concerned. None of the passages first mentioned + forbid us to suppose that he works through these same natural laws + in the production of the soul. The truth in creatianism is the + presence and operation of God in all natural processes. A + transcendent God manifests himself in all physical begetting. + Shakespeare: “There’s a divinity that shapes our ends, Rough hew + them how we will.” Pfleiderer, Grundriss, 112—“Creatianism, which + emphasizes the divine origin of man, is entirely compatible with + Traducianism, which emphasizes the mediation of natural agencies. + So for the race as a whole, its origin in a creative activity of + God is quite consistent with its being a product of natural + evolution.” + + +(_b_) Creatianism regards the earthly father as begetting only the body of +his child—certainly as not the father of the child’s highest part. This +makes the beast to possess nobler powers of propagation than man; for the +beast multiplies himself after his own image. + + + The new physiology properly views soul, not as something added + from without, but as the animating principle of the body from the + beginning and as having a determining influence upon its whole + development. That children are like their parents, in intellectual + and spiritual as well as in physical respects, is a fact of which + the creatian theory gives no proper explanation. Mason, Faith of + the Gospel, 115—“The love of parents to children and of children + to parents protests against the doctrine that only the body is + propagated.” Aubrey Moore, Science and the Faith, 207,—quoted in + Contemp. Rev., Dec. 1893:876—“Instead of the physical derivation + of the soul, we stand for the spiritual derivation of the body.” + We would amend this statement by saying that we stand for the + spiritual derivation of both soul and body, natural law being only + the operation of spirit, human and divine. + + +(_c_) The individuality of the child, even in the most extreme cases, as +in the sudden rise from obscure families and surroundings of marked men +like Luther, may be better explained by supposing a law of variation +impressed upon the species at its beginning—a law whose operation is +foreseen and supervised by God. + + + The differences of the child from the parent are often + exaggerated; men are generally more the product of their ancestry + and of their time than we are accustomed to think. Dickens made + angelic children to be born of depraved parents, and to grow up in + the slums. But this writing belongs to a past generation, when the + facts of heredity were unrecognized. George Eliot’s school is + nearer the truth; although she exaggerates the doctrine of + heredity in turn, until all idea of free will and all hope of + escaping our fate vanish. Shaler, Interpretation of Nature, 78, + 90—“Separate motives, handed down from generation to generation, + sometimes remaining latent for great periods, to become suddenly + manifested under conditions the nature of which is not + discernible.... Conflict of inheritances [from different + ancestors] may lead to the institution of variety.” + + Sometimes, in spite of George Eliot, a lily grows out of a + stagnant pool—how shall we explain the fact? We must remember that + the paternal and the maternal elements are themselves unlike; the + union of the two may well produce a third in some respects unlike + either; as, when two chemical elements unite, the product differs + from either of the constituents. We must remember also that + _nature_ is one factor; _nurture_ is another; and that the latter + is often as potent as the former (see Galton, Inquiries into Human + Faculty, 77-81). Environment determines to a large extent both the + fact and the degree of development. Genius is often another name + for Providence. Yet before all and beyond all we must recognize a + manifold wisdom of God, which in the very organization of species + impresses upon it a law of variation, so that at proper times and + under proper conditions the old is modified in the line of + progress and advance to something higher. Dante, Purgatory, canto + vii—“Rarely into the branches of the tree Doth human worth mount + up; and so ordains He that bestows it, that as his free gift It + may be called.” Pompilia, the noblest character in Robert + Browning’s Ring and the Book, came of “a bad lot.” Geo. A. Gordon, + Christ of To-day, 123-126—“It is mockery to account for Abraham + Lincoln and Robert Burns and William Shakespeare upon naked + principles of heredity and environment.... All intelligence and + all high character are transcendent, and have their source in the + mind and heart of God. It is in the range of Christ’s + transcendence of his earthly conditions that we note the complete + uniqueness of his person.” + + +(_d_) This theory, if it allows that the soul is originally possessed of +depraved tendencies, makes God the direct author of moral evil; if it +holds the soul to have been created pure, it makes God indirectly the +author of moral evil, by teaching that he puts this pure soul into a body +which will inevitably corrupt it. + + + The decisive argument against creatianism is this one, that it + makes God the author of moral evil. See Kahnis, Dogmatik, + 3:250—“Creatianism rests upon a justly antiquated dualism between + soul and body, and is irreconcilable with the sinful condition of + the human soul. The truth in the doctrine is just this only, that + generation can bring forth an immortal human life only according + to the power imparted by God’s word, and with the special + coöperation of God himself.” The difficulty of supposing that God + immediately creates a pure soul, only to put it into a body that + will infallibly corrupt it—“sicut vinum in vase acetoso”—has led + many of the most thoughtful Reformed theologians to modify the + creatian doctrine by combining it with traducianism. + + Rothe, Dogmatik, 1:249-251, holds to creatianism in a wider + sense—a union of the paternal and maternal elements under the + express and determining efficiency of God. Ebrard, Dogmatik, + 1:327-332, regards the soul as new-created, yet by a process of + mediate creation according to law, which he calls “metaphysical + generation.” Dorner, System of Doctrine, 3:56, says that the + individual is not simply a manifestation of the species; God + applies to the origination of every single man a special creative + thought and act of will; yet he does this through the species, so + that it is creation by law,—else the child would be, not a + continuation of the old species, but the establishment of a new + one. So in speaking of the human soul of Christ, Dorner says + (3:340-349) that the soul itself does not owe its origin to Mary + nor to the species, but to the creative act of God. This soul + appropriates to itself from Mary’s body the elements of a human + form, purifying them in the process so far as is consistent with + the beginning of a life yet subject to development and human + weakness. + + Bowne, Metaphysics, 500—“The laws of heredity must be viewed + simply as descriptions of a fact and never as its explanation. Not + as if ancestors passed on something to posterity, but solely + because of the inner consistency of the divine action” are + children like their parents. We cannot regard either of these + mediating views as self-consistent or intelligible. We pass on + therefore to consider the traducian theory which we believe more + fully to meet the requirements of Scripture and of reason. For + further discussion of creatianism, see Frohschammer, Ursprung der + Seele, 18-58; Alger, Doctrine of a Future Life, 1-17. + + +3. The Traducian Theory. + + +This view was propounded by Tertullian, and was implicitly held by +Augustine. In modern times it has been the prevailing opinion of the +Lutheran Church. It holds that the human race was immediately created in +Adam, and, as respects both body and soul, was propagated from him by +natural generation—all souls since Adam being only mediately created by +God, as the upholder of the laws of propagation which were originally +established by him. + + + Tertullian, De Anima: “Tradux peccati, tradux animæ.” Gregory of + Nyssa: “Man being one, consisting of soul and body, the common + beginning of his constitution must be supposed also one; so that + he may not be both older and younger than himself—that in him + which is bodily being first, and the other coming after” (quoted + in Crippen, Hist. of Christ. Doct., 80). Augustine, De Pec. Mer. + et Rem., 3:7—“In Adam all sinned, at the time when in his nature + all were still that one man”; De Civ. Dei, 13:14—“For we all were + in that one man, when we all were that one man.... The form in + which we each should live was not as yet individually created and + distributed to us, but there already existed the seminal nature + from which we were propagated.” + + Augustine, indeed, wavered in his statements with regard to the + origin of the soul, apparently fearing that an explicit and + pronounced traducianism might involve materialistic consequences; + yet, as logically lying at the basis of his doctrine of original + sin, traducianism came to be the ruling view of the Lutheran + reformers. In his Table Talk, Luther says: “The reproduction of + mankind is a great marvel and mystery. Had God consulted me in the + matter, I should have advised him to continue the generation of + the species by fashioning them out of clay, in the way Adam was + fashioned; as I should have counseled him also to let the sun + remain always suspended over the earth, like a great lamp, + maintaining perpetual light and heat.” + + Traducianism holds that man, as a species, was created in Adam. In + Adam, the substance of humanity was yet undistributed. We derive + our immaterial as well as our material being, by natural laws of + propagation, from Adam,—each individual man after Adam possessing + a part of the substance that was originated in him. Sexual + reproduction has for its purpose the keeping of variations within + limit. Every marriage tends to bring back the individual type to + that of the species. The offspring represents not one of the + parents but both. And, as each of these parents represents two + grandparents, the offspring really represents the whole race. + Without this conjugation the individual peculiarities would + reproduce themselves in divergent lines like the shot from a + shot-gun. Fission needs to be supplemented by conjugation. The use + of sexual reproduction is to preserve the average individual in + the face of a progressive tendency to variation. In asexual + reproduction the offspring start on deviating lines and never mix + their qualities with those of their mates. Sexual reproduction + makes the individual the type of the species and gives solidarity + to the race. See Maupas, quoted by Newman Smith, Place of Death in + Evolution, 19-22. + + John Milton, in his Christian Doctrine, is a Traducian. He has no + faith in the notion of a soul separate from and inhabiting the + body. He believes in a certain corporeity of the soul. Mind and + thought are rooted in the bodily organism. Soul was not inbreathed + after the body was formed. The breathing of God into man’s + nostrils was only the quickening impulse to that which already had + life. God does not create souls every day. Man is a body-and-soul, + or a soul-body, and he transmits himself as such. Harris, Moral + Evolution, 171—The individual man has a great number of ancestors + as well as a great number of descendants. He is the central point + of an hour-glass, or a strait between two seas which widen out + behind and before. How then shall we escape the conclusion that + the human race was most numerous at the beginning? We must + remember that other children have the same great-grandparents with + ourselves; that there have been inter-marriages; and that, after + all, the generations run on in parallel lines, that the lines + spread a little in some countries and periods, and narrow a little + in other countries and periods. It is like a wall covered with + paper in diamond pattern. The lines diverge and converge, but the + figures are parallel. See Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:7-94, Hist. + Doctrine, 2:1-26, Discourses and Essays, 259; Baird, Elohim + Revealed, 137-151, 335-384; Edwards, Works, 2:483; Hopkins, Works, + 1:289; Birks, Difficulties of Belief, 161; Delitzsch, Bib. Psych., + 128-142; Frohschammer, Ursprung der Seele, 59-224. + + +With regard to this view we remark: + +(_a_) It seems best to accord with Scripture, which represents God as +creating the species in Adam (Gen. 1:27), and as increasing and +perpetuating it through secondary agencies (1:28; _cf._ 22). Only once is +breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life (2:7, _cf._ 22; 1 Cor. +11:8. Gen. 4:1; 5:3; 46:26; _cf._ Acts 17:21-26; Heb. 7:10), and after +man’s formation God ceases from his work of creation (Gen. 2:2). + + + _Gen. 1:27_—“_And God created man in his own image, in the image + of God created he him: male and female created he them_”; + _28_—“_And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, + and multiply, and replenish the earth_”; _cf._ _22_—of the brute + creation: “_And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and + multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply + on the earth._” _Gen. 2:7_—“_And Jehovah God formed man of the + dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of + life; and man became a living soul_”; _cf._ _22_—“_and the rib + which Jehovah God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and + brought her unto the man_”; _1 Cor. 11:8_—“_For the man is not of + the woman; but the woman of the man_” (ἐξ ἀνδρός). _Gen. + 4:1_—“_Eve ... bare Cain_”; _5:3_—“_Adam ... begat a son ... + Seth_”; _46:26_—“_All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, + that came out of his loins_”; _Acts 17:26_—“_he made of one_ + [“father” or “body”] _every nation of men_”; _Heb. 7:10_—Levi + “_was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedek met him_”; + _Gen. 2:2_—“_And on the seventh day God finished his work which he + had made, __ and he rested on the seventh day from all his work + which he had made._” Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:19-29, adduces also + _John 1:13; 3:6_; _Rom. 1:13; 5:12_; _1 Cor. 15:22_; _Eph. 2:3_; + _Heb. 12:9_; _Ps. 139:15, 16_. Only Adam had the right to be a + creatianist. Westcott, Com. on Hebrews, 114—“Levi paying tithes in + Abraham implies that descendants are included in the ancestor so + far that his acts have force for them. Physically, at least, the + dead so rule the living. The individual is not a completely + self-centred being. He is member in a body. So far traducianism is + true. But, if this were all, man would be a mere result of the + past, and would have no individual responsibility. There is an + element not derived from birth, though it may follow upon it. + Recognition of individuality is the truth in creatianism. Power of + vision follows upon preparation of an organ of vision, modified by + the latter but not created by it. So we have the social unity of + the race, _plus_ the personal responsibility of the individual, + the influence of common thoughts _plus_ the power of great men, + the foundation of hope _plus_ the condition of judgment.” + + +(_b_) It is favored by the analogy of vegetable and animal life, in which +increase of numbers is secured, not by a multiplicity of immediate +creations, but by the natural derivation of new individuals from a parent +stock. A derivation of the human soul from its parents no more implies a +materialistic view of the soul and its endless division and subdivision, +than the similar derivation of the brute proves the principle of +intelligence in the lower animals to be wholly material. + + + God’s method is not the method of endless miracle. God works in + nature through second causes. God does not create a new vital + principle at the beginning of existence of each separate apple, + and of each separate dog. Each of these is the result of a + self-multiplying force, implanted once for all in the first of its + race. To say, with Moxom (Baptist Review, 1881:278), that God is + the immediate author of each new individual, is to deny second + causes, and to merge nature in God. The whole tendency of modern + science is in the opposite direction. Nor is there any good reason + for making the origin of the individual human soul an exception to + the general rule. Augustine wavered in his traducianism because he + feared the inference that the soul is divided and subdivided,—that + is, that it is composed of parts, and is therefore material in its + nature. But it does not follow that all separation is material + separation. We do not, indeed, know how the soul is propagated. + But we know that animal life is propagated, and still that it is + not material, nor composed of parts. The fact that the soul is not + material, nor composed of parts, is no reason why it may not be + propagated also. + + It is well to remember that _substance_ does not necessarily imply + either _extension_ or _figure_. _Substantia_ is simply that which + stands under, underlies, supports, or in other words that which is + the _ground_ of phenomena. The propagation of mind therefore does + not involve any dividing up, or splitting off, as if the mind were + a material mass. Flame is propagated, but not by division and + subdivision. Professor Ladd is a creatianist, together with Lotze, + whom he quotes, but he repudiates the idea that the mind is + susceptible of division; see Ladd, Philosophy of Mind, 206, + 359-366—“The mind comes from nowhere, for it never was, as mind, + in space, is not now in space, and cannot be conceived of as + coming and going in space.... Mind is a growth.... Parents do not + transmit their minds to their offspring. The child’s mind does not + exist before it acts. Its activities _are_ its existence.” So we + might say that flame has no existence before it acts. Yet it may + owe its existence to a preceding flame. The Indian proverb is: “No + lotus without a stem.” Hall Caine, in his novel The Manxman, tells + us that the Deemster of the Isle of Man had two sons. These two + sons were as unlike each other as are the inside and the outside + of a bowl. But the bowl was old Deemster himself. Hartley + Coleridge inherited his father’s imperious desire for stimulants + and with it his inability to resist their temptation. + + +(_c_) The observed transmission not merely of physical, but of mental and +spiritual, characteristics in families and races, and especially the +uniformly evil moral tendencies and dispositions which all men possess +from their birth, are proof that in soul, as well as in body, we derive +our being from our human ancestry. + + + Galton, in his Hereditary Genius, and Inquiries into Human + Faculty, furnishes abundant proof of the transmission of mental + and spiritual characteristics from father to son. Illustrations, + in the case of families, are the American Adamses, the English + Georges, the French Bourbons, the German Bachs. Illustrations, in + the case of races, are the Indians, the Negroes, the Chinese, the + Jews. Hawthorne represented the introspection and the conscience + of Puritan New England. Emerson had a minister among his ancestry, + either on the paternal or the maternal side, for eight generations + back. Every man is “a chip of the old block.” “A man is an + omnibus, in which all his ancestors are seated” (O. W. Holmes). + Variation is one of the properties of living things,—the other is + transmission. “On a dissecting table, in the membranes of a + new-born infant’s body, can be seen ‘the drunkard’s tinge.’ The + blotches on his grand-child’s cheeks furnish a mirror to the old + debauchee. Heredity is God’s visiting of sin to the third and + fourth generations.” On heredity and depravity, see Phelps, in + Bib. Sac., Apr. 1884:254—“When every molecule in the paternal + brain bears the shape of a point of interrogation, it would border + on the miraculous if we should find the exclamation-sign of faith + in the brain-cells of the child.” + + Robert G. Ingersoll said that most great men have great mothers, + and that most great women have great fathers. Most of the great + are like mountains, with the valley of ancestors on one side and + the depression of posterity on the other. Hawthorne’s House of the + Seven Gables illustrates the principle of heredity. But in his + Marble Faun and Transformation, Hawthorne unwisely intimates that + sin is a necessity to virtue, a background or condition of good. + Dryden, Absalom and Ahithophel, 1:156—“Great wits are sure to + madness near allied, And thin partitions do their bounds divide.” + Lombroso, The Man of Genius, maintains that genius is a mental + disease allied to epileptiform mania or the dementia of cranks. If + this were so, we should infer that civilization is the result of + insanity, and that, so soon as Napoleons, Dantes and Newtons + manifest themselves, they should be confined in Genius Asylums. + Robert Browning, Hohenstiel-Schwangau, comes nearer the truth: “A + solitary great man’s worth the world. God takes the business into + his own hands At such time: Who creates the novel flower Contrives + to guard and give it breathing-room.... ’Tis the great Gardener + grafts the excellence On wildlings, where he will.” + + +(_d_) The traducian doctrine embraces and acknowledges the element of +truth which gives plausibility to the creatian view. Traducianism, +properly defined, admits a divine concurrence throughout the whole +development of the human species, and allows, under the guidance of a +superintending Providence, special improvements in type at the birth of +marked men, similar to those which we may suppose to have occurred in the +introduction of new varieties in the animal creation. + + + Page-Roberts, Oxford University Sermons: “It is no more unjust + that man should inherit evil tendencies, than that he should + inherit good. To make the former impossible is to make the latter + impossible. To object to the law of heredity, is to object to + God’s ordinance of society, and to say that God should have made + men, like the angels, a company, and not a race.” The common moral + characteristics of the race can only be accounted for upon the + Scriptural view that “_that which is born of the flesh is flesh_” + (_John 3:6_). Since propagation is a propagation of soul, as well + as body, we see that to beget children under improper conditions + is a crime, and that fœticide is murder. Haeckel, Evolution of + Man, 2:3—“The human embryo passes through the whole course of its + development in forty weeks. Each man is really older by this + period than is usually assumed. When, for example, a child is said + to be nine and a quarter years old, he is really ten years old.” + Is this the reason why Hebrews call a child a year old at birth? + President Edwards prayed for his children and his children’s + children to the end of time, and President Woolsey congratulated + himself that he was one of the inheritors of those prayers. R. W. + Emerson: “How can a man get away from his ancestors?” Men of + genius should select their ancestors with great care. When begin + the instruction of a child? A hundred years before he is born. A + lady whose children were noisy and troublesome said to a Quaker + relative that she wished she could get a good Quaker governess for + them, to teach them the quiet ways of the Society of Friends. “It + would not do them that service,” was the reply; “they should have + been rocked in a Quaker cradle, if they were to learn Quakerly + ways.” + + Galton, Natural Inheritance, 104—“The child inherits partly from + his parents, partly from his ancestry. In every population that + intermarries freely, when the genealogy of any man is traced far + backwards, his ancestry will be found to consist of such varied + elements that they are indistinguishable from the sample taken at + haphazard from the general population. Galton speaks of the + tendency of peculiarities to revert to the general type, and says + that a man’s brother is twice as nearly related to him as his + father is, and nine times as nearly as his cousin. The mean + stature of any particular class of men will be the same as that of + the race; in other words, it will be mediocre. This tells heavily + against the full hereditary transmission of any rare and valuable + gift, as only a few of the many children would resemble their + parents.” We may add to these thoughts of Galton that Christ + himself, as respects his merely human ancestry, was not so much + son of Mary, as he was Son of man. + + Brooks, Foundations of Zoölogy, 144-167—In an investigated case, + “in seven and a half generations the maximum ancestry for one + person is 382, or for three persons 1146. The names of 452 of + them, or nearly half, are recorded, and these 452 named ancestors + are not 452 distinct persons, but only 149, many of them, in the + remote generations, being common ancestors of all three in many + lines. If the lines of descent from the unrecorded ancestors were + interrelated in the same way, as they would surely be in an old + and stable community, the total ancestry of these three persons + for seven and a half generations would be 378 persons instead of + 1146. The descendants of many die out. All the members of a + species descend from a few ancestors in a remote generation, and + these few are the common ancestors of all. Extinction of family + names is very common. We must seek in the modern world and not in + the remote past for an explanation of that diversity among + individuals which passes under the name of variation. The + genealogy of a species is not a tree, but a slender thread of very + few strands, a little frayed at the near end, but of immeasurable + length. A fringe of loose ends all along the thread may represent + the animals which having no descendants are now as if they had + never been. Each of the strands at the near end is important as a + possible line of union between the thread of the past and that of + the distant future.” + + Weismann, Heredity, 270, 272, 380, 384, denies Brooks’s theory + that the male element represents the principle of variation. He + finds the cause of variation in the union of elements from the two + parents. Each child unites the hereditary tendencies of two + parents, and so must be different from either. The third + generation is a compromise between four different hereditary + tendencies. Brooks finds the cause of variation in sexual + reproduction, but he bases his theory upon the transmission of + acquired characters. This transmission is denied by Weismann, who + says that the male germ-cell does not play a different part from + that of the female in the construction of the embryo. Children + inherit quite as much from the father as from the mother. Like + twins are derived from the same egg-cell. No two germ-cells + contain exactly the same combinations of hereditary tendencies. + Changes in environment and organism affect posterity, not + directly, but only through other changes produced in its germinal + matter. Hence efforts to reach high food cannot directly produce + the giraffe. See Dawson, Modern Ideas of Evolution, 235-239; + Bradford, Heredity and Christian Problems; Ribot, Heredity; Woods, + Heredity in Royalty. On organic unity in connection with realism, + see Hodge, in Princeton Rev., Jan. 1865:126-135; Dabney, Theology, + 317-321. + + + +V. The Moral Nature of Man. + + +By the moral nature of man we mean those powers which fit him for right or +wrong action. These powers are intellect, sensibility, and will, together +with that peculiar power of discrimination and impulsion, which we call +conscience. In order to have moral action, man has intellect or reason, to +discern the difference between right and wrong; sensibility, to be moved +by each of these; free will, to do the one or the other. Intellect, +sensibility, and will, are man’s three faculties. But in connection with +these faculties there is a sort of activity which involves them all, and +without which there can be no moral action, namely, the activity of +conscience. Conscience applies the moral law to particular cases in our +personal experience, and proclaims that law as binding upon us. Only a +rational and sentient being can be truly moral; yet it does not come +within our province to treat of man’s intellect or sensibility in general. +We speak here only of Conscience and of Will. + + +1. Conscience. + + +A. Conscience an accompanying knowledge.—As already intimated, conscience +is not a separate faculty, like intellect, sensibility, and will, but +rather a mode in which these faculties act. Like consciousness, conscience +is an accompanying knowledge. Conscience is a knowing of self (including +our acts and states) in connection with a moral standard, or law. Adding +now the element of feeling, we may say that conscience is man’s +consciousness of his own moral relations, together with a peculiar feeling +in view of them. It thus involves the combined action of the intellect and +of the sensibility, and that in view of a certain class of objects, viz.: +right and wrong. + + + There is no separate ethical faculty any more than there is a + separate æsthetic faculty. Conscience is like taste: it has to do + with moral being and relations, as taste has to do with æsthetic + being and relations. But the ethical judgment and impulse are, + like the æsthetic judgment and impulse, the mode in which + intellect, sensibility and will act with reference to a certain + class of objects. Conscience deals with the right, as taste deals + with the beautiful. As consciousness (_con_ and _scio_) is a + con-knowing, a knowing of our thoughts, desires and volitions in + connection with a knowing of the self that has these thoughts, + desires and volitions; so conscience is a con-knowing, a knowing + of our moral acts and states in connection with a knowing of some + moral standard or law which is conceived of as our true self, and + therefore as having authority over us. Ladd, Philosophy of Mind, + 183-185—“The condemnation of self involves self-diremption, double + consciousness. Without it Kant’s categorical imperative is + impossible. The one self lays down the law to the other self, + judges it, threatens it. This is what is meant, when the apostle + says: ‘_It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me_’ + (_Rom. 7:17_).” + + +B. Conscience discriminative and impulsive.—But we need to define more +narrowly both the intellectual and the emotional elements in conscience. +As respects the intellectual element, we may say that conscience is a +power of judgment,—it declares our acts or states to conform, or not to +conform, to law; it declares the acts or states which conform to be +obligatory,—those which do not conform, to be forbidden. In other words, +conscience judges: (1) This is right (or, wrong); (2) I ought (or, I ought +not). In connection with this latter judgment, there comes into view the +emotional element of conscience,—we feel the claim of duty; there is an +inner sense that the wrong must not be done. Thus conscience is (1) +discriminative, and (2) impulsive. + + + Robinson, Principles and Practice of Morality, 173—“The one + distinctive function of conscience is that of authoritative + self-judgments in the conscious presence of a supreme Personality + to whom we as persons feel ourselves accountable. It is this + twofold personal element in every judgment of conscience, _viz._, + the conscious self-judgment in the presence of the all-judging + Deity, which has led such writers as Bain and Spencer and Stephen + to attempt the explanation of the origin and authority of + conscience as the product of parental training and social + environment.... Conscience is not prudential nor advisory nor + executive, but solely judicial. Conscience is the moral reason, + pronouncing upon moral actions. Consciousness furnishes law; + conscience pronounces judgments; it says: Thou shalt, Thou shalt + not. Every man must obey his conscience; if it is not enlightened, + that is his look-out. The callousing of conscience in this life is + already a penal infliction.” S. S. Times, Apl. 5, 1902:185—“Doing + as well as we know how is not enough, unless we know just what is + right and then do that. God never tells us merely to do our best, + or according to our knowledge. It is our duty to know what is + right, and then to do it. Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. We + have responsibility for knowing preliminary to doing.” + + +C. Conscience distinguished from other mental processes.—The nature and +office of conscience will be still more clearly perceived if we +distinguish it from other processes and operations with which it is too +often confounded. The term conscience has been used by various writers to +designate either one or all of the following: 1. _Moral intuition_—the +intuitive perception of the difference between right and wrong, as +opposite moral categories. 2. _Accepted law_—the application of the +intuitive idea to general classes of actions, and the declaration that +these classes of actions are right or wrong, apart from our individual +relation to them. This accepted law is the complex product of (_a_) the +intuitive idea, (_b_) the logical intelligence, (_c_) experiences of +utility, (_d_) influences of society and education, and (e) positive +divine revelation. 3. _Judgment_—applying this accepted law to individual +and concrete cases in our own experience, and pronouncing our own acts or +states either past, present, or prospective, to be right or wrong. 4. +_Command_—authoritative declaration of obligation to do the right, or +forbear the wrong, together with an impulse of the sensibility away from +the one, and toward the other. 5. _Remorse_ or _approval_—moral sentiments +either of approbation or disapprobation, in view of past acts or states, +regarded as wrong or right. 6. _Fear_ or _hope_—instinctive disposition of +disobedience to expect punishment, and of obedience to expect reward. + + + Ladd, Philos. of Conduct, 70—“The feeling of the ought is primary, + essential, unique; the judgments as to what one ought are the + results of environment, education and reflection.” The sentiment + of justice is not an inheritance of civilized man alone. No Indian + was ever robbed of his lands or had his government allowance + stolen from him who was not as keenly conscious of the wrong as in + like circumstances we could conceive that a philosopher would be. + The _oughtness_ of the ought is certainly intuitive; the _whyness_ + of the ought (conformity to God) is possibly intuitive also; the + _whatness_ of the ought is less certainly intuitive. Cutler, + Beginnings of Ethics, 163, 164—“Intuition tells us _that_ we are + obliged; _why_ we are obliged, and _what_ we are obliged to, we + must learn elsewhere.” _Obligation_—that which is binding on a + man; _ought_ is something owed; _duty_ is something due. The + intuitive notion of duty (intellect) is matched by the sense of + obligation (feeling). + + Bixby, Crisis in Morals, 203, 270—“All men have a sense of + right,—of right to life, and contemporaneously perhaps, but + certainly afterwards, of right to personal property. And my right + implies duty in my neighbor to respect it. Then the sense of right + becomes objective and impersonal. My neighbor’s duty to me implies + my duty to him. I put myself in his place.” Bowne, Principles of + Ethics, 156, 188—“First, the feeling of obligation, the idea of a + right and a wrong with corresponding duties, is universal.... + Secondly, there is a very general agreement in the formal + principles of action, and largely in the virtues also, such as + benevolence, justice, gratitude.... Whether we owe anything to our + neighbor has never been a real question. The practical trouble has + always lain in the other question: Who is my neighbor? Thirdly, + the specific contents of the moral ideal are not fixed, but the + direction in which the ideal lies is generally discernible.... We + have in ethics the same fact as in intellect—a potentially + infallible standard, with manifold errors in its apprehension and + application. Lucretius held that degradation and paralysis of the + moral nature result from religion. Many claim on the other hand + that without religion morals would disappear from the earth.” + + Robinson, Princ. and Prac. of Morality, 173—“Fear of an omnipotent + will is very different from remorse in view of the nature of the + supreme Being whose law we have violated.” A duty is to be settled + in accordance with the standard of absolute right, not as public + sentiment would dictate. A man must be ready to do right in spite + of what everybody thinks. Just as the decisions of a judge are for + the time binding on all good citizens, so the decisions of + conscience, as relatively binding, must always be obeyed. They are + presumptively right and they are the only present guide of action. + Yet man’s present state of sin makes it quite possible that the + decisions which are relatively right may be absolutely wrong. It + is not enough to take one’s time from the watch; the watch may go + wrong; there is a prior duty of regulating the watch by + astronomical standards. Bishop Gore: “Man’s first duty is, not to + _follow_ his conscience, but to _enlighten_ his conscience.” + Lowell says that the Scythians used to eat their grandfathers out + of humanity. Paine, Ethnic Trinities, 300—“Nothing is so stubborn + or so fanatical as a wrongly instructed conscience, as Paul showed + in his own case by his own confession” (_Acts 26:9_—“_I verily + thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the + name of Jesus of Nazareth_”). + + +D. Conscience the moral judiciary of the soul.—From what has been +previously said, it is evident that only 3. and 4. are properly included +under the term conscience. Conscience is the moral judiciary of the +soul—the power within of judgment and command. Conscience must judge +according to the law given to it, and therefore, since the moral standard +accepted by the reason may be imperfect, its decisions, while relatively +just, may be absolutely unjust.—1. and 2. belong to the _moral reason_, +but not to conscience proper. Hence the duty of enlightening and +cultivating the moral reason, so that conscience may have a proper +standard of judgment.—5. and 6. belong to the sphere of _moral sentiment_, +and not to conscience proper. The office of conscience is to “bear +witness” (Rom. 2:15). + + + In _Rom. 2:15_—“_they show the work of the law written in their + hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their + thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them_”—we have + conscience clearly distinguished both from the law and the + perception of law on the one hand, and from the moral sentiments + of approbation and disapprobation on the other. Conscience does + not furnish the law, but it bears witness with the law which is + furnished by other sources. It is not “that power of mind by which + moral law is discovered to each individual” (Calderwood, Moral + Philosophy, 77), nor can we speak of “Conscience, the Law” (as + Whewell does in his Elements of Morality, 1:259-266). Conscience + is not the law-book, in the court room, but it is the judge,—whose + business is, not to make law, but to decide cases according to the + law given to him. + + As conscience is not legislative, so it is not retributive; as it + is not the law-book, so it is not the sheriff. We say, indeed, in + popular language, that conscience scourges or chastises, but it is + only in the sense in which we say that the judge punishes,—_i. + e._, through the sheriff. The moral sentiments are the + sheriff,—they carry out the decisions of conscience, the judge; + but they are not themselves conscience, any more than the sheriff + is the judge. + + Only this doctrine, that conscience does not discover law, can + explain on the one hand the fact that men are bound to follow + their consciences, and on the other hand the fact that their + consciences so greatly differ as to what is right or wrong in + particular cases. The truth is, that conscience is uniform and + infallible, in the sense that it always decides rightly according + to the law given it. Men’s decisions vary, only because the moral + reason has presented to the conscience different standards by + which to judge. + + Conscience can be educated only in the sense of acquiring greater + facility and quickness in making its decisions. Education has its + chief effect, not upon the conscience, but upon the moral reason, + in rectifying its erroneous, or imperfect standards of judgment. + Give conscience a right law by which to judge, and its decisions + will be uniform, and absolutely as well as relatively just. We are + bound, not only to “follow our conscience,” but to have a right + conscience to follow,—and to follow it, not as one follows the + beast he drives, but as the soldier follows his commander. Robert + J. Burdette: “Following conscience as a guide is like following + one’s nose. It is important to get the nose pointed right before + it is safe to follow it. A man can keep the approval of his own + conscience in very much the same way that he can keep directly + behind his nose, and go wrong all the time.” + + Conscience is the con-knowing of a particular act or state, as + coming under the law accepted by the reason as to right and wrong; + and the judgment of conscience subsumes this act or state under + that general standard. Conscience cannot _include_ the law—cannot + itself _be_ the law,—because reason only knows, never _con_-knows. + Reason says _scio_; only judgment says _conscio_. + + This view enables us to reconcile the intuitional and the + empirical theories of morals. Each has its element of truth. The + original sense of right and wrong is intuitive,—no education could + ever impart the idea of the difference between right and wrong to + one who had it not. But what classes of things _are_ right or + wrong, we learn by the exercise of our logical intelligence, in + connection with experiences of utility, influences of society and + tradition, and positive divine revelation. Thus our moral reason, + through a combination of intuition and education, of internal and + external information as to general principles of right and wrong, + furnishes the standard according to which conscience may judge the + particular cases which come before it. + + This moral reason may become depraved by sin, so that the light + becomes darkness (_Mat. 6:22, 23_) and conscience has only a + perverse standard by which to judge. The “_weak_” conscience (_1 + Cor. 8:12_) is one whose standard of judgment is yet imperfect; + the conscience “_branded_” (Rev. Vers.) or “_seared_” (A. V.) “_as + with a hot iron_” (_1 Tim. 4:2_) is one whose standard has been + wholly perverted by practical disobedience. The word and the + Spirit of God are the chief agencies in rectifying our standards + of judgment, and so of enabling conscience to make absolutely + right decisions. God can so unite the soul to Christ, that it + becomes partaker on the one hand of his satisfaction to justice + and is thus “_sprinkled from an evil conscience_” (_Heb. 10:22_), + and on the other hand of his sanctifying power and is thus enabled + in certain respects to obey God’s command and to speak of a “_good + conscience_” (_1 Pet. 3:16_—of single act; _3:21_—of state) + instead of an “_evil conscience_” (_Heb. 10:22_) or a conscience + “_defiled_” (_Tit. 1:15_) by sin. Here the “_good conscience_” is + the conscience which has been obeyed by the will, and the “_evil + conscience_” the conscience which has been disobeyed; with the + result, in the first case, of approval from the moral sentiments, + and, in the second case, of disapproval. + + +E. Conscience in its relation to God as law-giver.—Since conscience, in +the proper sense, gives uniform and infallible judgment that the right is +supremely obligatory, and that the wrong must be forborne at every cost, +it can be called an echo of God’s voice, and an indication in man of that +which his own true being requires. + + + Conscience has sometimes been described as the voice of God in the + soul, or as the personal presence and influence of God himself. + But we must not identify conscience with God. D. W. Faunce: + “Conscience is not God,—it is only a part of one’s self. To build + up a religion about one’s own conscience, as if it were God, is + only a refined selfishness—a worship of one part of one’s self by + another part of one’s self.” In The Excursion, Wordsworth speaks + of conscience as “God’s most intimate presence in the soul And his + most perfect image in the world.” But in his Ode to Duty he more + discreetly writes: “Stern daughter of the voice of God! O Duty! if + that name thou love, Who art a light to guide, a rod To check the + erring, and reprove, Thou who art victory and law When empty + terrors overawe, From vain temptations dost set free And calmst + the weary strife of frail humanity!” Here is an allusion to the + Hebrew Bath Kol. “The Jews say that the Holy Spirit spoke during + the Tabernacle by Urim and Thummim, under the first Temple by the + Prophets, and under the second Temple by the Bath Kol—a divine + intimation as inferior to the oracular voice proceeding from the + mercy seat as a daughter is supposed to be inferior to her mother. + It is also used in the sense of an approving conscience. In this + case it is the echo of the voice of God in those who by obeying + hear” (Hershon’s Talmudic Miscellany, 2, note). This phrase, “the + echo of God’s voice,” is a correct description of conscience, and + Wordsworth probably had it in mind when he spoke of duty as “the + daughter of the voice of God.” Robert Browning describes + conscience as “the great beacon-light God sets in all.... The + worst man upon earth ... knows in his conscience more Of what + right is, than arrives at birth In the best man’s acts that we bow + before.” Jackson, James Martineau, 154—The sense of obligation is + “a piercing ray of the great Orb of souls.” On Wordsworth’s + conception of conscience, see A. H. Strong, Great Poets, 365-368. + + Since the activity of the immanent God reveals itself in the + normal operations of our own faculties, conscience might be also + regarded as man’s true self over against the false self which we + have set up against it. Theodore Parker defines conscience as “our + consciousness of the conscience of God.” In his fourth year, says + Chadwick, his biographer (pages 12, 13, 185), young Theodore saw a + little spotted tortoise and lifted his hand to strike. All at once + something checked his arm, and a voice within said clear and loud: + “It is wrong.” He asked his mother what it was that told him it + was wrong. She wiped a tear from her eye with her apron, and + taking him in her arms said: “Some men call it conscience, but I + prefer to call it the voice of God in the soul of man. If you + listen and obey it, then it will speak clearer and clearer, and + will always guide you right; but if you turn a deaf ear and + disobey, then it will fade out little by little, and will leave + you all in the dark and without a guide. Your life depends on your + hearing this little voice.” R. T. Smith, Man’s Knowledge of Man + and of God, 87, 171—“Man has conscience, as he has talents. + Conscience, no more than talent, makes him good. He is good, only + as he follows conscience and uses talent.... The relation between + the terms consciousness and conscience, which are in fact but + forms of the same word, testifies to the fact that it is in the + action of conscience that man’s consciousness of himself is + chiefly experienced.” + + The conscience of the regenerate man may have such right + standards, and its decisions may be followed by such uniformly + right action, that its voice, though it is not itself God’s voice, + is yet the very echo of God’s voice. The renewed conscience may + take up into itself, and may express, the witness of the Holy + Spirit (_Rom. 9:1_—“_I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my + conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit_”; _cf._ + _8:16_—“_the Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that + we are children of God_”). But even when conscience judges + according to imperfect standards, and is imperfectly obeyed by the + will, there is a spontaneity in its utterances and a sovereignty + in its commands. It declares that whatever is right must be done. + The imperative of conscience is a “categorical imperative” (Kant). + It is independent of the human will. Even when disobeyed, it still + asserts its authority. Before conscience, every other impulse and + affection of man’s nature is called to bow. + + +F. Conscience in its relation to God as holy.—Conscience is not an +original authority. It points to something higher than itself. The +“authority of conscience” is simply the authority of the moral law, or +rather, the authority of the personal God, of whose nature the law is but +a transcript. Conscience, therefore, with its continual and supreme demand +that the right should be done, furnishes the best witness to man of the +existence of a personal God, and of the supremacy of holiness in him in +whose image we are made. + + + In knowing self in connection with moral law, man not only gets + his best knowledge of self, but his best knowledge of that other + self opposite to him, namely, God. Gordon, Christ of To-day, + 236—“The conscience is the true Jacob’s ladder, set in the heart + of the individual and reaching unto heaven; and upon it the angels + of self-reproach and self-approval ascend and descend.” This is of + course true if we confine our thoughts to the mandatory element in + revelation. There is a higher knowledge of God which is given only + in grace. Jacob’s ladder symbolizes the Christ who publishes not + only the gospel but the law, and not only the law but the gospel. + Dewey, Psychology, 344—“Conscience is intuitive, not in the sense + that it enunciates universal laws and principles, for it lays down + no laws. Conscience is a name for the experience of personality + that any given act is in harmony or in discord with a truly + realized personality.” Because obedience to the dictates of + conscience is always relatively right, Kant could say that “an + erring conscience is a chimæra.” But because the law accepted by + conscience may be absolutely wrong, conscience may in its + decisions greatly err from the truth. S. S. Times: “Saul before + his conversion was a conscientious wrong doer. His spirit and + character was commendable, while his conduct was reprehensible.” + We prefer to say that Saul’s zeal for the law was a zeal to make + the law subservient to his own pride and honor. + + Horace Bushnell said that the first requirement of a great + ministry is a great conscience. He did not mean the punitive, + inhibitory conscience merely, but rather the discovering, + arousing, inspiring conscience, that sees at once the great things + to be done, and moves toward them with a shout and a song. This + unbiased and pure conscience is inseparable from the sense of its + relation to God and to God’s holiness. Shakespeare, Henry VI, 2d + Part, 3:2—“What stronger breastplate than a heart untainted? + Thrice is he armed that hath his quarrel just; And he but naked, + though locked up in steel, Whose conscience with injustice is + corrupted.” Huxley, in his lecture at Oxford in 1893, admits and + even insists that ethical practice must be and should be in + opposition to evolution; that the methods of evolution do not + account for ethical man and his ethical progress. Morality is not + a product of the same methods by which lower orders have advanced + in perfection of organization, namely, by the struggle for + existence and survival of the fittest. Human progress is moral, is + in freedom, is under the law of love, is different in kind from + physical evolution. James Russell Lowell: “In vain we call old + notions fudge, And bend our conscience to our dealing: The ten + commandments will not budge, And stealing will continue stealing.” + + R. T. Smith, Man’s Knowledge of Man and of God, 161—“Conscience + lives in human nature like a rightful king, whose claim can never + be forgotten by his people, even though they dethrone and misuse + him, and whose presence on the seat of judgment can alone make the + nation to be at peace with itself.” Seth, Ethical Principles, + 424—“The Kantian theory of autonomy does not tell the whole story + of the moral life. Its unyielding Ought, its categorical + Imperative, issues not merely from the depths of our own nature, + but from the heart of the universe itself. We are + self-legislative; but we reënact the law already enacted by God; + we recognize, rather than constitute, the law of our own being. + The moral law is an echo, within our own souls, of the voice of + the Eternal, _‘__whose offspring we are__’__ (Acts 17:28)_.” + + Schenkel, Christliche Dogmatik, 1:135-155—“The conscience is the + organ by which the human spirit finds God in itself and so becomes + aware of itself in him. Only in conscience is man conscious of + himself as eternal, as distinct from God, yet as normally bound to + be determined wholly by God. When we subject ourselves wholly to + God, conscience gives us peace. When we surrender to the world the + allegiance due only to God, conscience brings remorse. In this + latter case we become aware that while God is in us, we are no + longer in God. Religion is exchanged for ethics, the relation of + communion for the relation of separation. In conscience alone man + distinguishes himself absolutely from the brute. Man does not make + conscience, but conscience makes man. Conscience feels every + separation from God as an injury to self. Faith is the relating of + the self-consciousness to the God-consciousness, the becoming sure + of our own personality, in the absolute personality of God. Only + in faith does conscience come to itself. But by sin this + faith-consciousness may be turned into law-consciousness. Faith + affirms God _in_ us; Law affirms God _outside_ of us.” Schenkel + differs from Schleiermacher in holding that religion is not + feeling but conscience, and that it is not a sense of dependence + on the world, but a sense of dependence on God. Conscience + recognizes a God distinct from the universe, a moral God, and so + makes an unmoral religion impossible. + + Hopkins, Outline Study of Man, 283-285, Moral Science, 49, Law of + Love, 41—“Conscience is the moral consciousness of man in view of + his own actions as related to moral law. It is a double knowledge + of self and of the law. Conscience is not the whole of the moral + nature. It presupposes the moral reason, which recognizes the + moral law and affirms its universal obligation for all moral + beings. It is the office of conscience to bring man into personal + relation to this law. It sets up a tribunal within him by which + his own actions are judged. Not conscience, but the moral reason, + judges of the conduct of others. This last is _science_, but not + _conscience_.” + + Peabody, Moral Philos., 41-60—“Conscience not a source, but a + means, of knowledge. Analogous to consciousness. A judicial + faculty. Judges according to the law before it. Verdict (verum + dictum) always relatively right, although, by the absolute + standard of right, it may be wrong. Like all perceptive faculties, + educated by use (not by increase of knowledge only, for man may + act worse, the more knowledge he has). For absolutely right + decisions, conscience is dependent upon knowledge. To recognize + conscience as _legislator_ (as well as judge), is to fail to + recognize any objective standard of right.” The Two Consciences, + 46, 47—“Conscience the Law, and Conscience the Witness. The latter + is the true and proper Conscience.” + + H. B. Smith, System of Christ. Theology, 178-191—“The unity of + conscience is not in its being one faculty or in its performing + one function, but in its having one _object_, its relation to one + idea, viz., _right_.... The term ‘conscience’ no more designates a + special faculty than the term ‘religion’ does (or than the + ‘æsthetic sense’).... The existence of conscience proves a moral + law above us; it leads logically to a Moral Governor; ... it + implies an essential distinction between right and wrong, an + immutable morality; ... yet needs to be enlightened; ... men may + be conscientious in iniquity; ... conscience is not righteousness; + ... this may only show the greatness of the depravity, having + conscience, and yet ever disobeying it.” + + On the New Testament passages with regard to conscience, see + Hofmann, Lehre von dem Gewissen, 30-38; Kähler, Das Gewissen, + 225-293. For the view that conscience is primarily the cognitive + or intuitional power of the soul, see Calderwood, Moral + Philosophy, 77; Alexander, Moral Science, 20; McCosh, Div. Govt., + 297-312; Talbot, Ethical Prolegomena, in Bap. Quar., July, + 1877:257-274; Park, Discourses, 260-296; Whewell, Elements of + Morality, 1:259-266. On the whole subject of conscience, see + Mansel, Metaphysics, 158-170; Martineau, Religion and Materialism, + 45—“The discovery of duty is as distinctly relative to an + objective Righteousness as the perception of form to an external + space”; also Types, 2:27-30—“We first judge ourselves; then + others”; 53, 54, 74, 103—“Subjective morals are as absurd as + subjective mathematics.” The best brief treatment of the whole + subject is that of E. G. Robinson, Principles and Practice of + Morality, 26-78. See also Wayland, Moral Science, 49; Harless, + Christian Ethics, 45, 60; H. N. Day, Science of Ethics, 17; Janet, + Theory of Morals, 264, 348; Kant, Metaphysic of Ethics, 62; _cf._ + Schwegler, Hist. Philosophy, 233; Haven, Mor. Philos., 41; + Fairchild, Mor. Philos., 75; Gregory, Christian Ethics, 71; + Passavant, Das Gewissen; Wm. Schmid, Das Gewissen. + + +2. Will. + + +A. Will defined.—Will is the soul’s power to choose between motives and to +direct its subsequent activity according to the motive thus chosen,—in +other words, the soul’s power to choose both an end and the means to +attain it. The choice of an ultimate end we call immanent preference; the +choice of means we call executive volition. + + + In this definition we part company with Jonathan Edwards, Freedom + of the Will, in Works, vol. 2. He regards the will as the soul’s + power to act according to motive, _i. e._, to act out its nature, + but he denies the soul’s power to choose between motives, _i. e._, + to initiate a course of action contrary to the motive which has + been previously dominant. Hence he is unable to explain how a holy + being, like Satan or Adam, could ever fall. If man has no power to + change motives, to break with the past, to begin a new course of + action, he has no more freedom than the brute. The younger Edwards + (Works, 1:483) shows what his father’s doctrine of the will + implies, when he says: “Beasts therefore, according to the measure + of their intelligence, are as free as men. Intelligence, and not + liberty, is the only thing wanting to constitute them moral + agents.” Yet Jonathan Edwards, determinist as he was, in his + sermon on Pressing into the Kingdom of God (Works, 4:381), urges + the use of means, and appeals to the sinner as if he had the power + of choosing between the motives of self and of God. He was + unconsciously making a powerful appeal to the will, and the human + will responded in prolonged and mighty efforts; see Allen, + Jonathan Edwards, 109. + + For references, and additional statements with regard to the will + and its freedom, see chapter on Decrees, pages 361, 362, and + article by A. H. Strong, in Baptist Review, 1883:219-242, and + reprinted in Philosophy and Religion, 114-128. In the remarks upon + the Decrees, we have intimated our rejection of the Arminian + liberty of indifference, or the doctrine that the will can act + without motive. See this doctrine advocated in Peabody, Moral + Philosophy, 1-9. But we also reject the theory of determinism + propounded by Jonathan Edwards (Freedom of the Will, in Works, + vol. 2), which, as we have before remarked, identifies sensibility + with the will, regards affections as the efficient causes of + volitions, and speaks of the connection between motive and action + as a necessary one. Hazard, Man a Creative First Cause, and The + Will, 407—“Edwards gives to the controlling cause of volition in + the past the name of motive. He treats the inclination as a + motive, but he also makes inclination synonymous with choice and + will, which would make will to be only the soul willing—and + therefore the cause of its own act.” For objections to the + Arminian theory, see H. B. Smith, Review of Whedon, in Faith and + Philosophy, 359-399; McCosh, Divine Government, 263-318, esp. 312; + E. G. Robinson, Principles and Practice of Morality, 109-137; + Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:115-147. + + James, Psychology, 1:139—“Consciousness is primarily a selecting + agency.” 2:393—“Man possesses all the instincts of animals, and a + great many more besides. Reason, _per se_, can inhibit no + impulses; the only thing that can neutralize an impulse is an + impulse the other way. Reason may however make an inference which + will excite the imagination to let loose the impulse the other + way.” 549—“Ideal or moral action is action in the line of the + greatest resistance.” 562—“Effort of attention is the essential + phenomenon of will.” 567—“The terminus of the psychological + process is volition; the point to which the will is directly + applied is always an idea.” 568—“Though attention is the first + thing in volition, express consent to the reality of what is + attended to is an additional and distinct phenomenon. We say not + only: It is a reality; but we also say: ‘Let it be a reality.’ ” + 571—“Are the duration and intensity of this effort fixed functions + of the object, or are they not? We answer, _No_, and so we + maintain freedom of the will.” 584—“The soul presents nothing, + creates nothing, is at the mercy of material forces for all + possibilities, and, by reinforcing one and checking others, it + figures not as an _epiphenomenon_, but as something from which the + play gets moral support.” Alexander, Theories of the Will, + 201-214, finds in Reid’s Active Powers of the Human Mind the most + adequate empirical defense of indeterminism. + + +B. Will and other faculties.—(_a_) We accept the threefold division of +human faculties into intellect, sensibility, and will. (_b_) Intellect is +the soul knowing; sensibility is the soul feeling (desires, affections); +will is the soul choosing (end or means). (_c_) In every act of the soul, +all the faculties act. Knowing involves feeling and willing; feeling +involves knowing and willing; willing involves knowing and feeling. (_d_) +Logically, each latter faculty involves the preceding action of the +former; the soul must know before feeling; must know and feel before +willing. (_e_) Yet since knowing and feeling are activities, neither of +these is possible without willing. + + + Socrates to Theætetus: “It would be a singular thing, my lad, if + each of us was, as it were, a wooden horse, and within us were + seated many separate senses. For manifestly these senses unite + into one nature, call it the soul or what you will. And it is with + this central form, through the organs of sense, that we perceive + sensible objects.” Dewey, Psychology, 21—“Knowledge and feeling + are partial aspects of the self, and hence more or less abstract, + while will is complete, comprehending both aspects.... While the + universal element is knowledge, the individual element is feeling, + and the relation which connects them into one concrete content is + will.” 364—“There is conflict of desires or motives. Deliberation + is the comparison of desires; choice is the decision in favor of + one. This desire is then the strongest because the whole force of + the self is thrown into it.” 411—“The man determines himself by + setting up either good or evil as a motive to himself, and he sets + up either, as he will have himself be. There is no thought without + will, for thought implies inhibition.” Ribot, Diseases of the + Will, 73, cites the case of Coleridge, and his lack of power to + inhibit scattering and useless ideas; 114—“Volition plunges its + roots into the profoundest depths of the individual, and beyond + the individual, into the species and into all species.” + + As God is not mere nature but originating force, so man is chiefly + will. Every other act of the soul has will as an element. Wundt: + “Jedes Denken ist ein Wollen.” There is no perception, and there + is no thought, without attention, and attention is an act of the + will. Hegelians and absolute idealists like Bradley, (see Mind, + July, 1886), deny that attention is an active function of the + self. They regard it as a necessary consequence of the more + interesting character of preceding ideas. Thus all power to alter + character is denied to the agent. This is an exact reversal of the + facts of consciousness, and it would leave no will in God or man. + T. H. Green says that the self makes the motives by identifying + itself with one solicitation of desire rather than another, but + that the self has no power of alternative choice in thus + identifying itself with one solicitation of desire rather than + another; see Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 310. James Seth, Freedom of + Ethical Postulate: “The only hope of finding a place for real free + will is in another than the Humian, empirical or psychological + account of the moral person or self. Hegel and Green bring will + again under the law of necessity. But personality is ultimate. + Absolute uniformity is entirely unproved. We contend for a power + of free and incalculable initiation in the self, and this it is + necessary to maintain in the interests of morality.” Without will + to attend to pertinent material and to reject the impertinent, we + can have no _science_; without will to select and combine the + elements of imagination, we can have no _art_; without will to + choose between evil and good, we can have no _morality_. Ælfric, + A. D. 900: “The verb ‘to will’ has no imperative, for that the + will must be always free.” + + +C. Will and permanent states.—(_a_) Though every act of the soul involves +the action of all the faculties, yet in any particular action one faculty +may be more prominent than the others. So we speak of acts of intellect, +of affection, of will. (_b_) This predominant action of any single faculty +produces effects upon the other faculties associated with it. The action +of will gives a direction to the intellect and to the affections, as well +as a permanent bent to the will itself. (_c_) Each faculty, therefore, has +its permanent states as well as its transient acts, and the will may +originate these states. Hence we speak of voluntary affections, and may +with equal propriety speak of voluntary opinions. These permanent +voluntary states we denominate character. + + + I “make up” my mind. Ladd, Philosophy of Conduct, 152—“I will the + influential ideas, feelings and desires, rather than allow these + ideas, feelings and desires to influence—not to say, determine + me.” All men can say with Robert Browning’s Paracelsus: “I have + subdued my life to the one purpose Whereto I ordained it.” “Sow an + act, and you reap a habit; sow a habit, and you reap a character; + sow a character, and you reap a destiny.” Tito, in George Eliot’s + Romola, and Markheim in R. L. Stevenson’s story of that name, are + instances of the gradual and almost imperceptible fixation in evil + ways which results from seemingly slight original decisions of the + will; see art. on Tito Melema, by Julia H. Gulliver, in New World, + Dec. 1895:688—“Sin lies in the choice of the ideas that shall + frequent the moral life, rather than of the actions that shall + form the outward life.... The pivotal point of the moral life is + the intent involved in attention.... Sin consists, not only in the + motive, but in the making of the motive.” By every decision of the + will in which we turn our thought either toward or away from an + object of desire, we set nerve-tracts in operation, upon which + thought may hereafter more or less easily travel. “Nothing makes + an inroad, without making a road.” By slight efforts of attention + to truth which we know ought to influence us, we may “_make level + in the desert a highway for our God_” (_Is. 40:3_), or render the + soul a hard trodden ground impervious to “_the word of the + kingdom_” (_Mat. 13:19_). + + The word “character” meant originally the mark of the engraver’s + tool upon the metal or the stone. It came then to signify the + collective result of the engraver’s work. The use of the word in + morals implies that every thought and act is chiseling itself into + the imperishable substance of the soul. J. S. Mill: “A character + is a completely fashioned will.” We may talk therefore of a + “generic volition” (Dewey). There is a permanent bent of the will + toward good or toward evil. Reputation is man’s shadow, sometimes + longer, sometimes shorter, than himself. Character, on the other + hand, is the man’s true self—“what a man is in the dark” (Dwight + L. Moody). In this sense, “purpose is the autograph of mind.” Duke + of Wellington: “Habit a second nature? Habit is ten times nature!” + When Macbeth says: “If ’twere done when ’tis done, Then ’twere + well ’twere done quickly,” the trouble is that when ’tis done, it + is only begun. Robert Dale Owen gives us the fundamental principle + of socialism in the maxim: “A man’s character is made for him, not + by him.” Hence he would change man’s diet or his environment, as a + means of forming man’s character. But Jesus teaches that what + defiles comes not from without but from within (_Mat. 15:18_). + Because character is the result of will, the maxim of Heraclitus + is true: ἦθος ἀνθρώπῳ δαίμων—man’s character is his destiny. On + habit, see James, Psychology, 1:122-127. + + +D. Will and motives.—(_a_) The permanent states just mentioned, when they +have been once determined, also influence the will. Internal views and +dispositions, and not simply external presentations, constitute the +strength of motives. (_b_) These motives often conflict, and though the +soul never acts without motive, it does notwithstanding choose between +motives, and so determines the end toward which it will direct its +activities. (_c_) Motives are not _causes_, which compel the will, but +_influences_, which persuade it. The power of these motives, however, is +proportioned to the strength of will which has entered into them and has +made them what they are. + + + “Incentives come from the soul’s self: the rest avail not.” The + same wind may drive two ships in opposite directions, according as + they set their sails. The same external presentation may result in + George Washington’s refusing, and Benedict Arnold’s accepting, the + bribe to betray his country. Richard Lovelace of Canterbury: + “Stone walls do not a prison make, Nor iron bars a cage; Minds + innocent and quiet take That for a hermitage.” Jonathan Edwards + made motives to be _efficient_ causes, when they are only _final_ + causes. We must not interpret motive as if it were locomotive. It + is always a man’s fault when he becomes a drunkard: drink never + takes to a man; the man takes to drink. Men who deny demerit are + ready enough to claim merit. They hold others responsible, if not + themselves. Bowne: “Pure arbitrariness and pure necessity are + alike incompatible with reason. There must be a law of reason in + the mind with which volition cannot tamper, and there must also be + the power to determine ourselves accordingly.” Bowne, Principles + of Ethics, 135—“If necessity is a universal thing, then the belief + in freedom is also necessary. All grant freedom of thought, so + that it is only executive freedom that is denied.” Bowne, Theory + of Thought and Knowledge, 239-244—“Every system of philosophy must + invoke freedom for the solution of the problem of error, or make + shipwreck of reason itself.... Our faculties are made for truth, + but they may be carelessly used, or wilfully misused, and thus + error is born.... We need not only laws of thought, but + self-control in accordance with them.” + + The will, in choosing _between_ motives, chooses _with_ a motive, + namely, the motive chosen. Fairbairn, Philos. Christian Religion, + 76—“While motives may be necessary, they need not necessitate. The + will selects motives; motives do not select the will. Heredity and + environment do not cancel freedom, they only condition it. Thought + is transcendence as regards the phenomena of space; will is + transcendence as regards the phenomena of time; this double + transcendence involves the complete supernatural character of + man.” New World, 1892:152—“It is not the character, but the self + that has the character, to which the ultimate moral decision is + due.” William Ernest Henly, Poems, 119—“It matters not how strait + the gate, How charged with punishments the scroll, I am the master + of my fate, I am the captain of my soul.” + + Julius Müller, Doctrine of Sin, 2:54—“A being is free, in so far + as the inner centre of its life, from which it acts, is + conditioned by self-determination. It is not enough that the + deciding agent in an act be the man himself, his own nature, his + distinctive character. In order to have accountability, we must + have more than this; we must prove that this, his distinctive + nature and character, springs from his own volition, and that it + is itself the product of freedom in moral development. _Matt. + 12:33_—‘_make the tree good, and its fruit good_’—combines both. + Acts depend upon nature; but nature again depends upon the primary + decisions of the will (‘_make the tree good_’). Some determinism + is not denied; but it is partly limited [by the will’s remaining + power of choice] and partly traced back to a former + self-determining.” _Ibid._, 67—“If freedom be the self-determining + of the will from that which is undetermined, Determinism is found + wanting,—because in its most spiritual form, though it grants a + self-determination of the will, it is only such a one as springs + from a determinateness already present; and Indifferentism is + found wanting too, because while it maintains indeterminateness as + presupposed in every act of will, it does not recognize an actual + self-determining on the part of the will, which, though it be a + self-determining, yet begets determinateness of character.... We + must, therefore, hold the doctrine of a _conditional_ and + _limited_ freedom.” + + +E. Will and contrary choice.—(_a_) Though no act of pure will is possible, +the soul may put forth single volitions in a direction opposed to its +previous ruling purpose, and thus far man has the power of a contrary +choice (Rom. 7:18—“to will is present with me”). (_b_) But in so far as +will has entered into and revealed itself in permanent states of intellect +and sensibility and in a settled bent of the will itself, man cannot by a +single act reverse his moral state, and in this respect has not the power +of a contrary choice. (_c_) In this latter case he can change his +character only indirectly, by turning his attention to considerations +fitted to awaken opposite dispositions, and by thus summoning up motives +to an opposite course. + + + There is no such thing as an act of pure will. Peters, + Willenswelt, 126—“Jedes Wollen ist ein Etwas wollen”—“all willing + is a willing of some thing”; it has an object which the mind + conceives, which awakens the sensibility, and which the will + strives to realize. Cause without alternative is not true cause. + J. F. Watts: “We know causality only as we know will, _i. e._, + where of two possibles it makes one actual. A cause may therefore + have more than one certain effect. In the external material world + we cannot find _cause_, but only _antecedent_. To construct a + theory of the will from a study of the material universe is to + seek the living among the dead. Will is power to _make_ a + decision, not to _be made_ by decisions, to decide between + motives, and not to be determined by motives. Who conducts the + trial between motives? Only the self.” While we agree with the + above in its assertion of the certainty of nature’s sequences, we + object to its attribution even to nature of anything like + necessity. Since nature’s laws are merely the habits of God, God’s + causality in nature is the regularity, not of necessity, but of + freedom. We too are free at the strategic points. Automatic as + most of our action is, there are times when we know ourselves to + have power of initiative; when we put under our feet the motives + which have dominated us in the past; when we mark out new courses + of action. In these critical times we assert our manhood; but for + them we would be no better than the beasts that perish. “Unless + above himself he can erect himself, How mean a thing is man!” + + Will, with no remaining power of contrary choice, may be brute + will, but it is not free will. We therefore deny the relevancy of + Herbert Spencer’s argument, in his Data of Ethics, and in his + Psychology, 2:503—“Psychical changes either conform to law, or + they do not. If they do not conform to law, no science of + Psychology is possible. If they do conform to law, there cannot be + any such thing as free will.” Spinoza also, in his Ethics, holds + that the stone, as it falls, would if it were conscious think + itself free, and with as much justice as man; for it is doing that + to which its constitution leads it; but no more can be said for + him. Fisher, Nature and Method of Revelation, xiii—“To try to + collect the ‘data of ethics’ when there is no recognition of man + as a personal agent, capable of freely originating the conduct and + the states of will for which he is morally responsible, is labor + lost.” Fisher, chapter on the Personality of God, in Grounds of + Theistic and Christian Belief—“Self-determination, as the very + term signifies, is attended with an irresistible conviction that + the direction of the will is self-imparted.... That the will is + free, that is, not constrained by causes exterior, which is + _fatalism_—and not a mere spontaneity, confined to one path by a + force acting from within, which is _determinism_—is immediately + evident to every unsophisticated mind. We can initiate action by + an efficiency which is neither irresistibly controlled by motives, + nor determined, without any capacity of alternative action, by a + proneness inherent in its nature.... Motives have an _influence_, + but influence is not to be confounded with _causal_ efficiency.” + + Talbot, on Will and Free Will, Bap. Rev., July, 1882—“Will is + neither a power of unconditioned self-determination—which is not + freedom, but an aimless, irrational, fatalistic power; nor pure + spontaneity—which excludes from will all law but its own; but it + is rather a power of originating action—a power which is limited + however by inborn dispositions, by acquired habits and + convictions, by feelings and social relations.” Ernest Naville, in + Rev. Chrétienne, Jan. 1878:7—“Our liberty does not consist in + producing an action of which it is the only source. It consists in + choosing between two preëxistent impulses. It is _choice_, not + _creation_, that is our destiny—a drop of water that can choose + whether it will go into the Rhine or the Rhone. Gravity carries it + down,—it chooses only its direction. Impulses do not come from the + will, but from the sensibility; but free will chooses between + these impulses.” Bowne, Metaphysics, 169—“Freedom is not a power + of acting without, or apart from, motives, but simply a power of + choosing an end or law, and of governing one’s self accordingly.” + Porter, Moral Science, 77-111—Will is “not a power to choose + without motive.” It “does not exclude motives to the contrary.” + Volition “supposes two or more objects between which election is + made. It is an act of preference, and to prefer implies that one + motive is chosen to the exclusion of another.... To the conception + and the act two motives at least are required.” Lyall, Intellect, + Emotions, and Moral Nature, 581, 592—“The will follows reasons, + inducements—but it is not _caused_. It obeys or acts under + inducement, but it does so sovereignly. It exhibits the phenomena + of activity, in relation to the very motive it obeys. It obeys it, + rather than another. It determines, in reference to it, that this + is the very motive it will obey. There is undoubtedly this + phenomenon exhibited: the will obeying—but elective, active, in + its obedience. If it be asked how this is possible—how the will + can be under the influence of motive, and yet possess an + intellectual activity—we reply that this is one of those ultimate + phenomena which must be admitted, while they cannot be explained.” + + +F. Will and responsibility.—(_a_) By repeated acts of will put forth in a +given moral direction, the affections may become so confirmed in evil or +in good as to make previously certain, though not necessary, the future +good or evil action of the man. Thus, while the will is free, the man may +be the “bondservant of sin” (John 8:31-36) or the “servant of +righteousness” (Rom. 6:15-23; _cf._ Heb. 12-23—“spirits of just men made +perfect”). (_b_) Man is responsible for all effects of will, as well as +for will itself; for voluntary affections, as well as for voluntary acts; +for the intellectual views into which will has entered, as well as for the +acts of will by which these views have been formed in the past or are +maintained in the present (2 Pet. 3:5—“wilfully forget”). + + + Ladd, Philosophy of Knowledge, 415—“The self stands between the + two laws of Nature and of Conscience, and, under perpetual + limitations from both, exercises its choice. Thus it becomes more + and more enslaved by the one, or more and more free by habitually + choosing to follow the other. Our conception of causality + according to the laws of nature, and our conception of the other + causality of freedom, are both derived from one and the same + experience of the self. There arises a seeming antinomy only when + we hypostatize each severally and apart from the other.” R. T. + Smith, Man’s Knowledge of Man and of God, 69—“Making a _will_ is + significant. Here the action of will is limited by conditions: the + amount of the testator’s property, the number of his relatives, + the nature of the objects of bounty within his knowledge.” + + Harris, Philos. Basis of Theism, 349-407—“Action without motives, + or contrary to all motives, would be irrational action. Instead of + being free, it would be like the convulsions of epilepsy. Motives + = sensibilities. Motive is not _cause_; does not determine; is + only influence. Yet determination is always made under the + influence of motives. Uniformity of action is not to be explained + by any law of uniform influence of motives, but by _character_ in + the will. By its choice, will forms in itself a character; by + action in accordance with this choice, it confirms and develops + the character. Choice modifies sensibilities, and so modifies + motives. Volitional action expresses character, but also forms and + modifies it. Man may change his choice; yet intellect, + sensibility, motive, habit, remain. Evil choice, having formed + intellect and sensibility into accord with itself, must be a + powerful hindrance to fundamental change by new and contrary + choice; and gives small ground to expect that man left to himself + ever will make the change. After will has acquired character by + choices, its determinations are not transitions from complete + indeterminateness or indifference, but are more or less + expressions of character already formed. The theory that + indifference is essential to freedom implies that will never + acquires character; that voluntary action is atomistic; that every + act is disintegrated from every other; that character, if + acquired, would be incompatible with freedom. Character is a + choice, yet a choice which persists, which modifies sensibility + and intellect, and which influences subsequent determinations.” + + My freedom then is freedom within limitations. Heredity and + environment, and above all the settled dispositions which are the + product of past acts of will, render a large part of human action + practically automatic. The deterministic theory is valid for + perhaps nine-tenths of human activity. Mason, Faith of the Gospel, + 118, 119—“We naturally will with a bias toward evil. To act + according to the perfection of nature would be true freedom. And + this man has lost. He recognizes that he is not his true self. It + is only with difficulty that he works toward his true self again. + By the fall of Adam, the will, which before was conditioned but + free, is now not only conditioned but enslaved. Nothing but the + action of grace can free it.” Tennyson, In Memoriam, Introduction: + “Our wills are ours, we know not how; Our wills are ours, to make + them thine.” Studying the action of the sinful will alone, one + might conclude that there is no such thing as freedom. Christian + ethics, in distinction from naturalistic ethics, reveals most + clearly the degradation of our nature, at the same time that it + discloses the remedy in Christ: “_If therefore the Son shall make + you free, ye shall be free indeed_” (_John 8:36_). + + Mind, Oct. 1882:567—“Kant seems to be in quest of the phantasmal + freedom which is supposed to consist in the absence of + determination by motives. The error of the determinists from which + this idea is the recoil, involves an equal abstraction of the man + from his thoughts, and interprets the relation between the two as + an instance of the mechanical causality which exists between two + things in nature. The point to be grasped in the controversy is + that a man and his motives are one, and that consequently he is in + every instance self-determined.... Indeterminism is tenable only + if an ego can be found which is not an ego already determinate; + but such an ego, though it may be logically distinguished and + verbally expressed, is not a factor in psychology.” Morell, Mental + Philosophy, 390—“Motives determine the will, and so _far_ the will + is not free; but the man governs the motives, allowing them a less + or a greater power of influencing his life, and so _far_ the man + is a free agent.” Santayana: “A free man, because he is free, may + make himself a slave; but once a slave, because he is a slave, he + cannot make himself free.” Sidgwick, Method of Ethics, 51, + 65—“This almost overwhelming cumulative proof [of necessity] + seems, however, more than balanced by a single argument on the + other side: the immediate affirmation of consciousness in the + moment of deliberate volition. It is impossible for me to think, + at each moment, that my volition is completely determined by my + formed character and the motives acting upon it. The opposite + conviction is so strong as to be absolutely unshaken by the + evidence brought against it. I cannot believe it to be illusory.” + + +G. Inferences from this view of the will.—(_a_) We can be responsible for +the voluntary evil affections with which we are born, and for the will’s +inherited preference of selfishness, only upon the hypothesis that we +originated these states of the affections and will, or had a part in +originating them. Scripture furnishes this explanation, in its doctrine of +Original Sin, or the doctrine of a common apostasy of the race in its +first father, and our derivation of a corrupted nature by natural +generation from him. (_b_) While there remains to man, even in his present +condition, a natural power of will by which he may put forth transient +volitions externally conformed to the divine law and so may to a limited +extent modify his character, it still remains true that the sinful bent of +his affections is not directly under his control; and this bent +constitutes a motive to evil so constant, inveterate, and powerful, that +it actually influences every member of the race to reäffirm his evil +choice, and renders necessary a special working of God’s Spirit upon his +heart to ensure his salvation. Hence the Scripture doctrine of +Regeneration. + + + There is such a thing as “psychical automatism” (Ladd, Philos. + Mind, 169). Mother: “Oscar, why can’t you be good?” “Mamma, it + makes me so tired!” The wayward four-year-old is a type of + universal humanity. Men are born morally tired, though they have + energy enough of other sorts. The man who sins may lose all + freedom, so that his soul becomes a seething mass of eructant + evil. T. C. Chamberlain: “Conditions may make choices run rigidly + in one direction and give as fixed uniformity as in physical + phenomena. Put before a million typical Americans the choice + between a quarter and a dime, and rigid uniformity of results can + be safely predicted.” Yet Dr. Chamberlain not only grants but + claims liberty of choice. Romanes, Mind and Motion, + 155-160—“Though volitions are largely determined by other and + external causes, it does not follow that they are determined + _necessarily_, and this makes all the difference between the + theories of will as bond or free. Their intrinsic character as + first causes protects them from being coerced by these causes and + therefore from becoming only the mere effects of them. The + condition to the effective operation of a _motive_—as + distinguished from a _motor_—is the acquiescence of the first + cause upon whom that motive is operating.” Fichte: “If any one + adopting the dogma of necessity should remain virtuous, we must + seek the cause of his goodness elsewhere than in the innocuousness + of his doctrine. Upon the supposition of free will alone can duty, + virtue, and morality have any existence.” Lessing: “Kein Mensch + muss müssen.” Delitzsch: “Der Mensch, wie er jetzt ist, ist + wahlfrei, aber nicht machtfrei.” + + Kant regarded freedom as an exception to the law of natural + causality. But this freedom is not phenomenal but noumenal, for + causality is not a category of noumena. From this freedom we get + our whole idea of personality, for personality is freedom of the + whole soul from the mechanism of nature. Kant treated scornfully + the determinism of Leibnitz. He said it was the freedom of a + turnspit, which when once wound up directed its own movements, _i. + e._, was merely automatic. Compare with this the view of Baldwin, + Psychology, Feeling and Will, 373—“Free choice is a synthesis, the + outcome of which is in every case conditioned upon its elements, + but in no case caused by them. A logical inference is conditioned + upon its premises, but it is not caused by them. Both inference + and choice express the nature of the conscious principle and the + unique method of its life.... The motives do not grow into + volitions, nor does the volition stand apart from the motives. The + motives are partial expressions, the volition is a total + expression, of the same existence.... Freedom is the expression of + one’s self conditioned by past choices and present environment.” + Shakespeare, Hamlet, 3:4—“Refrain to-night, And that shall lend a + kind of easiness To the next abstinence: the next more easy: For + use can almost change the stamp of nature, And either curb the + devil or throw him out With wondrous potency.” 3:2—“Purpose is but + the slave to memory; Of violent birth but poor validity.” + 4:7—“That we would do, We should do when we would; for this + _would_ changes And hath abatements and delays as many As there + are tongues, are hands, are accidents.” Goethe: “Von der Gewalt + die alle Wesen bindet, Befreit der Mensch sich der sich + überwindet.” + + Scotus Novanticus (Prof. Laurie of Edinburgh), Ethica, 287—“The + chief good is fulness of life achieved through law by the action + of will as reason on sensibility.... Immorality is the letting + loose of feeling, in opposition to the idea and the law in it; it + is individuality in opposition to personality.... In immorality, + will is defeated, the personality overcome, and the subject + volitionizes just as a dog volitionizes. The subject takes + possession of the personality and uses it for its natural + desires.” Maudsley, Physiology of Mind, 456, quotes Ribot, + Diseases of the Will, 133—“Will is not the cause of anything. It + is like the verdict of a jury, which is an effect, without being a + cause. It is the highest force which nature has yet developed—the + last consummate blossom of all her marvellous works.” Yet Maudsley + argues that the mind itself has power to prevent insanity. This + implies that there is an owner of the instrument endowed with + power and responsibility to keep it in order. Man can do much, but + God can do more. + + +H. Special objections to the deterministic theory of the will.—Determinism +holds that man’s actions are uniformly determined by motives acting upon +his character, and that he has no power to change these motives or to act +contrary to them. This denial that the will is free has serious and +pernicious consequences in theology. On the one hand, it weakens even if +it does not destroy man’s conviction with regard to responsibility, sin, +guilt and retribution, and so obscures the need of atonement; on the other +hand, it weakens if it does not destroy man’s faith in his own power as +well as in God’s power of initiating action, and so obscures the +possibility of atonement. + + + Determinism is exemplified in Omar Kháyyám’s Rubáiyát: “With + earth’s first clay they did the last man knead, And there of the + last harvest sowed the seed; And the first morning of creation + wrote What the last dawn of reckoning shall read.” William James, + Will to Believe, 145-183, shows that determinism involves + pessimism or subjectivism—good and evil are merely means of + increasing knowledge. The result of subjectivism is in theology + antinomianism; in literature romanticism; in practical life + sensuality or sensualism, as in Rousseau, Renan and Zola. Hutton, + review of Clifford in Contemp. Thoughts and Thinkers, 1:254—“The + determinist says there would be no moral quality in actions that + did not express previous tendency, _i. e._, a man is responsible + only for what he cannot help doing. No effort against the grain + will be made by him who believes that his interior mechanism + settles for him whether he shall make it or no.” Royce, World and + Individual, 2:342—“Your unique voices in the divine symphony are + no more the voices of moral agents than are the stones of a + mosaic.” The French monarch announced that all his subjects should + be free to choose their own religion, but he added that nobody + should choose a different religion from the king’s. “Johnny, did + you give your little sister the choice between those two apples?” + “Yes, Mamma; I told her she could have the little one or none, and + she chose the little one.” Hobson’s choice was always the choice + of the last horse in the row. The bartender with revolver in hand + met all criticisms upon the quality of his liquor with the remark: + “You’ll drink that whisky, and you’ll like it too!” + + Balfour, Foundations of Belief, 22—“There must be implicitly + present to primitive man the sense of freedom, since his fetichism + largely consists in attributing to inanimate objects the + spontaneity which he finds in himself.” Freedom does not + contradict conservation of energy. Professor Lodge, in Nature, + March 26, 1891—“Although expenditure of energy is needed to + increase the speed of matter, none is needed to alter its + direction.... The rails that guide a train do not propel it, nor + do they retard it; they have no essential effect upon its energy + but a guiding effect.” J. J. Murphy, Nat. Selection and Spir. + Freedom, 170-203—“Will does not create force but directs it. A + very small force is able to guide the action of a great one, as in + the steering of a modern steamship.” James Seth, in Philos. Rev., + 3:285, 286—“As life is not energy but a determiner of the paths of + energy, so the will is a cause, in the sense that it controls and + directs the channels which activity shall take.” See also James + Seth, Ethical Principles, 345-388, and Freedom as Ethical + Postulate, 9—“The philosophical proof of freedom must be the + demonstration of the inadequacy of the categories of science: its + philosophical disproof must be the demonstration of the adequacy + of such scientific categories.” Shadworth Hodgson: “Either liberty + is true, and then the categories are insufficient, or the + categories are sufficient, and then liberty is a delusion.” Wagner + is the composer of determinism; there is no freedom or guilt; + action is the result of influence and environment; a mysterious + fate rules all. Life: “The views upon heredity Of scientists + remind one That, shape one’s conduct as one may, One’s future is + behind one.” + + We trace willing in God back, not to motives and antecedents, but + to his infinite personality. If man is made in God’s image, why we + may not trace man’s willing also back, not to motives and + antecedents, but to his finite personality? We speak of God’s + fiat, but we may speak of man’s fiat also. Napoleon: “There shall + be no Alps!” Dutch William III: “I may fall, but shall fight every + ditch, and die in the last one!” When God energizes the will, it + becomes indomitable. _Phil. 4:13_—“_I can do all things in him + that strengtheneth me._” Dr. E. G. Robinson was theoretically a + determinist, and wrongly held that the highest conceivable freedom + is to act out one’s own nature. He regarded the will as only the + nature in movement. Will is self-determining, not in the sense + that will determines the self, but in the sense that self + determines the will. The will cannot be compelled, for unless + self-determined it is no longer will. Observation, history and + logic, he thought, lead to necessitarianism. But consciousness, he + conceded, testifies to freedom. Consciousness must be trusted, + though we cannot reconcile the two. The will is as great a mystery + as is the doctrine of the Trinity. Single volitions, he says, are + often directly in the face of the current of a man’s life. Yet he + held that we have no consciousness of the power of a contrary + choice. Consciousness can testify only to what springs out of the + moral nature, not to the moral nature itself. + + Lotze, Religionsphilosophie, section 61—“An indeterminate choice + is of course incomprehensible and inexplicable, for if it were + comprehensible and explicable by the human intellect, if, that is, + it could be seen to follow necessarily from the preëxisting + conditions, it from the nature of the case could not be a morally + free choice at all.... But we cannot comprehend any more how the + mind can move the muscles, nor how a moving stone can set another + stone in motion, nor how the Absolute calls into existence our + individual selves.” Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 308-327, gives an + able exposé of the deterministic fallacies. He cites Martineau and + Balfour in England, Renouvier and Fonsegrive in France, Edward + Zeller, Kuno Fischer and Saarschmidt in Germany, and William James + in America, as recent advocates of free will. + + Martineau, Study, 2:227—“Is there not a Causal Self, over and + above the Caused Self, or rather the Caused State and contents of + the self left as a deposit from previous behavior? Absolute + idealism, like Green’s, will not recognize the existence of this + Causal Self”; Study of Religion, 2:195-324, and especially + 240—“Where two or more rival preconceptions enter the field + together, they cannot compare themselves _inter se_: they need and + meet a superior: it rests with the mind itself to decide. The + decision will not be _unmotived_, for it will have its reasons. It + will not be unconformable to the characteristics of the mind, for + it will express its preferences. But none the less is it issued by + a free cause that elects among the conditions, and is not elected + by them.” 241—“So far from admitting that different effects cannot + come from the same cause. I even venture on the paradox that + nothing is a proper cause which is limited to one effect.” + 309—“Freedom, in the sense of option, and will, as the power of + deciding an alternative, have no place in the doctrines of the + German schools.” 311—“The whole illusion of Necessity springs from + the attempt to fling out, for contemplation in the field of + Nature, the creative new beginnings centered in personal subjects + that transcend it.” + + See also H. B. Smith, System of Christ. Theol., 236-251; Mansel, + Proleg. Log., 113-155, 270-278, and Metaphysics, 366; Gregory, + Christian Ethics, 60; Abp. Manning, in Contem. Rev., Jan. + 1871:468; Ward, Philos. of Theism, 1:287-352; 2:1-79, 274-349; Bp. + Temple, Bampton Lect., 1884:69-96; Row, Man not a Machine, in + Present Day Tracts, 5: no. 30; Richards, Lectures on Theology, + 97-153; Solly, The Will, 167-203; William James, The Dilemma of + Determinism, in Unitarian Review, Sept. 1884, and in The Will to + Believe, 145-183; T. H. Green, Prolegomena to Ethics, 90-159; + Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 310; Bradley, in Mind, July, 1886; + Bradford, Heredity and Christian Problems, 70-101; Illingworth, + Divine Immanence, 229-254; Ladd, Philos. of Conduct, 133-188. For + Lotze’s view of the Will, see his Philos. of Religion, 95-106, and + his Practical Philosophy, 35-50. + + + + +Chapter II. The Original State Of Man. + + +In determining man’s original state, we are wholly dependent upon +Scripture. This represents human nature as coming from God’s hand, and +therefore “very good” (Gen. 1:31). It moreover draws a parallel between +man’s first state and that of his restoration (Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24). In +interpreting these passages, however, we are to remember the twofold +danger, on the one hand of putting man so high that no progress is +conceivable, on the other hand of putting him so low that he could not +fall. We shall the more easily avoid these dangers by distinguishing +between the essentials and the incidents of man’s original state. + + + _Gen. 1:31_—“_And God saw everything that he had made, and, + behold, it was very good_”; _Col. 3:10_—“_the new man, that is + being renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created + him_”; _Eph. 4:24_—“_the new man that after God hath been created + in righteousness and holiness of truth._” + + Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 2:337-399—“The original state must be (1) + a contrast to sin; (2) a parallel to the state of restoration. + Difficulties in the way of understanding it: (1) What lives in + regeneration is something foreign to our present nature (‘_it is + no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me_’—_Gal. 2:20_); but + the original state was something native. (2) It was a state of + childhood. We cannot fully enter into childhood, though we see it + about us, and have ourselves been through it. The original state + is yet more difficult to reproduce to reason. (3) Man’s external + circumstances and his organization have suffered great changes, so + that the present is no sign of the past. We must recur to the + Scriptures, therefore, as well-nigh our only guide.” John Caird, + Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 1:164-195, points out that ideal + perfection is to be looked for, not at the outset, but at the + final stage of the spiritual life. If man were wholly finite, he + would not know his finitude. + + Lord Bacon: “The sparkle of the purity of man’s first estate.” + Calvin: “It was monstrous impiety that a son of the earth should + not be satisfied with being made after the similitude of God, + unless he could also be equal with him.” Prof. Hastings: “The + truly natural is not the real, but the ideal. Made in the image of + God—between that beginning and the end stands God made in the + image of man.” On the general subject of man’s original state, see + Zöckler, 3:283-290; Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, 1:215-243; + Ebrard, Dogmatik, 1:267-276; Van Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 374-375; + Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:92-116. + + + +I. Essentials of Man’s Original State. + + +These are summed up in the phrase “the image of God.” In God’s image man +is said to have been created (Gen. 1:26, 27). In what did this image of +God consist? We reply that it consisted in 1. Natural likeness to God, or +personality; 2. Moral likeness to God, or holiness. + + + _Gen. 1:26, 27_—“_And God said, Let us make man in our image, + after our likeness.... And God created man in his own image, in + the image of God created he him._” It is of great importance to + distinguish clearly between the two elements embraced in this + image of God, the natural and the moral. By virtue of the first, + man possessed certain _faculties_ (intellect, affection, will); by + virtue of the second, he had _right tendencies_ (bent, proclivity, + disposition). By virtue of the first, he was invested with certain + _powers_; by virtue of the second, a certain _direction_ was + imparted to these powers. As created in the natural image of God, + man had a moral _nature_; as created in the moral image of God, + man had a holy _character_. The first gave him _natural_ ability; + the second gave him _moral_ ability. The Greek Fathers emphasized + the first element, or _personality_; the Latin Fathers emphasized + the second element, or _holiness_. See Orr, God’s Image in Man. + + As the Logos, or divine Reason, Christ Jesus, dwells in humanity + and constitutes the principle of its being, humanity shares with + Christ in the image of God. That image is never wholly lost. It is + completely restored in sinners when the Spirit of Christ gains + control of their wills and they merge their life in his. To those + who accused Jesus of blasphemy, he replied by quoting the words of + _Psalm 82:6_—“_I said, Ye are gods_”—words spoken of imperfect + earthly rulers. Thus, in _John 10:34-36_, Jesus, who constitutes + the very essence of humanity, justifies his own claim to divinity + by showing that even men who represent God are also in a minor + sense “_partakers of the divine nature_” (_2 Pet. 1:4_). Hence the + many legends, in heathen religions, of the divine descent of man. + _1 Cor. 11:3_—“_the head of every man is Christ._” In every man, + even the most degraded, there is an image of God to be brought + out, as Michael Angelo saw the angel in the rough block of marble. + This natural _worth_ does not imply _worthiness_; it implies only + capacity for redemption. “The abysmal depths of personality,” + which Tennyson speaks of, are sounded, as man goes down in thought + successively from individual sins to sin of the heart and to + race-sin. But “the deeper depth is out of reach To all, O God, but + thee.” From this deeper depth, where man is rooted and grounded in + God, rise aspirations for a better life. These are not due to the + man himself, but to Christ, the immanent God, who ever works + within him. Fanny J. Crosby: “Rescue the perishing, Care for the + dying.... Down in the human heart, crushed by the tempter, + Feelings lie buried that grace can restore; Touched by a loving + heart, wakened by kindness, Chords that were broken will vibrate + once more.” + + +1. Natural likeness to God, or personality. + + +Man was created a personal being, and was by this personality +distinguished from the brute. By personality we mean the twofold power to +know self as related to the world and to God, and to determine self in +view of moral ends. By virtue of this personality, man could at his +creation choose which of the objects of his knowledge—self, the world, or +God—should be the norm and centre of his development. This natural +likeness to God is inalienable, and as constituting a capacity for +redemption gives value to the life even of the unregenerate (Gen. 9:6; 1 +Cor. 11:7; James 3:9). + + + For definitions of personality, see notes on the Anthropological + Argument, page 82; on Pantheism, pages 104, 105; on the + Attributes, pages 252-254; and on the Person of Christ, in Part + VI. Here we may content ourselves with the formula: Personality = + self-consciousness + self-determination. _Self_-consciousness and + _self_-determination, as distinguished from the consciousness and + determination of the brute, involve all the higher mental and + moral powers which constitute us men. Conscience is but a mode of + their activity. Notice that the term “image” does not, in man, + imply _perfect_ representation. Only Christ is the “_very image_” + of God (_Heb. 1:3_), the “_image of the invisible God_” (_Col. + 1:15_—on which see Lightfoot). Christ is the image of God + absolutely and archetypally; man, only relatively and + derivatively. But notice also that, since God is Spirit, man made + in God’s image cannot be a material thing. By virtue of his + possession of this first element of the image of God, namely, + personality, materialism is excluded. + + This first element of the divine image man can never lose until he + ceases to be man. Even insanity can only obscure this natural + image,—it cannot destroy it. St. Bernard well said that it could + not be burned out, even in hell. The lost piece of money (_Luke + 15:8_) still bore the image and superscription of the king, even + though it did not know it, and did not even know that it was lost. + Human nature is therefore to be reverenced, and he who destroys + human life is to be put to death: _Gen. 9:6_—“_for in the image of + God made he man_”; _1 Cor. 11:7_—“_a man indeed ought not to have + his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God_”; + _James 3:9_—even men whom we curse “_are made after the likeness + of God_”; _cf._ _Ps. 8:5_—“_thou hast made him but little lower + than God_”; _1 Pet. 2:17_—“_Honor all men._” In the being of every + man are continents which no Columbus has ever yet discovered, + depths of possible joy or sorrow which no plummet has ever yet + sounded. A whole heaven, a whole hell, may lie within the compass + of his single soul. If we could see the meanest real Christian as + he will be in the great hereafter, we should bow before him as + John bowed before the angel in the Apocalypse, for we should not + be able to distinguish him from God (_Rev. 22:8, 9_). + + Sir William Hamilton: “On earth there is nothing great but man; In + man there is nothing great but mind.” We accept this dictum only + if “mind” can be understood to include man’s moral powers together + with the right direction of those powers. Shakespeare, Hamlet, + 2:2—“What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! how + infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! + in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god!” + Pascal: “Man is greater than the universe; the universe may crush + him, but it does not know that it crushes him.” Whiton, Gloria + Patri, 94—“God is not only the Giver but the Sharer of my life. My + natural powers are that part of God’s power which is lodged with + me in trust to keep and use.” Man can be an _instrument_ of God, + without being an _agent_ of God. “Each man has his place and value + as a reflection of God and of Christ. Like a letter in a word, or + a word in a sentence, he gets his meaning from his context; but + the sentence is meaningless without him; rays from the whole + universe converge in him.” John Howe’s Living Temple shows the + greatness of human nature in its first construction and even in + its ruin. Only a noble ship could make so great a wreck. + Aristotle, Problem, sec. 30—“No excellent soul is exempt from a + mixture of madness.” Seneca, De Tranquillitate Animi, 15—“There is + no great genius without a tincture of madness.” + + Kant: “So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or + in that of any other, in every case as an _end_, and never as a + _means_ only.” If there is a divine element in every man, then we + have no right to _use_ a human being merely for our own pleasure + or profit. In receiving him we receive Christ, and in receiving + Christ we receive him who sent Christ (_Mat. 10:40_). Christ is + the vine and all men are his natural branches, cutting themselves + off only when they refuse to bear fruit, and condemning themselves + to the burning only because they destroy, so far as they can + destroy, God’s image in them, all that makes them worth preserving + (_John 15:1-6_). Cicero: “Homo mortalis deus.” This possession of + natural likeness to God, or personality, involves boundless + possibilities of good or ill, and it constitutes the natural + foundation of the love for man which is required of us by the law. + Indeed it constitutes the reason why Christ should die. Man was + worth redeeming. The woman whose ring slipped from her finger and + fell into the heap of mud in the gutter, bared her white arm and + thrust her hand into the slimy mass until she found her ring; but + she would not have done this if the ring had not contained a + costly diamond. The lost piece of money, the lost sheep, the lost + son, were worth effort to seek and to save (_Luke 15_). But, on + the other hand, it is folly when man, made in the image of God, + “blinds himself with clay.” The man on shipboard, who playfully + tossed up the diamond ring which contained his whole fortune, at + last to his distress tossed it overboard. There is a “_merchandise + of souls_” (_Rev. 18:13_) and we must not juggle with them. + + Christ’s death for man, by showing the worth of humanity, has + recreated ethics. “Plato defended infanticide as under certain + circumstances permissible. Aristotle viewed slavery as founded in + the nature of things. The reason assigned was the essential + inferiority of nature on the part of the enslaved.” But the divine + image in man makes these barbarities no longer possible to us. + Christ sometimes looked upon men with anger, but he never looked + upon them with contempt. He taught the woman, he blessed the + child, he cleansed the leper, he raised the dead. His own death + revealed the infinite worth of the meanest human soul, and taught + us to count all men as brethren for whose salvation we may well + lay down our lives. George Washington answered the salute of his + slave. Abraham Lincoln took off his hat to a negro who gave him + his blessing as he entered Richmond; but a lady who had been + brought up under the old regime looked from a window upon the + scene with unspeakable horror. Robert Burns, walking with a + nobleman in Edinburgh, met an old townsfellow from Ayr and stopped + to talk with him. The nobleman, kept waiting, grew restive, and + afterward reproved Burns for talking to a man with so bad a coat. + Burns replied: “I was not talking to the coat,—I was talking to + the man.” Jean Ingelow: “The street and market place Grow holy + ground: each face—Pale faces marked with care, Dark, toilworn + brows—grows fair. King’s children are all these, though want and + sin Have marred their beauty, glorious within. We may not pass + them but with reverent eye.” See Porter, Human Intellect, 393, + 394, 401; Wuttke, Christian Ethics, 2:42; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, + 2:343. + + +2. Moral likeness to God, or holiness. + + +In addition to the powers of self-consciousness and self-determination +just mentioned, man was created with such a direction of the affections +and the will, as constituted God the supreme end of man’s being, and +constituted man a finite reflection of God’s moral attributes. Since +holiness is the fundamental attribute of God, this must of necessity be +the chief attribute of his image in the moral beings whom he creates. That +original righteousness was essential to this image, is also distinctly +taught in Scripture (Eccl. 7:29; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10). + + + Besides the possession of natural powers, the image of God + involves the possession of right moral tendencies. It is not + enough to say that man was created in a state of innocence. The + Scripture asserts that man had a righteousness like God’s: _Eccl. + 7:29_—“_God made man upright_”; _Eph. 4:24_—“_the new man, that + after God hath been created in righteousness and holiness of + truth_”—here Meyer says: “κατὰ Θεόν, ‘_after God_,’ _i. e._, _ad + exemplum Dei_, after the pattern of God (_Gal. 4:28_—κατὰ Ἰσαάκ, + ‘after Isaac’ = as Isaac was). This phrase makes the creation of + the new man a parallel to that of our first parents, who were + created after God’s image; they too, before sin came into + existence through Adam, were sinless—‘_in righteousness and + holiness of truth_.’ ” On N. T. “truth” = rectitude, see Wendt, + Teaching of Jesus, 1:257-260. + + Meyer refers also, as a parallel passage, to _Col. 3:10_—“_the new + man, that is being renewed unto knowledge after the image of him + that created him._” Here the “_knowledge_” referred to is that + knowledge of God which is the source of all virtue, and which is + inseparable from holiness of heart. “Holiness has two sides or + phases: (1) it is perception and knowledge; (2) it is inclination + and feeling” (Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:97). On _Eph. 4:24_ and _Col. + 3:10_, the classical passages with regard to man’s original state, + see also the Commentaries of DeWette, Rückert, Ellicott, and + compare _Gen. 5:3_—“_And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, + and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image,_” _i. e._, + in his own sinful likeness, which is evidently contrasted with the + “_likeness of God_” (_verse 1_) in which he himself had been + created (An. Par. Bible). _2 Cor. 4:4_—“_Christ, who is the image + of God_”—where the phrase “_image of God_” is not simply the + _natural_, but also the _moral_, image. Since Christ is the image + of God primarily in his holiness, man’s creation in the image of + God must have involved a holiness like Christ’s, so far as such + holiness could belong to a being yet untried, that is, so far as + respects man’s tastes and dispositions prior to moral action. + + “Couldst thou in vision see Thyself the man God meant, Thou + nevermore couldst be The man thou art—content.” Newly created man + had right moral tendencies, as well as freedom from actual fault. + Otherwise the communion with God described in Genesis would not + have been possible. Goethe: “Unless the eye were sunlike, how + could it see the sun?” Because a holy disposition accompanied + man’s innocence, he was capable of obedience, and was guilty when + he sinned. The loss of this moral likeness to God was the chief + calamity of the Fall. Man is now “the glory and the scandal of the + universe.” He has defaced the image of God in his nature, even + though that image, in its natural aspect, is ineffaceable (E. H. + Johnson). + + The dignity of human nature consists, not so much in what man is, + as in what God meant him to be, and in what God means him yet to + become, when the lost image of God is restored by the union of + man’s soul with Christ. Because of his future possibilities, the + meanest of mankind is sacred. The great sin of the second table of + the decalogue is the sin of despising our fellow man. To cherish + contempt for others can have its root only in idolatry of self and + rebellion against God. Abraham Lincoln said well that “God must + have liked common people,—else he would not have made so many of + them.” Regard for the image of God in man leads also to kind and + reverent treatment even of those lower animals in which so many + human characteristics are foreshadowed. Bradford, Heredity and + Christian Problems, 166—“The current philosophy says: The fittest + will survive; let the rest die. The religion of Christ says: That + maxim as applied to men is just, only as regards their + characteristics, of which indeed only the fittest should survive. + It does not and cannot apply to the men themselves, since all men, + being children of God, are supremely fit. The very fact that a + human being is sick, weak, poor, an outcast, and a vagabond, is + the strongest possible appeal for effort toward his salvation. Let + individuals look upon humanity from the point of view of Christ, + and they will not be long in finding ways in which environment can + be caused to work for righteousness.” + + +This original righteousness, in which the image of God chiefly consisted, +is to be viewed: + +(_a_) Not as constituting the substance or essence of human nature,—for in +this case human nature would have ceased to exist as soon as man sinned. + + + Men every day change their tastes and loves, without changing the + essence or substance of their being. When sin is called a + “nature,” therefore (as by Shedd, in his Essay on “Sin a Nature, + and that Nature Guilt”), it is only in the sense of being + something inborn (_natura_, from _nascor_). Hereditary tastes may + just as properly be denominated a “nature” as may the substance of + one’s being. Moehler, the greatest modern Roman Catholic critic of + Protestant doctrine, in his Symbolism, 58, 59, absurdly holds + Luther to have taught that by the Fall man lost his essential + nature, and that another essence was substituted in its room. + Luther, however, is only rhetorical when he says: “It is the + nature of man to sin; sin constitutes the essence of man; the + nature of man since the Fall has become quite changed; original + sin is that very thing which is born of father and mother; the + clay out of which we are formed is damnable; the fœtus in the + maternal womb is sin; man as born of his father and mother, + together with his whole essence and nature, is not only a sinner + but sin itself.” + + +(_b_) Nor as a _gift_ from without, foreign to human nature, and added to +it after man’s creation,—for man is said to have possessed the divine +image by the fact of creation, and not by subsequent bestowal. + + + As men, since Adam, are born with a sinful nature, that is, with + tendencies away from God, so Adam was created with a holy nature, + that is, with tendencies toward God. Moehler says: “God cannot + give a man actions.” We reply: “No, but God can give man + dispositions; and he does this at the first creation, as well as + at the new creation (regeneration).” + + +(_c_) But rather, as an original direction or tendency of man’s affections +and will, still accompanied by the power of evil choice, and so, differing +from the perfected holiness of the saints, as instinctive affection and +child-like innocence differ from the holiness that has been developed and +confirmed by experience of temptation. + + + Man’s original righteousness was not immutable or indefectible; + there was still the possibility of sinning. Though the first man + was fundamentally good, he still had the power of choosing evil. + There was a bent of the affections and will toward God, but man + was not yet confirmed in holiness. Man’s love for God was like the + germinal filial affection in the child, not developed, yet + sincere—“caritas puerilis, non virilis.” + + +(_d_) As a moral disposition, moreover, which was propagable to Adam’s +descendants, if it continued, and which, though lost to him and to them, +if Adam sinned, would still leave man possessed of a natural likeness to +God which made him susceptible of God’s redeeming grace. + + + Hooker (Works, ed. Keble, 2:683) distinguishes between aptness and + ableness. The latter, men have lost; the former, they retain,—else + grace could not work in us, more than in the brutes. Hase: “Only + enough likeness to God remained to remind man of what he had lost, + and enable him to feel the hell of God’s forsaking.” The moral + likeness to God can be restored, but only by God himself. God + secures this to men by making “_the light of the gospel of the + glory of Christ, who is the image of God, ... dawn upon them_” (_2 + Cor. 4:4_). Pusey made _Ps. 72:6_—“_He will come down like rain + upon the mown grass_”—the image of a world hopelessly dead, but + with a hidden capacity for receiving life. Dr. Daggett: “Man is a + ‘_son of the morning_’ (_Is. 14:12_), fallen, yet arrested midway + between heaven and hell, a prize between the powers of light and + darkness.” See Edwards, Works, 2:19, 20, 381-390; Hopkins, Works, + 1:162; Shedd, Hist. Doctrine, 2:50-66; Augustine, De Civitate Dei, + 14:11. + + +In the light of the preceding investigation, we may properly estimate two +theories of man’s original state which claim to be more Scriptural and +reasonable: + + +A. The image of God as including only personality. + + +This theory denies that any positive determination to virtue inhered +originally in man’s nature, and regards man at the beginning as simply +possessed of spiritual powers, perfectly adjusted to each other. This is +the view of Schleiermacher, who is followed by Nitzsch, Julius Müller, and +Hofmann. + + + For the view here combated, see Schleiermacher, Christl. Glaube, + sec. 60; Nitzsch, System of Christian Doctrine, 201; Julius + Müller, Doct. of Sin, 2:113-133, 350-357; Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, + 1:287-291; Bib. Sac., 7:409-425. Julius Müller’s theory of the + Fall in a preëxistent state makes it impossible for him to hold + here that Adam was possessed of moral likeness to God. The origin + of his view of the image of God renders it liable to suspicion. + Pfleiderer, Grundriss, 113—“The original state of man was that of + child-like innocence or morally indifferent naturalness, which had + in itself indeed the possibility (_Anlage_) of ideal development, + but in such a way that its realization could be reached only by + struggle with its natural opposite. The image of God was already + present in the original state, but only as the possibility + (_Anlage_) of real likeness to God—the endowment of reason which + belonged to human personality. The _reality_ of a spirit like that + of God has appeared first in the _second_ Adam, and has become the + principle of the kingdom of God.” + + Raymond (Theology, 2:43, 132) is an American representative of the + view that the image of God consists in mere personality: “The + image of God in which man was created did not consist in an + inclination and determination of the will to holiness.” This is + maintained upon the ground that such a moral likeness to God would + have rendered it impossible for man to fall,—to which we reply + that Adam’s righteousness was not immutable, and the bias of his + will toward God did not render it impossible for him to sin. + Motives do not compel the will, and Adam at least had a certain + power of contrary choice. E. G. Robinson, Christ. Theology, + 119-122, also maintains that the image of God signified only that + personality which distinguished man from the brute. Christ, he + says, carries forward human nature to a higher point, instead of + merely restoring what is lost. “_Very good_” (_Gen. 1:31_) does + not imply moral perfection,—this cannot be the result of creation, + but only of discipline and will. Man’s original state was only one + of untried innocence. Dr. Robinson is combating the view that the + first man was at his creation possessed of a developed character. + He distinguishes between character and the germs of character. + These germs he grants that man possessed. And so he defines the + image of God as a constitutional predisposition toward a course of + right conduct. This is all the perfection which we claim for the + first man. We hold that this predisposition toward the good can + properly be called character, since it is the germ from which all + holy action springs. + + +In addition to what has already been said in support of the opposite view, +we may urge against this theory the following objections: + +(_a_) It is contrary to analogy, in making man the author of his own +holiness; our sinful condition is not the product of our individual wills, +nor is our subsequent condition of holiness the product of anything but +God’s regenerating power. + + + To hold that Adam was created undecided, would make man, as + Philippi says, in the highest sense his own creator. But morally, + as well as physically, man is God’s creature. In regeneration it + is not sufficient for God to give _power_ to decide for good; God + must give new _love_ also. If this be so in the new creation, God + could give love in the first creation also. Holiness therefore is + creatable. “_Underived_ holiness is possible only in God; in its + origin, it is _given_ both to angels and men.” Therefore we pray: + “_Create in me a clean heart_” (_Ps. 51:10_); “_Incline my heart + unto thy testimonies_” (_Ps. 119:36_). See Edwards, Eff. Grace, + sec. 43-51; Kaftan, Dogmatik, 290—“If Adam’s perfection was not a + moral perfection, then his sin was no real moral corruption.” The + _animus_ of the theory we are combating seems to be an + unwillingness to grant that man, either in his first creation or + in his new creation, owes his holiness to God. + + +(_b_) The knowledge of God in which man was originally created logically +presupposes a direction toward God of man’s affections and will, since +only the holy heart can have any proper understanding of the God of +holiness. + + + “Ubi caritas, ibi claritas.” Man’s heart was originally filled + with divine love, and out of this came the knowledge of God. We + know God only as we love him, and this love comes not from our own + single volition. No one loves by command, because no one can give + himself love. In Adam love was an inborn impulse, which he could + affirm or deny. Compare _1 Cor. 8:3_—“_if any man loveth God, the + same_ [God] _is known by him_”; _1 John 4:8_—“_He that loveth not + knoweth not God._” See other Scripture references on pages 3, 4. + + +(_c_) A likeness to God in mere personality, such as Satan also possesses, +comes far short of answering the demands of the Scripture, in which the +ethical conception of the divine nature so overshadows the merely natural. +The image of God must be, not simply ability to be like God, but actual +likeness. + + + God could never create an intelligent being evenly balanced + between good and evil—“on the razor’s edge”—“on the fence.” The + preacher who took for his text “_Adam, where art thou?_” had for + his first head: “It is every man’s business to be somewhere;” for + his second: “Some of you are where you ought not to be;” and for + his third: “Get where you ought to be, as soon as possible.” A + simple capacity for good or evil is, as Augustine says, already + sinful. A man who is neutral between good and evil is already a + violator of that law, which requires likeness to God in the bent + of his nature. Delitzsch, Bib. Psychol., 45-84—“Personality is + only the basis of the divine image,—it is not the image itself.” + Bledsoe says there can be no created virtue or viciousness. Whedon + (On the Will, 388) objects to this, and says rather: “There can be + no created moral desert, good or evil. Adam’s nature as created + was pure and excellent, but there was nothing meritorious until he + had freely and rightly exercised his will with full power to the + contrary.” We add: There was nothing meritorious even then. For + substance of these objections, see Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 2:346. + Lessing said that the character of the Germans was to have no + character. Goethe partook of this cosmopolitan characterlessness + (Prof. Seely). Tennyson had Goethe in view when he wrote in The + Palace of Art: “I sit apart, holding no form of creed, but + contemplating all.” And Goethe is probably still alluded to in the + words: “A glorious devil, large in heart and brain, That did love + beauty only, Or if good, good only for its beauty”; see A. H. + Strong, The Great Poets and their Theology, 331; Robert Browning, + Christmas Eve: “The truth in God’s breast Lies trace for trace + upon ours impressed: Though he is so bright, and we so dim, We are + made in his image to witness him.” + + +B. The image of God as consisting simply in man’s natural capacity for +religion. + + +This view, first elaborated by the scholastics, is the doctrine of the +Roman Catholic Church. It distinguishes between the image and the likeness +of God. The former (צלם—Gen. 1:26) alone belonged to man’s nature at its +creation. The latter (דמות) was the product of his own acts of obedience. +In order that this obedience might be made easier and the consequent +likeness to God more sure, a third element was added—an element not +belonging to man’s nature—namely, a supernatural gift of special grace, +which acted as a curb upon the sensuous impulses, and brought them under +the control of reason. Original righteousness was therefore not a natural +endowment, but a joint product of man’s obedience and of God’s +supernatural grace. + + + Roman Catholicism holds that the white paper of man’s soul + received two impressions instead of one. Protestantism sees no + reason why both impressions should not have been given at the + beginning. Kaftan, in Am. Jour. Theology, 4:708, gives a good + statement of the Roman Catholic view. It holds that the supreme + good transcends the finite mind and its powers of comprehension. + Even at the first it was beyond man’s created nature. The _donum + superadditum_ did not inwardly and personally belong to him. Now + that he has lost it, he is entirely dependent on the church for + truth and grace. He does not receive the truth because it is this + and no other, but because the church tells him that it is the + truth. + + The Roman Catholic doctrine may be roughly and pictorially stated + as follows: As created, man was morally naked, or devoid of + positive righteousness (_pura naturalia_, or _in puris + naturalibus_). By obedience he obtained as a reward from God + (_donum supernaturale_, or _superadditum_) a suit of clothes or + robe of righteousness to protect him, so that he became clothed + (_vestitus_). This suit of clothes, however, was a sort of magic + spell of which he could be divested. The adversary attacked him + and stripped him of his suit. After his sin he was one despoiled + (_spoliatus_). But his condition after differed from his condition + before this attack, only as a stripped man differs from a naked + man (_spoliatus a nudo_). He was now only in the same state in + which he was created, with the single exception of the weakness he + might feel as the result of losing his customary clothing. He + could still earn himself another suit,—in fact, he could earn two + or more, so as to sell, or give away, what he did not need for + himself. The phrase _in puris naturalibus_ describes the original + state, as the phrase _spoliatus a nudo_ describes the difference + resulting from man’s sin. + + +Many of the considerations already adduced apply equally as arguments +against this view. We may say, however, with reference to certain features +peculiar to the theory: + +(_a_) No such distinction can justly be drawn between the words צלם and +דםות. The addition of the synonym simply strengthens the expression, and +both together signify “the very image.” + +(_b_) Whatever is denoted by either or both of these words was bestowed +upon man in and by the fact of creation, and the additional hypothesis of +a supernatural gift not originally belonging to man’s nature, but +subsequently conferred, has no foundation either here or elsewhere in +Scripture. Man is said to have been created in the image and likeness of +God, not to have been afterwards endowed with either of them. + +(_c_) The concreated opposition between sense and reason which this theory +supposes is inconsistent with the Scripture declaration that the work of +God’s hands “was very good” (Gen. 1:31), and transfers the blame of +temptation and sin from man to God. To hold to a merely negative +innocence, in which evil desire was only slumbering, is to make God author +of sin by making him author of the constitution which rendered sin +inevitable. + +(_d_) This theory directly contradicts Scripture by making the effect of +the first sin to have been a weakening but not a perversion of human +nature, and the work of regeneration to be not a renewal of the affections +but merely a strengthening of the natural powers. The theory regards that +first sin as simply despoiling man of a special gift of grace and as +putting him where he was when first created—still able to obey God and to +coöperate with God for his own salvation,—whereas the Scripture represents +man since the fall as “dead through ... trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1), +as incapable of true obedience (Rom. 8:7—“not subject to the law of God, +neither indeed can it be”), and as needing to be “created in Christ Jesus +for good works” (Eph. 2:10). + + + At few points in Christian doctrine do we see more clearly than + here the large results of error which may ultimately spring from + what might at first sight seem to be only a slight divergence from + the truth. Augustine had rightly taught that in Adam the _posse + non peccare_ was accompanied by a _posse peccare_, and that for + this reason man’s holy disposition needed the help of divine grace + to preserve its integrity. But the scholastics wrongly added that + this original disposition to righteousness was not the outflow of + man’s nature as originally created, but was the gift of grace. As + this later teaching, however, was by some disputed, the Council of + Trent (sess. 5, cap. 1) left the matter more indefinite, simply + declaring man: “Sanctitatem et justitiam in qua _constitutus + fuerat_, amisisse.” The Roman Catechism, however (1:2:19), + explained the phrase “constitutus fuerat” by the words: “Tum + originalis justitiæ admirabile donum _addidit_.” And Bellarmine + (De Gratia, 2) says plainly: “Imago, quæ est ipsa natura mentis et + voluntatis, a solo Deo fieri potuit; similitudo autem, quæ in + virtute et probitate consistit, _a nobis quoque_ Deo adjuvante + perficitur.”... (5) “Integritas illa ... non fuit naturalis ejus + conditio, sed supernaturalis evectio.... Addidisse homini donum + quoddam insigne, justitiam videlicet originalem, qua veluti aureo + quodam fræno pars inferior parti superiori subjecta contineretur.” + + Moehler (Symbolism, 21-35) holds that the religious faculty—the + “image of God”; the pious exertion of this faculty—the “likeness + of God.” He seems to favor the view that Adam received “this + supernatural gift of a holy and blessed communion with God at a + later period than his creation, _i. e._, only when he had prepared + himself for its reception and by his own efforts had rendered + himself worthy of it.” He was created “just” and acceptable to + God, even without communion with God or help from God. He became + “holy” and enjoyed communion with God, only when God rewarded his + obedience and bestowed the _supernaturale donum_. Although Moehler + favors this view and claims that it is permitted by the standards, + he also says that it is not definitely taught. The quotations from + Bellarmine and the Roman Catechism above make it clear that it is + the prevailing doctrine of the Roman Catholic church. + + So, to quote the words of Shedd, “the Tridentine theology starts + with Pelagianism and ends with Augustinianism. Created without + character, God subsequently endows man with character.... The + Papal idea of creation differs from the Augustinian in that it + involves imperfection. There is a disease and languor which + require a subsequent and supernatural act to remedy.” The + Augustinian and Protestant conception of man’s original state is + far nobler than this. The ethical element is not a later addition, + but is man’s true nature—essential to God’s idea of him. The + normal and original condition of man (_pura naturalia_) is one of + grace and of the Spirit’s indwelling—hence, of direction toward + God. + + From this original difference between Roman Catholic and + Protestant doctrine with regard to man’s original state result + diverging views as to sin and as to regeneration. The Protestant + holds that, as man was possessed by creation of moral likeness to + God, or holiness, so his sin robbed his nature of its integrity, + deprived it of essential and concreated advantages and powers, and + substituted for these a positive corruption and tendency to evil. + Unpremeditated evil desire, or concupiscence, is original sin; as + concreated love for God constituted man’s original righteousness. + No man since the fall has original righteousness, and it is man’s + sin that he has it not. Since without love to God no act, emotion, + or thought of man can answer the demands of God’s law, the + Scripture denies to fallen man all power of himself to know, + think, feel, or do aright. His nature therefore needs a + new-creation, a resurrection from death, such as God only, by his + mighty Spirit, can work; and to this work of God man can + contribute nothing, except as power is first given him by God + himself. + + According to the Roman Catholic view, however, since the image of + God in which man was created included only man’s religious + faculty, his sin can rob him only of what became subsequently and + adventitiously his. Fallen man differs from unfallen only as + _spoliatus a nudo_. He loses only a sort of magic spell, which + leaves him still in possession of all his essential powers. + Unpremeditated evil desire, or concupiscence, is not sin; for this + belonged to his nature even before he fell. His sin has therefore + only put him back into the natural state of conflict and + concupiscence, ordered by God in the concreated opposition of + sense and reason. The sole qualification is this, that, having + made an evil decision, his will is weakened. “Man does not need + resurrection from death, but rather a crutch to help his lameness, + a tonic to reinforce his feebleness, a medicine to cure his + sickness.” He is still able to turn to God; and in regeneration + the Holy Spirit simply awakens and strengthens the natural ability + slumbering in the natural man. But even here, man must yield to + the influence of the Holy Spirit; and regeneration is effected by + uniting his power to the divine. In baptism the guilt of original + sin is remitted, and everything called sin is taken away. No + baptized person has any further process of regeneration to + undergo. Man has not only strength to coöperate with God for his + own salvation, but he may even go beyond the demands of the law + and perform works of supererogation. And the whole sacramental + system of the Roman Catholic Church, with its salvation by works, + its purgatorial fires, and its invocation of the saints, connects + itself logically with this erroneous theory of man’s original + state. + + See Dorner’s Augustinus, 116; Perrone, Prælectiones Theologicæ, + 1:737-748; Winer, Confessions, 79, 80; Dorner, History Protestant + Theology, 38, 39, and Glaubenslehre, 1:51; Van Oosterzee, + Dogmatics, 376; Cunningham, Historical Theology, 1:516-586; Shedd, + Hist. Doctrine, 2:140-149. + + + +II. Incidents of Man’s Original State. + + +1. Results of man’s possession of the divine image. + + +(_a_) Reflection of this divine image in man’s physical form.—Even in +man’s body were typified those higher attributes which chiefly constituted +his likeness to God. A gross perversion of this truth, however, is the +view which holds, upon the ground of Gen. 2:7, and 3:8, that the image of +God consists in bodily resemblance to the Creator. In the first of these +passages, it is not the divine image, but the body, that is formed of +dust, and into this body the soul that possesses the divine image is +breathed. The second of these passages is to be interpreted by those other +portions of the Pentateuch in which God is represented as free from all +limitations of matter (Gen. 11:5; 18:15). + + + The spirit presents the divine image immediately: the body, + mediately. The scholastics called the soul the image of God + _proprie_; the body they called the image of God _significative_. + Soul is the direct reflection of God; body is the reflection of + that reflection. The _os sublime_ manifests the dignity of the + endowments within. Hence the word “upright,” as applied to moral + condition; one of the first impulses of the renewed man is to + physical purity. Compare Ovid, Metaph., bk. 1, Dryden’s transl.: + “Thus while the mute creation downward bend Their sight, and to + their earthly mother tend, Man looks aloft, and with erected eyes + Beholds his own hereditary skies.” (Ἄνθρωπος, from ἀνά, ἄνω, + suffix _tra_, and ὢψ, with reference to the upright posture.) + Milton speaks of “the human face divine.” S. S. Times, July 28, + 1900—“Man is the only erect being among living creatures. He alone + looks up naturally and without effort. He foregoes his birthright + when he looks only at what is on a level with his eyes and + occupies himself only with what lies in the plane of his own + existence.” + + Bretschneider (Dogmatik, 1:682) regards the Scripture as teaching + that the image of God consists in bodily resemblance to the + Creator, but considers this as only the imperfect method of + representation belonging to an early age. So Strauss, + Glaubenslehre, 1:687. They refer to _Gen. 2:7_—“_And Jehovah God + formed man of the dust of the ground_”; _3:8_—“_Jehovah God + walking in the garden._” But see _Gen. 11:5_—“_And Jehovah came + down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men + builded_”; _Is. 66:1_—“_Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my + footstool_”; _1 K. 8:27_—“_behold, heaven and the heaven of + heavens cannot contain thee._” On the Anthropomorphites, see + Hagenbach, Hist. Doct., 1:103, 308, 491. For answers to + Bretschneider and Strauss, see Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 2:364. + + +(_b_) Subjection of the sensuous impulses to the control of the +spirit.—Here we are to hold a middle ground between two extremes. On the +one hand, the first man possessed a body and a spirit so fitted to each +other that no conflict was felt between their several claims. On the other +hand, this physical perfection was not final and absolute, but relative +and provisional. There was still room for progress to a higher state of +being (Gen. 3:22). + + + Sir Henry Watton’s Happy Life: “That man was free from servile + bands Of hope to rise or fear to fall, Lord of himself if not of + lands, And having nothing yet had all.” Here we hold to the + _æquale temperamentum_. There was no disease, but rather the joy + of abounding health. Labor was only a happy activity. God’s + infinite creatorship and fountainhead of being was typified in + man’s powers of generation. But there was no concreated opposition + of sense and reason, nor an imperfect physical nature with whose + impulses reason was at war. With this moderate Scriptural + doctrine, contrast the exaggerations of the Fathers and of the + scholastics. Augustine says that Adam’s reason was to ours what + the bird’s is to that of the tortoise; propagation in the unfallen + state would have been without concupiscence, and the new-born + child would have attained perfection at birth. Albertus Magnus + thought the first man would have felt no pain, even though he had + been stoned with heavy stones. Scotus Erigena held that the male + and female elements were yet undistinguished. Others called + sexuality the first sin. Jacob Boehme regarded the intestinal + canal, and all connected with it, as the consequence of the Fall; + he had the fancy that the earth was transparent at the first and + cast no shadow,—sin, he thought, had made it opaque and dark; + redemption would restore it to its first estate and make night a + thing of the past. South, Sermons, 1:24, 25—“Man came into the + world a philosopher.... Aristotle was but the rubbish of an Adam.” + Lyman Abbott tells us of a minister who assured his congregation + that Adam was acquainted with the telephone. But God educates his + children, as chemists educate their pupils, by putting them into + the laboratory and letting them work. Scripture does not represent + Adam as a walking encyclopædia, but as a being yet inexperienced; + see _Gen. 3:22_—“_Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know + good and evil_”; _1 Cor. 15:46_—“_that is not first which is + spiritual, but that which is natural; then that which is + spiritual._” On this last text, see Expositor’s Greek Testament. + + +(_c_) Dominion over the lower creation.—Adam possessed an insight into +nature analogous to that of susceptible childhood, and therefore was able +to name and to rule the brute creation (Gen. 2:19). Yet this native +insight was capable of development into the higher knowledge of culture +and science. From Gen. 1:26 (_cf._ Ps. 8:5-8), it has been erroneously +inferred that the image of God in man consists in dominion over the brute +creation and the natural world. But, in this verse, the words “let them +have dominion” do not define the image of God, but indicate the result of +possessing that image. To make the image of God consist in this dominion, +would imply that only the divine omnipotence was shadowed forth in man. + + + _Gen. 2:19_—“_Jehovah God formed every beast of the field, and + every bird of the heavens; and brought them unto the man to see + what he would call them_”; _20_—“_And the man gave names to all + cattle_”; _Gen. 1:26_—“_Let us make man in our image, after our + likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and + over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle_”; _cf._ _Ps. + 8:5-8_—“_thou hast made him but little lower than God, And + crownest him with glory and honor. Thou makest him to have + dominion over the works of thy hands; Thou hast put all things + under his feet: All sheep and oxen, Yea, and the beasts of the + field._” Adam’s naming the animals implied insight into their + nature; see Porter, Hum. Intellect, 393, 394, 401. On man’s + original dominion over (1) self, (2) nature, (3) fellow-man, see + Hopkins, Scriptural Idea of Man, 105. + + Courage and a good conscience have a power over the brute + creation, and unfallen man can well be supposed to have dominated + creatures which had no experience of human cruelty. Rarey tamed + the wildest horses by his steadfast and fearless eye. In Paris a + young woman was hypnotized and put into a den of lions. She had no + fear of the lions and the lions paid not the slightest attention + to her. The little daughter of an English officer in South Africa + wandered away from camp and spent the night among lions. + “Katrina,” her father said when he found her, “were you not afraid + to be alone here?” “No, papa,” she replied, “the big dogs played + with me and one of them lay here and kept me warm.” MacLaren, in + S. S. Times, Dec. 23, 1893—“The dominion over all creatures + results from likeness to God. It is not then a mere right to use + them for one’s own material advantage, but a viceroy’s authority, + which the holder is bound to employ for the honor of the true + King.” This principle gives the warrant and the limit to + vivisection and to the killing of the lower animals for food + (_Gen. 9:2, 3._). + + Socinian writers generally hold the view that the image of God + consisted simply in this dominion. Holding a low view of the + nature of sin, they are naturally disinclined to believe that the + fall has wrought any profound change in human nature. See their + view stated in the Racovian Catechism, 21. It is held also by the + Arminian Limborch, Theol. Christ., ii, 24:2, 3, 11. Upon the basis + of this interpretation of Scripture, the Encratites held, with + Peter Martyr, that women do not possess the divine image at all. + + +(_d_) Communion with God.—Our first parents enjoyed the divine presence +and teaching (Gen. 2:16). It would seem that God manifested himself to +them in visible form (Gen. 3:8). This companionship was both in kind and +degree suited to their spiritual capacity, and by no means necessarily +involved that perfected vision of God which is possible to beings of +confirmed and unchangeable holiness (Mat. 5:8; 1 John 3:2). + + + _Gen. 2:16_—“_And Jehovah God commanded the man_”; _3:8_—“_And + they heard the voice of Jehovah God walking in the garden in the + cool of the day_”; _Mat. 5:8_—“_Blessed are the pure in heart: for + they shall see God_”; _1 John 3:2_—“_We know that, if he shall be + manifested, we shall be like him; for we shall see him even as he + is_”; _Rev. 22:4_—“_and they shall see his his face._” + + +2. Concomitants of man’s possession of the divine image. + + +(_a_) Surroundings and society fitted to yield happiness and to assist a +holy development of human nature (Eden and Eve). We append some recent +theories with regard to the creation of Eve and the nature of Eden. + + + Eden—pleasure, delight. Tennyson: “When high in Paradise By the + four rivers the first roses blew.” Streams were necessary to the + very existence of an oriental garden. Hopkins, Script. Idea of + Man, 107—“Man includes woman. Creation of _a_ man without a woman + would not have been the creation of man. Adam called her name Eve + but God called their name Adam.” Mat. Henry: “Not out of his head + to top him, nor out of his feet to be trampled on by him; but out + of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected by + him, and near his heart to be beloved.” Robert Burns says of + nature: “Her ’prentice hand she tried on man, And then she made + the lasses, O!” Stevens, Pauline Theology, 329—“In the natural + relations of the sexes there is a certain reciprocal dependence, + since it is not only true that woman was made from man, but that + man is born of woman (_1 Cor. 11:11, 12_).” Of the Elgin marbles + Boswell asked: “Don’t you think them indecent?” Dr. Johnson + replied: “No, sir; but your question is.” Man, who in the adult + state possesses twelve pairs of ribs, is found in the embryonic + state to have thirteen or fourteen. Dawson, Modern Ideas of + Evolution, 148—“Why does not the male man lack one rib? Because + only the individual skeleton of Adam was affected by the taking of + the rib.... The unfinished vertebral arches of the skin-fibrous + layer may have produced a new individual by a process of budding + or gemmation.” + + H. H. Bawden suggests that the account of Eve’s creation may be + the “pictorial summary” of an actual phylogenetic evolutionary + process by which the sexes were separated or isolated from a + common hermaphroditic ancestor or ancestry. The mesodermic portion + of the organism in which the urinogenital system has its origin + develops later than the ectodermic or the endodermic portions. The + word “rib” may designate this mesodermic portion. Bayard Taylor, + John Godfrey’s Fortunes, 392, suggests that a genius is + hermaphroditic, adding a male element to the woman, and a female + element to the man. Professor Loeb, Am. Journ. Physiology, Vol. + III, no. 3, has found that in certain chemical solutions prepared + in the laboratory, approximately the concentration of sea-water, + the unfertilized eggs of the sea-urchin will mature without the + intervention of the spermatozoön. Perfect embryos and normal + individuals are produced under these conditions. He thinks it + probable that similar parthenogenesis may be produced in higher + types of being. In 1900 he achieved successful results on + Annelids, though it is doubtful whether he produced anything more + than normal _larvæ_. These results have been criticized by a + European investigator who is also a Roman priest. Prof. Loeb wrote + a rejoinder in which he expressed surprise that a representative + of the Roman church did not heartily endorse his conclusions, + since they afford a vindication of the doctrine of the immaculate + conception. + + H. H. Bawden has reviewed Prof. Loeb’s work in the Psychological + Review, Jan. 1900. Janósik has found segmentation in the + unfertilized eggs of mammalians. Prof. Loeb considers it possible + that only the ions of the blood prevent the parthenogenetic origin + of embryos in mammals, and thinks it not improbable that by a + transitory change in these ions it will be possible to produce + complete parthenogenesis in these higher types. Dr. Bawden goes on + to say that “both parent and child are dependent upon a common + source of energy. The universe is one great organism, and there is + no inorganic or non-organic matter, but differences only in + degrees of organization. Sex is designed only secondarily for the + perpetuation of species; primarily it is the bond or medium for + the connection and interaction of the various parts of this great + organism, for maintaining that degree of heterogeneity which is + the prerequisite of a high degree of organization. By means of the + growth of a lifetime I have become an essential part in a great + organic system. What I call my individual personality represents + simply the focusing, the flowering of the universe at one finite + concrete point or centre. Must not then my personality continue as + long as that universal system continues? And is immortality + conceivable if the soul is something shut up within itself, + unshareable and unique? Are not the many foci mutually + interdependent, instead of mutually exclusive? We must not then + conceive of an immortality which means the continued existence of + an individual cut off from that social context which is really + essential to his very nature.” + + J. H. Richardson suggests in the Standard, Sept. 10, 1901, that + the first chapter of Genesis describes the creation of the + spiritual part of man only—that part which was made in the image + of God—while the second chapter describes the creation of man’s + body, the animal part, which may have been originated by a process + of evolution. S. W. Howland, in Bib. Sac., Jan. 1903:121-128, + supposes Adam and Eve to have been twins, joined by the ensiform + cartilage or breast-bone, as were the Siamese Chang and Eng. By + violence or accident this cartilage was broken before it hardened + into bone, and the two were separated until puberty. Then Adam saw + Eve coming to him with a bone projecting from her side + corresponding to the hollow in his own side, and said: “She is + bone of my bone; she must have been taken from my side when I + slept.” This tradition was handed down to his posterity. The Jews + have a tradition that Adam was created double-sexed, and that the + two sexes were afterwards separated. The Hindus say that man was + at first of both sexes and divided himself in order to people the + earth. In the Zodiac of Dendera, Castor and Pollux appear as man + and woman, and these twins, some say, were called Adam and Eve. + The Coptic name for this sign is _Pi Mahi_, “the United.” Darwin, + in the postscript to a letter to Lyell, written as early as July, + 1850, tells his friend that he has “a pleasant genealogy for + mankind,” and describes our remotest ancestor as “an animal which + breathed water, had a swim-bladder, a great swimming tail, an + imperfect skull, and was undoubtedly a hermaphrodite.” + + Matthew Arnold speaks of “the freshness of the early world.” + Novalis says that “all philosophy begins in homesickness.” + Shelley, Skylark: “We look before and after, And pine for what is + not; Our sincerest laughter With some pain is fraught; Our + sweetest songs are those That tell of saddest thought.”—“The + golden conception of a Paradise is the poet’s guiding thought.” + There is a universal feeling that we are not now in our natural + state; that we are far away from home; that we are exiles from our + true habitation. Keble, Groans of Nature: “Such thoughts, the + wreck of Paradise, Through many a dreary age, Upbore whate’er of + good or wise Yet lived in bard or sage.” Poetry and music echo the + longing for some possession lost. Jessica in Shakespeare’s + Merchant of Venice: “I am never merry when I hear sweet music.” + All true poetry is forward-looking or backward-looking prophecy, + as sculpture sets before us the original or the resurrection body. + See Isaac Taylor, Hebrew Poetry, 94-101; Tyler, Theol. of Greek + Poets, 225, 226. + + Wellhausen, on the legend of a golden age, says: “It is the + yearning song which goes through all the peoples: having attained + the historical civilization, they feel the worth of the goods + which they have sacrificed for it.” He regards the golden age as + only an ideal image, like the millennial kingdom at the end. Man + differs from the beast in this power to form ideals. His + destination _to_ God shows his descent _from_ God. Hegel in a + similar manner claimed that the Paradisaic condition is only an + ideal conception underlying human development. But may not the + traditions of the gardens of Brahma and of the Hesperides embody + the world’s recollection of an historical fact, when man was free + from external evil and possessed all that could minister to + innocent joy? The “golden age” of the heathen was connected with + the hope of restoration. So the use of the doctrine of man’s + original state is to convince men of the high ideal once realized, + properly belonging to man, now lost, and recoverable, not by man’s + own powers, but only through God’s provision in Christ. For + references in classic writers to a golden age, see Luthardt, + Compendium, 115. He mentions the following: Hesiod, Works and + Days, 109-208; Aratus, Phenom., 100-184; Plato, Tim., 233; Vergil, + Ec., 4, Georgics, 1:135, Æneid, 8:314. + + +(_b_) Provisions for the trying of man’s virtue.—Since man was not yet in +a state of confirmed holiness, but rather of simple childlike innocence, +he could be made perfect only through temptation. Hence the “tree of the +knowledge of good and evil” (Gen 2:9). The one slight command best tested +the spirit of obedience. Temptation did not necessitate a fall, If +resisted, it would strengthen virtue. In that case, the _posse non +peccare_ would have become the _non posse peccare_. + + + Thomasius: “That evil is a necessary transition-point to good, is + Satan’s doctrine and philosophy.” The tree was mainly a tree of + probation. It is right for a father to make his son’s title to his + estate depend upon the performance of some filial duty, as + Thaddeus Stevens made his son’s possession of property conditional + upon his keeping the temperance-pledge. Whether, besides this, the + tree of knowledge was naturally hurtful or poisonous, we do not + know. + + +(_c_) Opportunity of securing physical immortality.—The body of the first +man was in itself mortal (1 Cor. 15:45). Science shows that physical life +involves decay and loss. But means were apparently provided for checking +this decay and preserving the body’s youth. This means was the “tree of +life” (Gen. 2:9). If Adam had maintained his integrity, the body might +have been developed and transfigured, without intervention of death. In +other words, the _posse non mori_ might have become a _non posse mori_. + + + The tree of life was symbolic of communion with God and of man’s + dependence upon him. But this, only because it had a physical + efficacy. It was sacramental and memorial to the soul, because it + sustained the life of the body. Natural immortality without + holiness would have been unending misery. Sinful man was therefore + shut out from the tree of life, till he could be prepared for it + by God’s righteousness. Redemption and resurrection not only + restore that which was lost, but give what man was originally + created to attain: _1 Cor. 15:45_—“_The first man Adam became a + living soul. The last man Adam became a life-giving spirit_”; + _Rev. 22:14_—“_Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they + may have the right to come to the tree of life._” + + +The conclusions we have thus reached with regard to the incidents of man’s +original state are combated upon two distinct grounds: + +1st. The facts bearing upon man’s prehistoric condition point to a +development from primitive savagery to civilization. Among these facts may +be mentioned the succession of implements and weapons from stone to bronze +and iron; the polyandry and communal marriage systems of the lowest +tribes; the relics of barbarous customs still prevailing among the most +civilized. + + + For the theory of an originally savage condition of man, see Sir + John Lubbock, Prehistoric Times, and Origin of Civilization: “The + primitive condition of mankind was one of utter barbarism”; but + especially L. H. Morgan, Ancient Society, who divides human + progress into three great periods, the savage, the barbarian, and + the civilized. Each of the two former has three states, as + follows: I. Savage: 1. Lowest state, marked by attainment of + speech and subsistence upon roots. 2. Middle state, marked by + fish-food and fire. 3. Upper state, marked by use of the bow and + hunting. II. Barbarian: 1. Lower state, marked by invention and + use of pottery. 2. Middle state, marked by use of domestic + animals, maize, and building stone. 3. Upper state, marked by + invention and use of iron tools. III. Civilized man next appears, + with the introduction of the phonetic alphabet and writing. J. S. + Stuart-Glennie, Contemp. Rev., Dec. 1892:844, defines civilization + as “enforced social organization, with written records, and hence + intellectual development and social progress.” + + +With regard to this view we remark: + +(_a_) It is based upon an insufficient induction of facts.—History shows a +law of degeneration supplementing and often counteracting the tendency to +development. In the earliest times of which we have any record, we find +nations in a high state of civilization; but in the case of every nation +whose history runs back of the Christian era—as for example, the Romans, +the Greeks, the Egyptians—the subsequent progress has been downward, and +no nation is known to have recovered from barbarism except as the result +of influence from without. + + + Lubbock seems to admit that cannibalism was not primeval; yet he + shows a general tendency to take every brutal custom as a sample + of man’s first state. And this, in spite of the fact that many + such customs have been the result of corruption. Bride-catching, + for example, could not possibly have been primeval, in the strict + sense of that term. Tylor, Primitive Culture, 1:48, presents a far + more moderate view. He favors a theory of development, but with + degeneration “as a secondary action largely and deeply affecting + the development of civilization.” So the Duke of Argyll, Unity of + Nature: “Civilization and savagery are both the results of + evolutionary development; but the one is a development in the + upward, the latter in the downward direction; and for this reason, + neither civilization nor savagery can rationally be looked upon as + the primitive condition of man.” Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 1:467—“As + plausible an argument might be constructed out of the + deterioration and degradation of some of the human family to prove + that man may have evolved downward into an anthropoid ape, as that + which has been constructed to prove that he has been evolved + upward from one.” + + Modern nations fall far short of the old Greek perception and + expression of beauty. Modern Egyptians, Bushmen, Australians, are + unquestionably degenerate races. See Lankester, Degeneration. The + same is true of Italians and Spaniards, as well as of Turks. + Abyssinians are now polygamists, though their ancestors were + Christians and monogamists. The physical degeneration of portions + of the population of Ireland is well known. See Mivart, Lessons + from Nature, 146-160, who applies to the savage-theory the tests + of language, morals, and religion, and who quotes Herbert Spencer + as saying: “Probably most of them [savages], if not all of them, + had ancestors in higher states, and among their beliefs remain + some which were evolved during those higher states.... It is quite + possible, and I believe highly probable, that retrogression has + been as frequent as progression.” Spencer, however, denies that + savagery is always caused by lapse from civilization. + + Bib. Sac., 6:715; 29:282—“Man as a moral being does not tend to + rise but to fall, and that with a geometric progress, except he be + elevated and sustained by some force from without and above + himself. While man once civilized may advance, yet moral ideas are + apparently never developed from within.” Had savagery been man’s + primitive condition, he never could have emerged. See Whately, + Origin of Civilization, who maintains that man needed not only a + divine Creator, but a divine Instructor. Seelye, Introd. to A + Century of Dishonor, 3—“The first missionaries to the Indians in + Canada took with them skilled laborers to teach the savages how to + till their fields, to provide them with comfortable homes, + clothing, and food. But the Indians preferred their wigwams, + skins, raw flesh, and filth. Only as Christian influences taught + the Indian his inner need, and how this was to be supplied, was he + led to wish and work for the improvement of his outward condition + and habits. Civilization does not reproduce itself. It must first + be kindled, and it can then be kept alive only by a power + genuinely Christian.” So Wallace, in Nature, Sept. 7, 1876, vol. + 14:408-412. + + Griffith-Jones, Ascent through Christ, 149-168, shows that + evolution does not necessarily involve development as regards + particular races. There is degeneration in all the organic orders. + As regards man, he may be evolving in some directions, while in + others he has degenerated. Lidgett, Spir. Principle of the + Atonement, 245, speaks of “Prof. Clifford as pointing to the + history of human progress and declaring that mankind is a risen + and not a fallen race. There is no real contradiction between + these two views. God has not let man go because man has rebelled + against him. Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.” The + humanity which was created in Christ and which is upheld by his + power has ever received reinforcements of its physical and mental + life, in spite of its moral and spiritual deterioration. “Some + shrimps, by the adjustment of their bodily parts, go onward to the + higher structure of the lobsters and crabs; while others, taking + up the habit of dwelling in the gills of fishes, sink downward + into a state closely resembling that of the worms.” Drummond, + Ascent of Man: “When a boy’s kite comes down in our garden, we do + not hold that it originally came from the clouds. So nations went + up, before they came down. There is a national gravitation. The + stick age preceded the stone age, but has been lost.” Tennyson: + “Evolution ever climbing after some ideal good, And Reversion ever + dragging Evolution in the mud.” Evolution often becomes + devolution, if not devilution. A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the + Spirit, 104—“The Jordan is the fitting symbol of our natural life, + rising in a lofty elevation, and from pure springs, but plunging + steadily down till it pours itself into that Dead Sea from which + there is no outlet.” + + +(_b_) Later investigations have rendered it probable that the stone age of +some localities was contemporaneous with the bronze and iron ages of +others, while certain tribes and nations, instead of making progress from +one to the other, were never, so far back as we can trace them, without +the knowledge and use of the metals. It is to be observed, moreover, that +even without such knowledge and use man is not necessarily a barbarian, +though he may be a child. + + + On the question whether the arts of civilization can be lost, see + Arthur Mitchell, Past in the Present, 219: Rude art is often the + debasement of a higher, instead of being the earlier; the rudest + art in a nation may coëxist with the highest; cave-life may + accompany high civilization. Illustrations from modern Scotland, + where burial of a cock for epilepsy, and sacrifice of a bull, were + until very recently extant. Certain arts have unquestionably been + lost, as glass-making and iron-working in Assyria (see Mivart, + referred to above). The most ancient men do not appear to have + been inferior to the latest, either physically or intellectually. + Rawlinson: “The explorers who have dug deep into the Mesopotamian + mounds, and have ransacked the tombs of Egypt, have come upon no + certain traces of savage man in those regions which a wide-spread + tradition makes the cradle of the human race.” The Tyrolese + peasants show that a rude people may be moral, and a very simple + people may be highly intelligent. See Southall, Recent Origin of + Man, 386-449; Schliemann, Troy and her Remains, 274. + + Mason, Origins of Invention, 110, 124, 128—“There is no evidence + that a stone age ever existed in some regions. In Africa, Canada, + and perhaps Michigan, the metal age was as old as the stone age.” + An illustration of the mathematical powers of the savage is given + by Rev. A. E. Hunt in an account of the native arithmetic of + Murray Islands, Torres Straits. “Netat” (one) and “neis” (two) are + the only numerals, higher numbers being described by combinations + of these, as “neis-netat” for three, “neis-i-neis” for four, etc., + or by reference to one of the fingers, elbows or other parts of + the body. A total of thirty-one could be counted by the latter + method. Beyond this all numbers were “many,” as this was the limit + reached in counting before the introduction of English numerals, + now in general use in the islands. + + Shaler, Interpretation of Nature, 171—“It is commonly supposed + that the direction of the movement [in the variation of species] + is ever upward. The fact is on the contrary that in a large number + of cases, perhaps in the aggregate in more than half, the change + gives rise to a form which, by all the canons by which we + determine relative rank, is to be regarded as regressive or + degradational.... Species, genera, families, and orders have all, + like the individuals of which they are composed, a period of decay + in which the gain won by infinite toil and pains is altogether + lost in the old age of the group.” Shaler goes on to say that in + the matter of variation successes are to failures as 1 to 100,000, + and if man be counted the solitary distinguished success, then the + proportion is something like 1 to 100,000,000. No species that + passes away is ever reinstated. If man were now to disappear, + there is no reason to believe that by any process of change a + similar creature would be evolved, however long the animal kingdom + continued to exist. The use of these successive chances to produce + man is inexplicable except upon the hypothesis of an infinite + designing Wisdom. + + +(_c_) The barbarous customs to which this view looks for support may +better be explained as marks of broken-down civilization than as relics of +a primitive and universal savagery. Even if they indicated a former state +of barbarism, that state might have been itself preceded by a condition of +comparative culture. + + + Mark Hopkins, in Princeton Rev. Sept., 1882:194—“There is no cruel + treatment of females among animals. If man came from the lower + animals, then he cannot have been originally savage; for you find + the most of this cruel treatment among savages.” Tylor instances + “street Arabs.” He compares street Arabs to a ruined house, but + savage tribes to a builder’s yard. See Duke of Argyll, Primeval + Man, 129, 133; Bushnell, Nature and the Supernatural, 223; + McLennan, Studies in Ancient History. Gulick, in Bib. Sac., July, + 1892:517—“Cannibalism and infanticide are unknown among the + anthropoid apes. These must be the results of degradation. Pirates + and slavetraders are not men of low and abortive intelligence, but + men of education who deliberately throw off all restraint, and who + use their powers for the destruction of society.” + + Keane, Man, Past and Present, 40, quotes Sir H. H. Johnston, an + administrator who has had a wider experience of the natives of + Africa than any man living, as saying that “the tendency of the + negro for several centuries past has been an actual retrograde + one—return toward the savage and even the brute. If he had been + cut off from the immigration of the Arab and the European, the + purely Negroid races, left to themselves, so far from advancing + towards a higher type of humanity, might have actually reverted by + degrees to a type no longer human.” Ratzel’s History of Mankind: + “We assign no great antiquity to Polynesian civilization. In New + Zealand it is a matter of only some centuries back. In newly + occupied territories, the development of the population began upon + a higher level and then fell off. The Maoris’ decadence resulted + in the rapid impoverishment of culture, and the character of the + people became more savage and cruel. Captain Cook found objects of + art worshiped by the descendants of those who produced them.” + + Recent researches have entirely discredited L. H. Morgan’s theory + of an original brutal promiscuity of the human race. Ritchie, + Darwin and Hegel, 6, note—“The theory of an original promiscuity + is rendered extremely doubtful by the habits of many of the higher + animals.” E. B. Tylor, in 19th Century, July, 1906—“A sort of + family life, lasting for the sake of the young, beyond a single + pairing season, exists among the higher manlike apes. The male + gorilla keeps watch and ward over his progeny. He is the antetype + of the house-father. The matriarchal system is a later device for + political reasons, to bind together in peace and alliance tribes + that would otherwise be hostile. But it is an artificial system + introduced as a substitute for and in opposition to the natural + paternal system. When the social pressure is removed, the + maternalized husband emancipates himself, and paternalism begins.” + Westermarck, History of Human Marriage: “Marriage and the family + are thus intimately connected with one another; it is for the + benefit of the young that male and female continue to live + together. Marriage is therefore rooted in the family, rather than + the family in marriage.... There is not a shred of genuine + evidence for the notion that promiscuity ever formed a general + stage in the social history of mankind. The hypothesis of + promiscuity, instead of belonging to the class of hypotheses which + are scientifically permissible, has no real foundation, and is + essentially unscientific.” Howard, History of Matrimonial + Institutions: “Marriage or pairing between one man and one woman, + though the union be often transitory and the rule often violated, + is the typical form of sexual union from the infancy of the human + race.” + + +(_d_) The well-nigh universal tradition of a golden age of virtue and +happiness may be most easily explained upon the Scripture view of an +actual creation of the race in holiness and its subsequent apostasy. + + + For references in classic writers to a golden age, see Luthardt, + Compendium der Dogmatik, 115; Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, + 1:205—“In Hesiod we have the legend of a golden age under the + lordship of Chronos, when man was free from cares and toils, in + untroubled youth and cheerfulness, with a superabundance of the + gifts which the earth furnished of itself; the race was indeed not + immortal, but it experienced death even as a soft sleep.” We may + add that capacity for religious truth depends upon moral + conditions. Very early races therefore have a purer faith than the + later ones. Increasing depravity makes it harder for the later + generations to exercise faith. The wisdom-literature may have been + very early instead of very late, just as monotheistic ideas are + clearer the further we go back. Bixby, Crisis in Morals, + 171—“Precisely because such tribes [Australian and African + savages] have been deficient in average moral quality, have they + failed to march upward on the road of civilization with the rest + of mankind, and have fallen into these bog holes of savage + degradation.” On petrified civilizations, see Henry George, + Progress and Poverty, 433-439—“The law of human progress, what is + it but the moral law?” On retrogressive development in nature, see + Weismann, Heredity, 2:1-30. But see also Mary E. Case, “Did the + Romans Degenerate?” in Internat. Journ. Ethics. Jan. 1893:165-182, + in which it is maintained that the Romans made constant advances + rather. Henry Sumner Maine calls the Bible the most important + single document in the history of sociology, because it exhibits + authentically the early development of society from the family, + through the tribe, into the nation,—a progress learned only by + glimpses, intervals, and survivals of old usages in the literature + of other nations. + + +2nd. That the religious history of mankind warrants us in inferring a +necessary and universal law of progress, in accordance with which man +passes from fetichism to polytheism and monotheism,—this first theological +stage, of which fetichism, polytheism, and monotheism are parts, being +succeeded by the metaphysical stage, and that in turn by the positive. + + + This theory is propounded by Comte, in his Positive Philosophy, + English transl., 25, 26, 515-636—“Each branch of our knowledge + passes successively through three different theoretical + conditions: the Theological, or fictitious; the Metaphysical, or + abstract; and the Scientific, or positive.... The first is the + necessary point of departure of the human understanding; and the + third is its fixed and definite state. The second is merely a + state of transition. In the theological state, the human mind, + seeking the essential nature of beings, the first and final + causes, the origin and purpose, of all effects—in short, absolute + knowledge—supposes all phenomena to be produced by the immediate + action of supernatural beings. In the metaphysical state, which is + only a modification of the first, the mind supposes, instead of + supernatural beings, abstract forces, veritable entities, that is, + personified abstractions, inherent in all beings, and capable of + producing all phenomena. What is called the explanation of + phenomena is, in this stage, a mere reference of each to its + proper entity. In the final, the positive state, the mind has + given over the vain search after absolute notions, the origin and + destination of the universe, and the causes of phenomena, and + applies itself to the study of their laws—that is, their + invariable relations of succession and resemblance.... The + theological system arrived at its highest perfection when it + substituted the providential action of a single Being for the + varied operations of numerous divinities. In the last stage of the + metaphysical system, men substituted one great entity, Nature, as + the cause of all phenomena, instead of the multitude of entities + at first supposed. In the same way the ultimate perfection of the + positive system would be to represent all phenomena as particular + aspects of a single general fact—such as Gravitation, for + instance.” + + +This assumed law of progress, however, is contradicted by the following +facts: + +(_a_) Not only did the monotheism of the Hebrews precede the great +polytheistic systems of antiquity, but even these heathen religions are +purer from polytheistic elements, the further back we trace them; so that +the facts point to an original monotheistic basis for them all. + + + The gradual deterioration of all religions, apart from special + revelation and influence from God, is proof that the purely + evolutionary theory is defective. The most natural supposition is + that of a primitive revelation, which little by little receded + from human memory. In Japan, Shinto was originally the worship of + Heaven. The worship of the dead, the deification of the Mikado, + etc., were a corruption and aftergrowth. The Mikado’s ancestors, + instead of coming from heaven, came from Korea. Shinto was + originally a form of monotheism. Not one of the first emperors was + deified after death. Apotheosis of the Mikados dated from the + corruption of Shinto through the importation of Buddhism. Andrew + Lang, in his Making of Religion, advocates primitive monotheism. + T. G. Pinches, of the British Museum, 1894, declares that, as in + the earliest Egyptian, so in the early Babylonian records, there + is evidence of a primitive monotheism. Nevins, Demon-Possession, + 170-173, quotes W. A. P. Martin, President of the Peking + University, as follows: “China, India, Egypt and Greece all agree + in the monotheistic type of their early religion. The Orphic + Hymns, long before the advent of the popular divinities, + celebrated the _Pantheos_, the universal God. The odes compiled by + Confucius testify to the early worship of Shangte, the Supreme + Ruler. The Vedas speak of ‘one unknown true Being, all-present, + all-powerful, the Creator, Preserver and Destroyer of the + Universe.’ And in Egypt, as late as the time of Plutarch, there + were still vestiges of a monotheistic worship.” + + On the evidences of an original monotheism, see Max Müller, Chips, + 1:337; Rawlinson, in Present Day Tracts, 2: no. 11; Legge, + Religions of China, 8, 11; Diestel, in Jahrbuch für deutsche + Theologie, 1860, and vol. 5:669; Philip Smith, Anc. Hist. of East, + 65, 195; Warren, on the Earliest Creed of Mankind, in the Meth. + Quar. Rev., Jan. 1884. + + +(_b_) “There is no proof that the Indo-Germanic or Semitic stocks ever +practiced fetich worship, or were ever enslaved by the lowest types of +mythological religion, or ascended from them to somewhat higher” (Fisher). + + + See Fisher, Essays on Supernat. Origin of Christianity, 545; + Bartlett, Sources of History in the Pentateuch, 36-115. Herbert + Spencer once held that fetichism was primordial. But he afterwards + changed his mind, and said that the facts proved to be exactly the + opposite when he had become better acquainted with the ideas of + savages; see his Principles of Sociology, 1:343. Mr. Spencer + finally traced the beginnings of religion to the worship of + ancestors. But in China no ancestor has ever become a god; see + Hill, Genetic Philosophy, 304-313. And unless man had an inborn + sense of divinity, he could deify neither ancestors nor ghosts. + Professor Hilprecht of Philadelphia says: “As the attempt has + recently been made to trace the pure monotheism of Israel to + Babylonian sources, I am bound to declare this an absolute + impossibility, on the basis of my fourteen years’ researches in + Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions. The faith of Israel’s chosen + people is: ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord.’ And + this faith could never have proceeded from the Babylonian mountain + of gods, that charnel-house full of corruption and dead men’s + bones.” + + +(_c_) Some of the earliest remains of man yet found show, by the burial of +food and weapons with the dead, that there already existed the idea of +spiritual beings and of a future state, and therefore a religion of a +higher sort than fetichism. + + + Idolatry proper regards the idol as the symbol and representative + of a spiritual being who exists apart from the material object, + though he manifests himself through it. Fetichism, however, + identifies the divinity with the material thing, and worships the + stock or stone; spirit is not conceived of as existing apart from + body. Belief in spiritual beings and a future state is therefore + proof of a religion higher in kind than fetichism. See Lyell, + Antiquity of Man, quoted in Dawson, Story of Earth and Man, 384; + see also 368, 372, 386—“Man’s capacities for degradation are + commensurate with his capacities for improvement” (Dawson). Lyell, + in his last edition, however, admits the evidence from the + Aurignac cave to be doubtful. See art. by Dawkins, in Nature, + 4:208. + + +(_d_) The theory in question, in making theological thought a merely +transient stage of mental evolution, ignores the fact that religion has +its root in the intuitions and yearnings of the human soul, and that +therefore no philosophical or scientific progress can ever abolish it. +While the terms theological, metaphysical, and positive may properly mark +the order in which the ideas of the individual and the race are acquired, +positivism errs in holding that these three phases of thought are mutually +exclusive, and that upon the rise of the later the earlier must of +necessity become extinct. + + + John Stuart Mill suggests that “personifying” would be a much + better term than “theological” to designate the earliest efforts + to explain physical phenomena. On the fundamental principles of + Positivism, see New Englander, 1873:323-386; Diman, Theistic + Argument, 338—“Three coëxistent states are here confounded with + three successive stages of human thought; three aspects of things + with three epochs of time. Theology, metaphysics, and science must + always exist side by side, for all positive science rests on + metaphysical principles, and theology lies behind both. All are as + permanent as human reason itself.” Martineau, Types, 1:487—“Comte + sets up mediæval Christianity as the typical example of evolved + monotheism, and develops it out of the Greek and Roman polytheism + which it overthrew and dissipated. But the religion of modern + Europe notoriously does not descend from the same source as its + civilization and is no continuation of the ancient culture,”—it + comes rather from Hebrew sources; Essays, Philos. and Theol., + 1:24, 62—“The Jews were always a disobliging people; what business + had they to be up so early in the morning, disturbing the house + ever so long before M. Comte’s bell rang to prayers?” See also + Gillett, God in Human Thought, 1:17-23; Rawlinson, in Journ. + Christ. Philos., April, 1883:353; Nineteenth Century, Oct. + 1886:473-490. + + + + +Chapter III. Sin, Or Man’s State Of Apostasy. + + + +Section I.—The Law Of God. + + +As preliminary to a treatment of man’s state of apostasy, it becomes +necessary to consider the nature of that law of God, the transgression of +which is sin. We may best approach the subject by inquiring what is the +true conception of + + +I. Law in General. + + +1. Law is an expression of _will_. + +The essential idea of law is that of a general expression of will enforced +by power. It implies: (_a_) A lawgiver, or authoritative will. (_b_) +Subjects, or beings upon whom this will terminates. (_c_) A general +command, or expression of this will. (_d_) A power, enforcing the command. + +These elements are found even in what we call natural law. The phrase “law +of nature” involves a self-contradiction, when used to denote a mode of +action or an order of sequence behind which there is conceived to be no +intelligent and ordaining will. Physics derives the term “law” from +jurisprudence, instead of jurisprudence deriving it from physics. It is +first used of the relations of voluntary agents. Causation in our own +wills enables us to see something besides mere antecedence and consequence +in the world about us. Physical science, in her very use of the word +“law,” implicitly confesses that a supreme Will has set general rules +which control the processes of the universe. + + + Wayland, Moral Science, 1, unwisely defines law as “a mode of + existence or order of sequence,” thus leaving out of his + definition all reference to an ordaining will. He subsequently + says that law presupposes an establisher, but in his definition + there is nothing to indicate this. We insist, on the other hand, + that the term “law” itself includes the idea of force and cause. + The word “law” is from “lay” (German _legen_),—something laid + down; German _Gesetz_, from _setzen_,—something set or + established; Greek νόμος, from νέμω,—something assigned or + apportioned; Latin _lex_, from _lego_,—something said or spoken. + + All these derivations show that man’s original conception of law + is that of something proceeding from volition. Lewes, in his + Problems of Life and Mind, says that the term “law” is so + suggestive of a giver and impresser of law, that it ought to be + dropped, and the word “method” substituted. The merit of Austin’s + treatment of the subject is that he “rigorously limits the term + ‘law’ to the commands of a superior”; see John Austin, Province of + Jurisprudence, 1:88-93, 220-223. The defects of his treatment we + shall note further on. + + J. S. Mill: “It is the custom, wherever they [scientific men] can + trace regularity of any kind, to call the general proposition + which expresses the nature of that regularity, a law; as when in + mathematics we speak of the law of the successive terms of a + converging series. But the expression ‘law of nature’ is generally + employed by scientific men with a sort of tacit reference to the + original sense of the word ‘law,’ namely, the expression of the + will of a superior—the superior in this case being the Ruler of + the universe.” Paley, Nat. Theology, chap. 1—“It is a perversion + of language to assign any _law_ as the efficient operative cause + of anything. A law presupposes an agent; this is only the mode + according to which an agent proceeds; it implies a power, for it + is the order according to which that power acts. Without this + agent, without this power, which are both distinct from itself, + the law does nothing.” “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” “Rules do + not fulfill themselves, any more than a statute-book can quell a + riot” (Martineau, Types, 1:367). + + Charles Darwin got the suggestion of natural selection, not from + the study of lower plants and animals, but from Malthus on + Population; see his Life and Letters, Vol. I, autobiographical + chapter. Ward, Naturalism and Agnosticism, 2:248-252—“The + conception of natural law rests upon the analogy of civil law.” + Ladd, Philosophy of Knowledge, 333—“Laws are only the more or less + frequently repeated and uniform modes of the behavior of things”; + Philosophy of Mind, 122—“To be, to stand in relation, to be + self-active, to act upon other being, to obey law, to be a cause, + to be a permanent subject of states, to be the same to-day as + yesterday, to be identical, to be one,—all these and all similar + conceptions, together with the proofs that they are valid for real + beings, are affirmed of physical realities, or projected into + them, only on a basis of self-knowledge, envisaging and affirming + the reality of mind. Without psychological insight and + philosophical training, such terms or their equivalents are + meaningless in physics. And because writers on physics do not in + general have this insight and this training, in spite of their + utmost endeavors to treat physics as an empirical science without + metaphysics, they flounder and blunder and contradict themselves + hopelessly whenever they touch upon fundamental matters.” See + President McGarvey’s Criticism on James Lane Allen’s Reign of Law: + “It is not in the nature of law to reign. To reign is an act which + can be literally affirmed only of persons. A man may reign; a God + may reign; a devil may reign; but a law cannot reign. If a law + could reign, we should have no gambling in New York and no open + saloons on Sunday. There would be no false swearing in courts of + justice, and no dishonesty in politics. It is men who reign in + these matters—the judges, the grand jury, the sheriff and the + police. They may reign according to law. Law cannot reign even + over those who are appointed to execute the law.” + + +2. Law is a _general_ expression of will. + +The characteristic of law is generality. It is addressed to substances or +persons in classes. Special legislation is contrary to the true theory of +law. + + + When the Sultan of Zanzibar orders his barber to be beheaded + because the latter has cut his master, this order is not properly + a law. To be a law it must read: “Every barber who cuts his + majesty shall thereupon be decapitated.” _Einmal ist keinmal_ = + “Once is no custom.” Dr. Schurman suggests that the word _meal_ + (Mahl) means originally _time_ (_mal_ in _einmal_). The + measurement of time among ourselves is astronomical; among our + earliest ancestors it was gastronomical, and the reduplication + _mealtime_ = the ding-dong of the dinner bell. The Shah of Persia + once asked the Prince of Wales to have a man put to death in order + that he might see the English method of execution. When the Prince + told him that this was beyond his power, the Shah wished to know + what was the use of being a king if he could not kill people at + his pleasure. Peter the Great suggested a way out of the + difficulty. He desired to see keelhauling. When informed that + there was no sailor liable to that penalty, he replied: “That does + not matter,—take one of my suite.” Amos, Science of Law, 33, + 34—“Law eminently deals in general rules.” It knows not persons or + personality. It must apply to more than one case. “The + characteristic of law is generality, as that of morality is + individual application.” Special legislation is the bane of good + government; it does not properly fall within the province of the + law-making power; it savors of the caprice of despotism, which + gives commands to each subject at will. Hence our more advanced + political constitutions check lobby influence and bribery, by + prohibiting special legislation in all cases where general laws + already exist. + + +3. Law implies _power to enforce_. + +It is essential to the existence of law, that there be power to enforce. +Otherwise law becomes the expression of mere wish or advice. Since +physical substances and forces have no intelligence and no power to +resist, the four elements already mentioned exhaust the implications of +the term “law” as applied to nature. In the case of rational and free +agents, however, law implies in addition: (_e_) Duty or obligation to +obey; and (_f_) Sanctions, or pains and penalties for disobedience. + + + “Law that has no penalty is not law but advice, and the government + in which infliction does not follow transgression is the reign of + rogues or demons.” On the question whether any of the punishments + of civil law are legal sanctions, except the punishment of death, + see N. W. Taylor, Moral Govt., 2:367-387. Rewards are motives, but + they are not sanctions. Since public opinion may be conceived of + as inflicting penalties for violation of her will, we speak + figuratively of the laws of society, of fashion, of etiquette, of + honor. Only so far as the community of nations can and does by + sanctions compel obedience, can we with propriety assert the + existence of international law. Even among nations, however, there + may be moral as well as physical sanctions. The decision of an + international tribunal has the same sanction as a treaty, and if + the former is impotent, the latter also is. Fines and imprisonment + do not deter decent people from violations of law half so + effectively as do the social penalties of ostracism and disgrace, + and it will be the same with the findings of an international + tribunal. Diplomacy without ships and armies has been said to be + law without penalty. But exclusion from civilized society is + penalty. “In the unquestioning obedience to fashion’s decrees, to + which we all quietly submit, we are simply yielding to the + pressure of the persons about us. No one adopts a style of dress + because it is reasonable, for the styles are often most + unreasonable; but we meekly yield to the most absurd of them + rather than resist this force and be called eccentric. So what we + call public opinion is the most mighty power to-day known, whether + in society or in politics.” + + +4. Law expresses and demands _nature_. + +The will which thus binds its subjects by commands and penalties is an +expression of the nature of the governing power, and reveals the normal +relations of the subjects to that power. Finally, therefore, law (_g_) Is +an expression of the nature of the lawgiver; and (_h_) Sets forth the +condition or conduct in the subjects which is requisite for harmony with +that nature. Any so-called law which fails to represent the nature of the +governing power soon becomes obsolete. All law that is permanent is a +transcript of the facts of being, a discovery of what is and must be, in +order to harmony between the governing and the governed; in short, +positive law is just and lasting only as it is an expression and +republication of the law of nature. + + + Diman, Theistic Argument, 106, 107: John Austin, although he + “rigorously limited the term law to the commands of a superior,” + yet “rejected Ulpian’s explanation of the law of nature, and + ridiculed as fustian the celebrated description in Hooker.” This + we conceive to be the radical defect of Austin’s conception. The + Will from which natural law proceeds is conceived of after a + deistic fashion, instead of being immanent in the universe. + Lightwood, in his Nature of Positive Law, 78-90, criticizes + Austin’s definition of law as command, and substitutes the idea of + law as custom. Sir Henry Maine’s Ancient Law has shown us that the + early village communities had customs which only gradually took + form as definite laws. But we reply that custom is not the + ultimate source of anything. Repeated acts of will are necessary + to constitute custom. The first customs are due to the commanding + will of the father in the patriarchal family. So Austin’s + definition is justified. Collective morals (_mores_) come from + individual duty (_due_); law originates in will; Martineau, Types, + 2:18, 19. Behind this will, however, is something which Austin + does not take account of, namely, the nature of things as + constituted by God, as revealing the universal Reason, and as + furnishing the standard to which all positive law, if it would be + permanent, must conform. + + See Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws, book 1, sec. 14—“Laws are the + necessary relations arising from the nature of things.... There is + a primitive Reason, and laws are the relations subsisting between + it and different beings, and the relations of these to one + another.... These rules are a fixed and invariable relation.... + Particular intelligent beings may have laws of their own making, + but they have some likewise that they never made.... To say that + there is nothing just or unjust but what is commanded or forbidden + by positive laws, is the same as saying that before the describing + of a circle all the radii were not equal. We must therefore + acknowledge relations antecedent to the positive law by which they + were established.” Kant, Metaphysic of Ethics, 169-172—“By the + science of law is meant systematic knowledge of the principles of + the law of nature—from which positive law takes its rise—which is + forever the same, and carries its sure and unchanging obligations + over all nations and throughout all ages.” + + It is true even of a despot’s law, that it reveals his nature, and + shows what is requisite in the subject to constitute him in + harmony with that nature. A law which does not represent the + nature of things, or the real relations of the governor and the + governed, has only a nominal existence, and cannot be permanent. + On the definition and nature of law, see also Pomeroy, in + Johnson’s Encyclopædia, art.: Law; Ahrens, Cours de Droit Naturel, + book 1, sec. 14; Lorimer, Institutes of Law, 256, who quotes from + Burke: “All human laws are, properly speaking, only declaratory. + They may alter the mode and application, but have no power over + the substance of original justice”; Lord Bacon: “Regula enim legem + (ut acus nautica polos) indicat, non statuit.” Duke of Argyll, + Reign of Law, 64; H. C. Carey, Unity of Law. + + Fairbairn, in Contemp. Rev., Apl. 1895:473—“The Roman jurists draw + a distinction between _jus naturale_ and _jus civile_, and they + used the former to affect the latter. The _jus civile_ was + statutory, established and fixed law, as it were, the actual legal + environment; the _jus naturale_ was ideal, the principle of + justice and equity immanent in man, yet with the progress of his + ethical culture growing ever more articulate.” We add the fact + that _jus_ in Latin and _Recht_ in German have ceased to mean + merely abstract right, and have come to denote the legal system in + which that abstract right is embodied and expressed. Here we have + a proof that Christ is gradually moralizing the world and + translating law into life. E. G. Robinson: “Never a government on + earth made its own laws. Even constitutions simply declare laws + already and actually existing. Where society falls into anarchy, + the _lex talionis_ becomes the prevailing principle.” + + +II. The Law of God in Particular. + + +The law of God is a general expression of the divine will enforced by +power. It has two forms: Elemental Law and Positive Enactment. + +1. _Elemental Law_, or law inwrought into the elements, substances, and +forces of the rational and irrational creation. This is twofold: + +A. The expression of the divine will in the constitution of the material +universe;—this we call physical, or natural law. Physical law is not +necessary. Another order of things is conceivable. Physical order is not +an end in itself; it exists for the sake of moral order. Physical order +has therefore only a relative constancy, and God supplements it at times +by miracle. + + + Bowne, Theory of Thought and Knowledge, 210—“The laws of nature + represent no necessity, but are only the orderly forms of + procedure of some Being back of them.... Cosmic uniformities are + God’s methods in freedom.” Philos. of Theism, 73—“Any of the + cosmic laws, from gravitation on, might conceivably have been + lacking or altogether different.... No trace of necessity can be + found in the Cosmos or in its laws.” Seth, Hegelianism and + Personality: “Nature is not necessary. Why put an island where it + is, and not a mile east or west? Why connect the smell and shape + of the rose, or the taste and color of the orange? Why do H2O form + water? No one knows.” William James: “The parts seem shot at us + out of a pistol.” Rather, we would say, out of a shotgun. + Martineau, Seat of Authority, 33—“Why undulations in one medium + should produce sound, and in another light; why one speed of + vibration should give red color, and another blue, can be + explained by no reason of necessity. Here is selecting will.” + + Brooks, Foundations of Zoölogy, 126—“So far as the philosophy of + evolution involves belief that nature is determinate, or due to a + necessary law of universal progress or evolution, it seems to me + to be utterly unsupported by evidence and totally unscientific.” + There is no power to deduce anything whatever from homogeneity. + Press the button and law does the rest? Yes, but what presses the + button? The solution crystalises when shaken? Yes, but what shakes + it? Ladd, Philos. of Knowledge, 310—“The directions and velocities + of the stars fall under no common principles that astronomy can + discover. One of the stars—‘1830 Groombridge’—is flying through + space at a rate many times as great as it could attain if it had + fallen through infinite space through all eternity toward the + entire physical universe.... Fluids contract when cooled and + expand when heated,—yet there is the well known exception of water + at the degree of freezing.” 263—“Things do not appear to be + mathematical all the way through. The system of things may be a + Life, changing its modes of manifestation according to immanent + ideas, rather than a collection of rigid entities, blindly subject + in a mechanical way to unchanging laws.” + + Augustine: “Dei voluntas rerum natura est.” Joseph Cook: “The laws + of nature are the habits of God.” But Campbell, Atonement, + Introd., xxvi, says there is this difference between the laws of + the moral universe and those of the physical, namely, that we do + not trace the existence of the former to an act of will, as we do + the latter. “To say that God has given existence to goodness, as + he has to the laws of nature, would be equivalent to saying that + he has given existence to himself.” Pepper, Outlines of Syst. + Theol., 91—“Moral law, unlike natural law, is a standard of action + to be adopted or rejected in the exercise of rational freedom, _i. + e._, of moral agency.” See also Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 1:531. + + Mark Hopkins, in Princeton Rev., Sept. 1882:190—“In moral law + there is enforcement by punishment only—never by power, for this + would confound moral law with physical, and obedience can never be + produced or secured by power. In physical law, on the contrary, + enforcement is wholly by power, and punishment is impossible. So + far as man is free, he is not subject to law at all, in its + physical sense. Our wills are free _from_ law, as enforced by + _power_; but are free _under_ law, as enforced by _punishment_. + Where law prevails in the same sense as in the material world, + there can be no freedom. Law does not prevail when we reach the + region of choice. We hold to a power in the mind of man + originating a free choice. Two objects or courses of action, + between which choice is to be made, are presupposed: (1) A + uniformity or set of uniformities implying a force by which the + uniformity is produced [physical or natural law]; (2) A command, + addressed to free and intelligent beings, that can be obeyed or + disobeyed, and that has connected with it rewards or punishments” + [moral law]. See also Wm. Arthur, Difference between Physical and + Moral Law. + + +B. The expression of the divine will in the constitution of rational and +free agents;—this we call moral law. This elemental law of our moral +nature, with which only we are now concerned, has all the characteristics +mentioned as belonging to law in general. It implies: (_a_) A divine +Law-giver, or ordaining Will. (_b_) Subjects, or moral beings upon whom +the law terminates. (_c_) General command, or expression of this will in +the moral constitution of the subjects. (_d_) Power, enforcing the +command. (_e_) Duty, or obligation to obey. (_f_) Sanctions, or pains and +penalties for disobedience. + +All these are of a loftier sort than are found in human law. But we need +especially to emphasize the fact that this law (_g_) Is an expression of +the moral nature of God, and therefore of God’s holiness, the fundamental +attribute of that nature; and that it (_h_) Sets forth absolute conformity +to that holiness, as the normal condition of man. This law is inwrought +into man’s rational and moral being. Man fulfills it, only when in his +moral as well as his rational being he is the image of God. + + + Although the will from which the moral law springs is an + expression of the nature of God, and a necessary expression of + that nature in view of the existence of moral beings, it is none + the less a personal will. We should be careful not to attribute to + law a personality of its own. When Plutarch says: “Law is king + both of mortal and immortal beings,” and when we say: “The law + will take hold of you,” “The criminal is in danger of the law,” we + are simply substituting the name of the agent for that of the + principal. God is not subject to law; God is the source of law; + and we may say: “If Jehovah be God, worship him; but if Law, + worship it.” + + Since moral law merely reflects God, it is not a thing _made_. Men + _discover_ laws, but they do not _make_ them, any more than the + chemist makes the laws by which the elements combine. Instance the + solidification of hydrogen at Geneva. Utility does not constitute + law, although we test law by utility; see Murphy, Scientific Bases + of Faith, 58-71. The true nature of the moral law is set forth in + the noble though rhetorical description of Hooker (Eccl. Pol., + 1:194)—“Of law there can be no less acknowledged than that her + seat is in the bosom of God; her voice the harmony of the world; + all things in heaven and earth do her homage, the very least as + feeling her care, and the greatest as not exempted from her power; + both angels and men, and creatures of what condition soever, + though each in a different sort and manner, yet all with uniform + consent admiring her as the mother of their peace and joy.” See + also Martineau, Types, 2:119, and Study, 1:35. + + Curtis, Primitive Semitic Religions, 66, 101—“The Oriental + believes that God makes right by edict. Saladin demonstrated to + Henry of Champagne the loyalty of his Assassins, by commanding two + of them to throw themselves down from a lofty tower to certain and + violent death.” H. B. Smith, System, 192—“Will implies + personality, and personality adds to abstract truth and duty the + element of authority. Law therefore has the force that a person + has over and above that of an idea.” Human law forbids only those + offences which constitute a breach of public order or of private + right. God’s law forbids all that is an offence against the divine + order, that is, all that is unlike God. The whole law may be + summed up in the words: “Be like God.” Salter, First Steps in + Philosophy, 101-126—“The realization of the nature of each being + is the end to be striven for. Self-realization is an ideal end, + not of one being, but of each being, with due regard to the value + of each in the proper scale of worth. The beast can be sacrificed + for man. All men are sacred as capable of unlimited progress. It + is our duty to realize the capacities of our nature so far as they + are consistent with one another and go to make up one whole.” This + means that man fulfills the law only as he realizes the divine + idea in his character and life, or, in other words, as he becomes + a finite image of God’s infinite perfections. + + Bixby, Crisis in Morals, 191, 201, 285, 286—“Morality is rooted in + the nature of things. There is a universe. We are all parts of an + infinite organism. Man is inseparably bound to man [and to God]. + All rights and duties arise out of this common life. In the + solidarity of social life lies the ground of Kant’s law: So will, + that the maxim of thy conduct may apply to all. The planet cannot + safely fly away from the sun, and the hand cannot safely separate + itself from the heart. It is from the fundamental unity of life + that our duties flow.... The infinite world-organism is the body + and manifestation of God. And when we recognize the solidarity of + our vital being with this divine life and embodiment, we begin to + see into the heart of the mystery, the unquestionable authority + and supreme sanction of duty. Our moral intuitions are simply the + unchanging laws of the universe that have emerged to consciousness + in the human heart.... The inherent principles of the universal + Reason reflect themselves in the mirror of the moral nature.... + The enlightened conscience is the expression in the human soul of + the divine Consciousness.... Morality is the victory of the divine + Life in us.... Solidarity of our life with the universal Life + gives it unconditional sacredness and transcendental authority.... + The microcosm must bring itself _en rapport_ with the Macrocosm. + Man must bring his spirit into resemblance to the World-essence, + and into union with it.” + + +The law of God, then, is simply an expression of the nature of God in the +form of moral requirement, and a necessary expression of that nature in +view of the existence of moral beings (Ps. 19:7; _cf._ 1). To the +existence of this law all men bear witness. The consciences even of the +heathen testify to it (Rom. 2:14, 15). Those who have the written law +recognize this elemental law as of greater compass and penetration (Rom. +7:14; 8:4). The perfect embodiment and fulfillment of this law is seen +only in Christ (Rom. 10:4; Phil. 3:8, 9). + + + _Ps. 19:7_—“_The law of Jehovah is perfect, restoring the soul_”; + _cf._ _verse 1_—“_The heavens declare the glory of God_”—two + revelations of God—one in nature, the other in the moral law. + _Rom. 2:14, 15_—“_for when Gentiles that have not the law do by + nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the + law unto themselves; in that they show the work of the law written + in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and + their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing + them_”—here the “_work of the law_”—, not the ten commandments, + for of these the heathen were ignorant, but rather the work + corresponding to them, _i. e._, the substance of them. _Rom. + 7:14_—“_For we know that the law is spiritual_”—this, says Meyer, + is equivalent to saying “its essence is divine, of like nature + with the Holy Spirit who gave it, a holy self-revelation of God.” + _Rom. 8:4_—“_that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in + us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit_”; + _10:4_—“_For Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to + every one that believeth_”; _Phil. 3:8, 9_—“_that I may gain + Christ, and be found in him, not having a righteousness of mine + own, even that which is of the law, but that which is through + faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith_”; + _Heb. 10:9_—“_Lo, I am come to do thy will._” In Christ “the law + appears Drawn out in living characters.” Just such as he was and + is, we feel that we ought to be. Hence the character of Christ + convicts us of sin, as does no other manifestation of God. See, on + the passages from Romans, the Commentary of Philippi. + + Fleming, Vocab. Philos., 286—“Moral laws are derived from the + nature and will of God, and the character and condition of man.” + God’s nature is reflected in the laws of our nature. Since law is + inwrought into man’s nature, man is a law unto himself. To conform + to his own nature, in which conscience is supreme, is to conform + to the nature of God. The law is only the revelation of the + constitutive principles of being, the declaration of what must be, + so long as man is man and God is God. It says in effect: “Be like + God, or you cannot be truly man.” So moral law is not simply a + test of obedience, but is also a revelation of eternal reality. + Man cannot be lost to God, without being lost to himself. “The + ‘_hands of the living God_’ (_Heb. 10:31_) into which we fall, are + the laws of nature.” In the spiritual world “the same wheels + revolve, only there is no iron” (Drummond, Natural Law in the + Spiritual World, 27). Wuttke, Christian Ethics, 2:82-92—“The + totality of created being is to be in harmony with God and with + itself. The idea of this harmony, as active in God under the form + of will, is God’s law.” A manuscript of the U. S. Constitution was + so written that when held at a little distance the shading of the + letters and their position showed the countenance of George + Washington. So the law of God is only God’s face disclosed to + human sight. + + R. W. Emerson, Woodnotes, 57—“Conscious Law is King of kings.” Two + centuries ago John Norton wrote a book entitled The Orthodox + Evangelist, “designed for the begetting and establishing of the + faith which is in Jesus,” in which we find the following: “God + doth not will things because they are just, but things are + therefore just because God so willeth them. What reasonable man + but will yield that the being of the moral law hath no necessary + connection with the being of God? That the actions of men not + conformable to this law should be sin, that death should be the + punishment of sin, these are the constitutions of God, proceeding + from him not by way of necessity of nature, but freely, as effects + and products of his eternal good pleasure.” This is to make God an + arbitrary despot. We should not say that God _makes_ law, nor on + the other hand that God _is subject to_ law, but rather that God + _is_ law and _the source_ of law. + + Bowne, Philos. of Theism, 161—“God’s law is organic—inwrought into + the constitution of men and things. The chart however does not + make the channel.... A law of nature is never the antecedent but + the consequence of reality. What right has this consequence of + reality to be personalized and made the ruler and source of + reality? Law is only the fixed mode in which reality works. Law + therefore can explain nothing. Only God, from whom reality + springs, can explain reality.” In other words, law is never an + agent but always a method—the method of God, or rather of Christ + who is the only Revealer of God. Christ’s life in the flesh is the + clearest manifestation of him who is the principle of law in the + physical and moral universe. Christ is the Reason of God in + expression. It was he who gave the law on Mount Sinai as well as + in the Sermon on the Mount. For fuller treatment of the subject, + see Bowen, Metaph. and Ethics, 321-344; Talbot, Ethical + Prolegomena, in Bap. Quar., July, 1877:257-274; Whewell, Elements + of Morality, 2:35; and especially E. G. Robinson, Principles and + Practice of Morality, 79-108. + + +Each of the two last-mentioned characteristics of God’s law is important +in its implications. We treat of these in their order. + +First, the law of God as a transcript of the divine nature.—If this be the +nature of the law, then certain common misconceptions of it are excluded. +The law of God is + +(_a_) Not arbitrary, or the product of arbitrary will. Since the will from +which the law springs is a revelation of God’s nature, there can be no +rashness or unwisdom in the law itself. + + + E. G. Robinson, Christ. Theology, 193—“No law of God seems ever to + have been arbitrarily enacted, or simply with a view to certain + ends to be accomplished; it always represented some reality of + life which it was inexorably necessary that those who were to be + regulated should carefully observe.” The theory that law + originates in arbitrary will results in an effeminate type of + piety, just as the theory that legislation has for its sole end + the greatest happiness results in all manner of compromises of + justice. Jones, Robert Browning, 43—“He who cheats his neighbor + believes in tortuosity, and, as Carlyle says, has the supreme + Quack for his god.” + + +(b) Not temporary, or ordained simply to meet an exigency. The law is a +manifestation, not of temporary moods or desires, but of the essential +nature of God. + + + The great speech of Sophocles’ Antigone gives us this conception + of law: “The ordinances of the gods are unwritten, but sure. Not + one of them is for to-day or for yesterday alone, but they live + forever.” Moses might break the tables of stone upon which the law + was inscribed, and Jehoiakim might cut up the scroll and cast it + into the fire (_Ex. 32:19_; _Jer. 36:23_), but the law remained + eternal as before in the nature of God and in the constitution of + man. Prof. Walter Rauschenbusch: “The moral laws are just as + stable as the law of gravitation. Every fuzzy human chicken that + is hatched into this world tries to fool with those laws. Some + grow wiser in the process and some do not. We talk about breaking + God’s laws. But after those laws have been broken several billion + times since Adam first tried to play with them, those laws are + still intact and no seam or fracture is visible in them,—not even + a scratch on the enamel. But the lawbreakers—that is another + story. If you want to find their fragments, go to the ruins of + Egypt, of Babylon, of Jerusalem; study statistics; read faces; + keep your eyes open; visit Blackwell’s Island; walk through the + graveyard and read the invisible inscriptions left by the Angel of + Judgment, for instance: ‘Here lie the fragments of John Smith, who + contradicted his Maker, played football with the ten commandments, + and departed this life at the age of thirty-five. His mother and + wife weep for him. Nobody else does. May he rest in peace!’ ” + + +(_c_) Not merely negative, or a law of mere prohibition,—since positive +conformity to God is the inmost requisition of law. + +The negative form of the commandments in the decalogue merely takes for +granted the evil inclination in men’s hearts and practically opposes its +gratification. In the case of each commandment a whole province of the +moral life is taken into the account, although the act expressly forbidden +is the acme of evil in that one province. So the decalogue makes itself +intelligible: it crosses man’s path just where he most feels inclined to +wander. But back of the negative and specific expression in each case lies +the whole mass of moral requirement: the thin edge of the wedge has the +positive demand of holiness behind it, without obedience to which even the +prohibition cannot in spirit be obeyed. Thus “_the law is spiritual_” +(_Rom. 7:14_), and requires likeness in character and life to the +spiritual God; _John 4:24_—“_God is spirit, and they that worship him must +worship in spirit and truth._” + +(_d_) Not partial, or addressed to one part only of man’s being,—since +likeness to God requires purity of substance in man’s soul and body, as +well as purity in all the thoughts and acts that proceed therefrom. As law +proceeds from the nature of God, so it requires conformity to that nature +in the nature of man. + + + Whatever God gave to man at the beginning he requires of man with + interest; _cf._ _Mat. 25:27_—“_thou oughtest therefore to have put + my money to the bankers, and at my coming I should have received + back mine own with interest._” Whatever comes short of perfect + purity in soul or perfect health in body is non-conformity to God + and contradicts his law, it being understood that only that + perfection is demanded which answers to the creature’s stage of + growth and progress, so that of the child there is required only + the perfection of the child, of the youth only the perfection of + the youth, of the man only the perfection of the man. See Julius + Müller, Doctrine of Sin, chapter 1. + + +(_e_) Not outwardly published,—since all positive enactment is only the +imperfect expression of this underlying and unwritten law of being. + + + Much misunderstanding of God’s law results from confounding it + with published enactment. Paul takes the larger view that the law + is independent of such expression; see _Rom. 2:14, 15_—“_for when + Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, + these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves; in that + they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their + conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with + another accusing or else excusing them:_” see Expositor’s Greek + Testament, _in loco_: “ ‘_written on their hearts_,’ when + contrasted with the law written on the tables of stone, is equal + to ‘unwritten’; the Apostle refers to what the Greeks called + ἄγραφος νόμος.” + + +(_f_) Not inwardly conscious, or limited in its scope by men’s +consciousness of it. Like the laws of our physical being, the moral law +exists whether we recognize it or not. + + + Overeating brings its penalty in dyspepsia, whether we are + conscious of our fault or not. We cannot by ignorance or by vote + repeal the laws of our physical system. Self-will does not secure + independence, any more than the stars can by combination abolish + gravitation. Man cannot get rid of God’s dominion by denying its + existence, nor by refusing submission to it. _Psalm 2:1-4_—“_Why + do the nations rage ... against Jehovah ... saying, Let us break + their bonds asunder.... He that sitteth in the heavens will + laugh._” Salter, First Steps in Philosophy, 94—“The fact that one + is not aware of obligation no more affects its reality than + ignorance of what is at the centre of the earth affects the nature + of what is really discoverable there. We discover obligation, and + do not create it by thinking of it, any more than we create the + sensible world by thinking of it.” + + +(_g_) Not local, or confined to place,—since no moral creature can escape +from God, from his own being, or from the natural necessity that +unlikeness to God should involve misery and ruin. + + + “The Dutch auction” was the public offer of property at a price + beyond its value, followed by the lowering of the price until some + one accepted it as a purchaser. There is no such local exception + to the full validity of God’s demands. The moral law has even more + necessary and universal sway than the law of gravitation in the + physical universe. It is inwrought into the very constitution of + man, and of every other moral being. The man who offended the + Roman Emperor found the whole empire a prison. + + +(_h_) Not changeable, or capable of modification. Since law represents the +unchangeable nature of God, it is not a sliding scale of requirements +which adapts itself to the ability of the subjects. God himself cannot +change it without ceasing to be God. + + + The law, then, has a deeper foundation than that God merely “said + so.” God’s word and God’s will are revelations of his inmost + being; every transgression of the law is a stab at the heart of + God. Simon, Reconciliation, 141, 142—“God continues to demand + loyalty even after man has proved disloyal. Sin changes man, and + man’s change involves a change in God. Man now regards God as a + ruler and exactor, and God must regard man as a defaulter and a + rebel.” God’s requirement is not lessened because man is unable to + meet it. This inability is itself non-conformity to law, and is no + excuse for sin; see Dr. Bushnell’s sermon on “Duty not measured by + Ability.” The man with the withered hand would not have been + justified in refusing to stretch it forth at Jesus’ command (_Mat. + 12:10-13_). + + The obligation to obey this law and to be conformed to God’s + perfect moral character is based upon man’s original ability and + the gifts which God bestowed upon him at the beginning. Created in + the image of God, it is man’s duty to render back to God that + which God first gave, enlarged and improved by growth and culture + (_Luke 19:23_—“_wherefore gavest thou not my money into the bank, + and I at my coming should have required it with interest_”). This + obligation is not impaired by sin and the weakening of man’s + powers. To let down the standard would be to misrepresent God. + Adolphe Monod would not save himself from shame and remorse by + lowering the claims of the law: “Save first the holy law of my + God,” he says, “after that you shall save me!” + + Even salvation is not through violation of law. The moral law is + immutable, because it is a transcript of the nature of the + immutable God. Shall nature conform to me, or I to nature? If I + attempt to resist even physical laws, I am crushed. I can use + nature only by obeying her laws. Lord Bacon: “Natura enim non nisi + parendo vincitur.” So in the moral realm. We cannot buy off nor + escape the moral law of God. God will not, and God can not, change + his law by one hair’s breadth, even to save a universe of sinners. + Omar Kháyyám, in his Rubáiyát, begs his god to “reconcile the law + to my desires.” Marie Corelli says well: “As if a gnat should seek + to build a cathedral, and should ask to have the laws of + architecture altered to suit its gnat-like capacity.” See + Martineau, Types, 2:120. + + +Secondly, the law of God as the ideal of human nature.—A law thus +identical with the eternal and necessary relations of the creature to the +Creator, and demanding of the creature nothing less than perfect holiness, +as the condition of harmony with the infinite holiness of God, is adapted +to man’s finite nature, as needing law; to man’s free nature, as needing +moral law; and to man’s progressive nature, as needing ideal law. + + + Man, as finite, needs law, just as railway cars need a track to + guide them—to leap the track is to find, not freedom, but ruin. + Railway President: “Our rules are written in blood.” Goethe, Was + Wir Bringen, 19 Auftritt: “In vain shall spirits that are all + unbound To the pure heights of perfectness aspire; In limitation + first the Master shines, And law alone can give us liberty.”—Man, + as a free being, needs moral law. He is not an automaton, a + creature of necessity, governed only by physical influences. With + conscience to command the right, and will to choose or reject it, + his true dignity and calling are that he should freely realize the + right.—Man, as a progressive being, needs nothing less than an + ideal and infinite standard of attainment, a goal which he can + never overpass, an end which shall ever attract and urge him + forward. This he finds in the holiness of God. + + The law is a _fence_, not only for ownership, but for care. God + not only demands, but he protects. Law is the transcript of love + as well as of holiness. We may reverse the well-known couplet and + say: “I slept, and dreamed that life was Duty; I woke and found + that life was Beauty.” “Cui servire regnare est.” Butcher, Aspects + of Greek Genius, 56—“In Plato’s Crito, the Laws are made to + present themselves in person to Socrates in prison, not only as + the guardians of his liberty, but as his lifelong friends, his + well-wishers, his equals, with whom he had of his own free will + entered into binding compact.” It does not harm the scholar to + have before him the ideal of perfect scholarship; nor the teacher + to have before him the ideal of a perfect school; nor the + legislator to have before him the ideal of perfect law. Gordon, + The Christ of To-day, 134—“The moral goal must be a flying goal; + the standard to which we are to grow must be ever rising; the type + to which we are to be conformed must have in it inexhaustible + fulness.” + + John Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 2:119—“It is just the + best, purest, noblest human souls, who are least satisfied with + themselves and their own spiritual attainments; and the reason is + that the human is not a nature essentially different from the + divine, but a nature which, just because it is in essential + affinity with God, can be satisfied with nothing less than a + divine perfection.” J. M. Whiton, The Divine Satisfaction: “Law + requires being, character, likeness to God. It is automatic, + self-operating. Penalty is untransferable. It cannot admit of any + other satisfaction than the reëstablishment of the normal relation + which it requires. Punishment proclaims that the law has not been + satisfied. There is no cancelling of the curse except through the + growing up of the normal relation. Blessing and curse ensue upon + what we are, not upon what we were. Reparation is within the + spirit itself. The atonement is educational, not governmental.” We + reply that the atonement is both governmental and educational, and + that reparation must first be made to the holiness of God before + conscience, the mirror of God’s holiness, can reflect that + reparation and be at peace. + + +The law of God is therefore characterized by: + +(_a_) All-comprehensiveness.—It is over us at all times; it respects our +past, our present, our future. It forbids every conceivable sin; it +requires every conceivable virtue; omissions as well as commissions are +condemned by it. + + + _Ps. 119:96_—“_I have seen an end of all perfection ... thy + commandment is exceeding broad_”; _Rom. 3:23_—“_all have sinned, + and fall short of the glory of God_”; _James 4:17_—“_To him + therefore that knoweth to do good, and __ doeth it not, to him it + is sin._” Gravitation holds the mote as well as the world. God’s + law detects and denounces the least sin, so that without atonement + it cannot be pardoned. The law of gravitation may be suspended or + abrogated, for it has no necessary ground in God’s being; but + God’s moral law cannot be suspended or abrogated, for that would + contradict God’s holiness. “About right” is not “all right.” “The + giant hexagonal pillars of basalt in the Scottish Staffa are + identical in form with the microscopic crystals of the same + mineral.” So God is our pattern, and goodness is our likeness to + him. + + +(_b_) Spirituality.—It demands not only right acts and words, but also +right dispositions and states. Perfect obedience requires not only the +intense and unremitting reign of love toward God and man, but conformity +of the whole inward and outward nature of man to the holiness of God. + + + _Mat. 5:22, 28_—the angry word is murder; the sinful look is + adultery. _Mark 12:30, 31_—“_thou shalt love the Lord thy God with + all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and + with all thy strength.... Thou shalt love thy neighbor as + thyself_”; _2 Cor. 10:5_—“_bringing every thought into captivity + to the obedience of Christ_”; _Eph. 5:1_—“_Be ye therefore + imitators of God, as beloved children_”; _1 Pet. 1:16_—“_Ye shall + be holy; for I am holy._” As the brightest electric light, seen + through a smoked glass against the sun, appears like a black spot, + so the brightest unregenerate character is dark, when compared + with the holiness of God. Matheson, Moments on the Mount, 235, + remarks on _Gal. 6:4_—“_let each man prove his own work, and then + shall he have his glorying in regard of himself alone, and not of + his neighbor_”—“I have a small candle and I compare it with my + brother’s taper and come away rejoicing. Why not compare it with + the sun? Then I shall lose my pride and uncharitableness.” The + distance to the sun from the top of an ant-hill and from the top + of Mount Everest is nearly the same. The African princess praised + for her beauty had no way to verify the compliments paid her but + by looking in the glassy surface of the pool. But the trader came + and sold her a mirror. Then she was so shocked at her own ugliness + that she broke the mirror in pieces. So we look into the mirror of + God’s law, compare ourselves with the Christ who is reflected + there, and hate the mirror which reveals us to ourselves (_James + 1:23, 24_). + + +(_c_) Solidarity.—It exhibits in all its parts the nature of the one +Lawgiver, and it expresses, in its least command, the one requirement of +harmony with him. + + + _Mat. 5:48_—“_Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly + Father is perfect_”; _Mark 12:29, 30_—“_The Lord our God, the Lord + is one: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God_”; _James 2:10_—“_For + whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, + he is become guilty of all_”; _4:12_—“_One only is the lawgiver + and judge._” Even little rattlesnakes are snakes. One link broken + in the chain, and the bucket falls into the well. The least sin + separates us from God. The least sin renders us guilty of the + whole law, because it shows us to lack the love which is required + in all the commandments. Those who send us to the Sermon on the + Mount for salvation send us to a tribunal that damns us. The + Sermon on the Mount is but a republication of the law given on + Sinai, but now in more spiritual and penetrating form. Thunders + and lightnings proceed from the N. T., as from the O. T., mount. + The Sermon on the Mount is only the introductory lecture of Jesus’ + theological course, as _John 14-17_ is the closing lecture. In it + is announced the law, which prepares the way for the gospel. Those + who would degrade doctrine by exalting precept will find that they + have left men without the motive or the power to keep the precept. + Æschylus, Agamemnon: “For there’s no bulwark in man’s wealth to + him Who, through a surfeit, kicks—into the dim And + disappearing—Right’s great altar.” + + +Only to the first man, then, was the law proposed as a method of +salvation. With the first sin, all hope of obtaining the divine favor by +perfect obedience is lost. To sinners the law remains as a means of +discovering and developing sin in its true nature, and of compelling a +recourse to the mercy provided in Jesus Christ. + + + _2 Chron. 34:19_—“_And it came to pass, when the king had heard + the words of the law, that he rent his clothes_”; _Job 42:5, + 6_—“_I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear; But now mine + eye seeth thee; Wherefore I abhor myself, And repent in dust and + ashes._” The revelation of God in _Is. 6:3, 5_—“_Holy, holy, holy, + is Jehovah of hosts_”—causes the prophet to cry like the leper: + “_Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean + lips._” _Rom. 3:20_—“_by the works of the law shall no flesh be + justified in his sight; for through the law cometh the __ + knowledge of sin_”; _5:20_—“_the law came in besides, that the + trespass might abound_”; _7:7, 8_—“_I had not known sin, except + through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had + said, Thou shalt not covet: but sin, finding occasion, wrought in + me through the commandment all manner of coveting: for apart from + the law sin is dead_”; _Gal. 3:24_—“_So that the law is become our + tutor,_” or attendant-slave, “_to bring us unto Christ, that we + might be justified by faith_”—the law trains our wayward boyhood + and leads it to Christ the Master, as in old times the slave + accompanied children to school. Stevens, Pauline Theology, 177, + 178—“The law increases sin by increasing the knowledge of sin and + by increasing the activity of sin. The law does not add to the + inherent energy of the sinful principle which pervades human + nature, but it does cause this principle to reveal itself more + energetically in sinful act.” The law inspires fear, but it leads + to love. The Rabbins said that, if Israel repented but for one + day, the Messiah would appear. + + No man ever yet drew a straight line or a perfect curve; yet he + would be a poor architect who contented himself with anything + less. Since men never come up to their ideals, he who aims to live + only an _average_ moral life will inevitably fall _below_ the + average. The law, then, leads to Christ. He who is the _ideal_ is + also the _way_ to attain the ideal. He who is himself the Word and + the Law embodied, is also the Spirit of life that makes obedience + possible to us (_John 14:6_—“_I am the way, and the truth, and the + life_”; _Rom. 8:2_—“_For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ + Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death_”). Mrs. + Browning, Aurora Leigh: “The Christ himself had been no Lawgiver, + Unless he had given the Life too with the Law.” Christ _for_ us + upon the Cross, and Christ _in_ us by his Spirit, is the only + deliverance from the curse of the law; _Gal 3:13_—“_Christ + redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for + us._” We must see the claims of the law satisfied and the law + itself written on our hearts. We are “_reconciled to God through + the death of his Son_,” but we are also _“__saved by his life__”__ + (Rom. 5:10_). + + Robert Browning, in The Ring and the Book, represents Caponsacchi + as comparing himself at his best with the new ideal of “perfect as + Father in heaven is perfect” suggested by Pompilia’s purity, and + as breaking out into the cry: “O great, just, good God! Miserable + me!” In the Interpreter’s House of Pilgrim’s Progress, Law only + stirred up the dust in the foul room,—the Gospel had to sprinkle + water on the floor before it could be cleansed. E. G. Robinson: + “It is necessary to smoke a man out, before you can bring a higher + motive to bear upon him.” Barnabas said that Christ was the answer + to the riddle of the law. _Rom. 10:4_—“_Christ is the end of the + law unto righteousness to every one that believeth._” The railroad + track opposite Detroit on the St. Clair River runs to the edge of + the dock and seems intended to plunge the train into the abyss. + But when the ferry boat comes up, rails are seen upon its deck, + and the boat is the end of the track, to carry passengers over to + Detroit. So the law, which by itself would bring only destruction, + finds its end in Christ who ensures our passage to the celestial + city. + + Law, then, with its picture of spotless innocence, simply reminds + man of the heights from which he has fallen. “It is a mirror which + reveals derangement, but does not create or remove it.” With its + demand of absolute perfection, up to the measure of man’s original + endowments and possibilities, it drives us, in despair of + ourselves, to Christ as our only righteousness and our only Savior + (_Rom. 8:3, 4_—“_For what the law could not do, in that it was + weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness + of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the + ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after + the flesh, but after the Spirit_”; _Phil. 3:8, 9_—“_that I may + gain Christ, and be found in him, not having a righteousness of + mine own, even that which is of the law, but that which is through + faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith_”). + Thus law must prepare the way for grace, and John the Baptist must + precede Christ. + + When Sarah Bernhardt was solicited to add an eleventh commandment, + she declined upon the ground there were already ten too many. It + was an expression of pagan contempt of law. In heathendom, sin and + insensibility to sin increased together. In Judaism and + Christianity, on the contrary, there has been a growing sense of + sin’s guilt and condemnableness. McLaren, in S. S. Times, Sept. + 23, 1893:600—“Among the Jews there was a far profounder sense of + sin than in any other ancient nation. The law written on men’s + hearts evoked a lower consciousness of sin, and there are prayers + on the Assyrian and Babylonian tablets which may almost stand + beside the 51st Psalm. But, on the whole, the deep sense of sin + was the product of the revealed law.” See Fairbairn, Revelation of + Law and Scripture; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 187-242; Hovey, God + with Us, 187-210; Julius Müller, Doctrine of Sin, 1:45-50; Murphy, + Scientific Bases of Faith, 53-71; Martineau, Types, 2:120-125. + + +2. _Positive Enactment_, or the expression of the will of God in published +ordinances. This is also two-fold: + +A. General moral precepts.—These are written summaries of the elemental +law (Mat. 5:48; 22:37-40), or authorized applications of it to special +human conditions (Ex. 20:1-17; Mat. chap. 5-8). + + + _Mat. 5:48_—“_Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly + Father is perfect_”; _22:37-40_—“_Thou shalt love the Lord thy + God.... Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two + commandments the whole law hangeth and the prophets_”; _Ex. + 20:1-17_—the Ten Commandments; _Mat., chap. 5-8_—the Sermon on the + Mount. _Cf._ Augustine, on _Ps. 57:1_. + + Solly, On the Will, 162, gives two illustrations of the fact that + positive precepts are merely applications of elemental law or the + law of nature: “ ‘_Thou shalt not steal_,’ is a moral law which + may be stated thus: _thou shalt not take that for thy own + property, which is the property of another_. The contradictory of + this proposition would be: _thou mayest take that for thy own + property which is the property of another_. But this is a + contradiction in terms; for it is the very conception of property, + that the owner stands in a peculiar relation to its subject + matter; and what is every man’s property is no man’s property, as + it is _proper_ to no man. Hence the contradictory of the + commandment contains a simple contradiction directly it is made a + rule universal; and the commandment itself is established as one + of the principles for the harmony of individual wills. + + “ ‘_Thou shalt not tell a lie_,’ as a rule of morality, may be + expressed generally: _thou shall not by thy outward act make + another to believe thy thought to be other than it is_. The + contradictory made universal is: _every man may by his outward act + make another to believe his thought to be other than it is_. Now + this maxim also contains a contradiction, and is self-destructive. + It conveys a permission to do that which is rendered impossible by + the permission itself. Absolute and universal indifference to + truth, or the entire mutual independence of the thought and + symbol, makes the symbol cease to be a symbol, and the conveyance + of thought by its means, an impossibility.” + + Kant, Metaphysic of Ethics, 48, 90—“Fundamental law of reason: So + act, that thy maxims of will might become laws in a system of + universal moral legislation.” This is Kant’s categorical + imperative. He expresses it in yet another form: “Act from maxims + fit to be regarded as universal laws of nature.” For expositions + of the Decalogue which bring out its spiritual meaning, see Kurtz, + Religionslehre, 9-72; Dick, Theology, 2:513-554; Dwight, Theology, + 3:163-560; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 3:259-465. + + +B. Ceremonial or special injunctions.—These are illustrations of the +elemental law, or approximate revelations of it, suited to lower degrees +of capacity and to earlier stages of spiritual training (Ez. 20:25; Mat. +19:8; Mark 10:5). Though temporary, only God can say when they cease to be +binding upon us in their outward form. + +All positive enactments, therefore, whether they be moral or ceremonial, +are republications of elemental law. Their forms may change, but the +substance is eternal. Certain modes of expression, like the Mosaic system, +may be abolished, but the essential demands are unchanging (Mat. 5:17, 18; +cf. Eph. 2:15). From the imperfection of human language, no positive +enactments are able to express in themselves the whole content and meaning +of the elemental law. “It is not the purpose of revelation to disclose the +whole of our duties.” Scripture is not a complete code of rules for +practical action, but an enunciation of principles, with occasional +precepts by way of illustration. Hence we must supplement the positive +enactment by the law of being—the moral ideal found in the nature of God. + + + _Ez. 20:25_—“_Moreover also I gave them statutes that were not + good, and ordinances wherein they should not live_”; _Mat. + 19:8_—“_Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away + your wives_”; _Mark 10:5_—“_For your hardness of heart he wrote + you this commandment_”; _Mat. 5:17, 18_—“_Think not that I came to + destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to + fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass + away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the + law, till all things be accomplished_”; _cf._ _Eph. 2:15_—“_having + abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments + contained in ordinances_”; _Heb. 8:7_—“_if that first covenant had + been faultless, then would no place have been sought for a + second._” Fisher, Nature and Method of Revelation, 90—“After the + coming of the new covenant, the keeping up of the old was as + needless a burden as winter garments in the mild air of summer, or + as the attempt of an adult to wear the clothes of a child.” + + Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 2:5-35—“Jesus repudiates for himself and + for his disciples absolute subjection to O. T. Sabbath law (_Mark + 2:27_ _sq._); to O. T. law as to external defilements (_Mark + 7:15_); to O. T. divorce law (_Mark 10:2_ _sq._). He would + ‘_fulfil_’ law and prophets by complete practical performance of + the revealed will of God. He would bring out their inner meaning, + not by literal and slavish obedience to every minute requirement + of the Mosaic law, but by revealing in himself the perfect life + and work toward which they tended. He would perfect the O. T. + conceptions of God—not keep them intact in their literal form, but + in their essential spirit. Not by quantitative extension, but by + qualitative renewal, he would fulfil the law and the prophets. He + would bring the imperfect expression in the O. T. to perfection, + not by servile letter-worship or allegorizing, but through grasp + of the divine idea.” + + Scripture is not a series of minute injunctions and prohibitions + such as the Pharisees and the Jesuits laid down. The Koran showed + its immeasurable inferiority to the Bible by establishing the + letter instead of the spirit, by giving permanent, definite, and + specific rules of conduct, instead of leaving room for the growth + of the free spirit and for the education of conscience. This is + not true either of O. T. or of N. T. law. In Miss Fowler’s novel + The Farringdons, Mrs. Herbert wishes “that the Bible had been + written on the principle of that dreadful little book called + ‘Don’t,’ which gives a list of the solecisms you should avoid; she + would have understood it so much better than the present system.” + Our Savior’s words about giving to him that asketh, and turning + the cheek to the smiter (_Mat 5:39-42_) must be interpreted by the + principle of love that lies at the foundation of the law. Giving + to every tramp and yielding to every marauder is not pleasing our + neighbor “_for that which is good unto edifying_” (_Rom. 15:2_). + Only by confounding the divine law with Scripture prohibition + could one write as in N. Amer. Rev., Feb. 1890:275—“Sin is the + transgression of a divine law; but there is no divine law against + suicide; therefore suicide is not sin.” + + The written law was imperfect because God could, at the time, give + no higher to an unenlightened people. “But to say that the _scope_ + and _design_ were imperfectly moral, is contradicted by the whole + course of the history. We must ask what is the moral standard in + which this course of education issues.” And this we find in the + life and precepts of Christ. Even the law of repentance and faith + does not take the place of the old law of being, but applies the + latter to the special conditions of sin. Under the Levitical law, + the prohibition of the touching of the dry bone (_Num. 19:16_), + equally with the purifications and sacrifices, the separations and + penalties of the Mosaic code, expressed God’s holiness and his + repelling from him all that savored of sin or death. The laws with + regard to leprosy were symbolic, as well as sanitary. So church + polity and the ordinances are not arbitrary requirements, but they + publish to dull sense-environed consciences, better than abstract + propositions could have done, the fundamental truths of the + Christian scheme. Hence they are not to be abrogated “_till he + come_” (_1 Cor. 11:26_). + + The Puritans, however, in reënacting the Mosaic code, made the + mistake of confounding the eternal law of God with a partial, + temporary, and obsolete expression of it. So we are not to rest in + external precepts respecting woman’s hair and dress and speech, + but to find the underlying principle of modesty and subordination + which alone is of universal and eternal validity. Robert Browning, + The Ring and the Book, 1:255—“God breathes, not speaks, his + verdicts, felt not heard—Passed on successively to each court, I + call Man’s conscience, custom, manners, all that make More and + more effort to promulgate, mark God’s verdict in determinable + words, Till last come human jurists—solidify Fluid results,—what’s + fixable lies forged, Statute,—the residue escapes in fume, Yet + hangs aloft a cloud, as palpable To the finer sense as word the + legist welds. Justinian’s Pandects only make precise What simply + sparkled in men’s eyes before, Twitched in their brow or quivered + on their lip, Waited the speech they called, but would not come.” + See Mozley, Ruling Ideas in Early Ages, 104; Tulloch, Doctrine of + Sin, 141-144; Finney, Syst. Theol., 1-40, 135-319; Mansel, + Metaphysics, 378, 379; H. B. Smith, System of Theology, 191-195. + + Paul’s injunction to women to keep silence in the churches (_1 + Cor. 14:35_; _1 Tim. 2:11,12_) is to be interpreted by the larger + law of gospel equality and privilege (_Col. 3:11_). Modesty and + subordination once required a seclusion of the female sex which is + no longer obligatory. Christianity has emancipated woman and has + restored her to the dignity which belonged to her at the + beginning. “In the old dispensation Miriam and Deborah and Huldah + were recognized as leaders of God’s people, and Anna was a notable + prophetess in the temple courts at the time of the coming of + Christ. Elizabeth and Mary spoke songs of praise for all + generations. A prophecy of _Joel 2:28_ was that the daughters of + the Lord’s people should prophesy, under the guidance of the + Spirit, in the new dispensation. Philip the evangelist had ‘_four + virgin daughters, who prophesied_’ (_Acts 21:9_), and Paul + cautioned Christian women to have their heads covered when they + prayed or prophesied in public (_1 Cor. 11:5_), but had no words + against the work of such women. He brought Priscilla with him to + Ephesus, where she aided in training Apollos into better preaching + power (_Acts 18:26_). He welcomed and was grateful for the work of + those women who labored with him in the gospel at Philippi (_Phil. + 4:3_). And it is certainly an inference from the spirit and + teachings of Paul that we should rejoice in the efficient service + and sound words of Christian women to-day in the Sunday School and + in the missionary field.” The command “_And he that heareth let + him say, Come_” (_Rev. 22:17_) is addressed to women also. See + Ellen Batelle Dietrick, Women in the Early Christian Ministry; + _per contra_, see G. F. Wilkin, Prophesying of Women, 183-193. + + +III. Relation of the Law to the Grace of God. + + +In human government, while law is an expression of the will of the +governing power, and so of the nature lying behind the will, it is by no +means an exhaustive expression of that will and nature, since it consists +only of general ordinances, and leaves room for particular acts of command +through the executive, as well as for “the institution of equity, the +faculty of discretionary punishment, and the prerogative of pardon.” + + + Amos, Science of Law, 29-46, shows how “the institution of equity, + the faculty of discretionary punishment, and the prerogative of + pardon” all involve expressions of will above and beyond what is + contained in mere statute. Century Dictionary, on Equity: “English + law had once to do only with property in goods, houses and lands. + A man who had none of these might have an interest in a salary, a + patent, a contract, a copyright, a security, but a creditor could + not at common law levy upon these. When the creditor applied to + the crown for redress, a chancellor or keeper of the king’s + conscience was appointed, who determined what and how the debtor + should pay. Often the debtor was required to put his intangible + property into the hands of a receiver and could regain possession + of it only when the claim against it was satisfied. These + chancellors’ courts were called courts of equity, and redressed + wrongs which the common law did not provide for. In later times + law and equity are administered for the most part by the same + courts. The same court sits at one time as a court of law, and at + another time as a court of equity.” “Summa lex, summa injuria,” is + sometimes true. + + +Applying now to the divine law this illustration drawn from human law, we +remark: + +(_a_) The law of God is a _general_ expression of God’s will, applicable +to all moral beings. It therefore does not include the possibility of +special injunctions to individuals, and special acts of wisdom and power +in creation and providence. The very specialty of these latter expressions +of will prevents us from classing them under the category of law. + + + Lord Bacon, Confession of Faith: “The soul of man was not produced + by heaven or earth, but was breathed immediately from God; so the + ways and dealings of God with spirits are not included in nature, + that is, in the laws of heaven and earth, but are reserved to the + law of his secret will and grace.” + + +(_b_) The law of God, accordingly, is a _partial_, not an exhaustive, +expression of God’s nature. It constitutes, indeed, a manifestation of +that attribute of holiness which is fundamental in God, and which man must +possess in order to be in harmony with God. But it does not fully express +God’s nature in its aspects of personality, sovereignty, helpfulness, +mercy. + + + The chief error of all pantheistic theology is the assumption that + law is an exhaustive expression of God: Strauss, Glaubenslehre, + 1:31—“If nature, as the self-realization of the divine essence, is + equal to this divine essence, then it is infinite, and there can + be nothing above and beyond it.” This is a denial of the + transcendence of God (see notes on Pantheism, pages 100-105). Mere + law is illustrated by the Buddhist proverb: “As the cartwheel + follows the tread of the ox, so punishment follows sin.” Denovan: + “Apart from Christ, even if we have never yet broken the law, it + is only by steady and perfect obedience for the entire future that + we can remain justified. If we have sinned, we can be justified + [without Christ] only by suffering and exhausting the whole + penalty of the law.” + + +(_c_) Mere law, therefore, leaves God’s nature in these aspects of +personality, sovereignty, helpfulness, mercy, to be expressed toward +sinners in another way, namely, through the atoning, regenerating, +pardoning, sanctifying work of the gospel of Christ. As creation does not +exclude miracles, so law does not exclude grace (Rom. 8:3—“what the law +could not do ... God” did). + + + Murphy, Scientific Bases, 303-327, esp. 315—“To impersonal law, it + is indifferent whether its subjects obey or not. But God desires, + not the punishment, but the destruction, of sin.” Campbell, + Atonement, Introd., 28—“There are two regions of the divine + self-manifestation, one the reign of law, the other the kingdom of + God.” C. H. M.: “Law is the transcript of the mind of God as to + what man ought to be. But God is not merely law, but love. There + is more in his heart than could be wrapped up in the ‘ten words.’ + Not the law, but only Christ, is the perfect image of God” (_John + 1:17_—“_For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came + through Jesus Christ_”). So there is more in man’s heart toward + God than exact fulfilment of requirement. The mother who + sacrifices herself for her sick child does it, not because she + must, but because she loves. To say that we are saved by grace, is + to say that we are saved both without merit on our own part, and + without necessity on the part of God. Grace is made known in + proclamation, offer, command; but in all these it is gospel, or + glad-tidings. + + +(_d_) Grace is to be regarded, however, not as abrogating law, but as +republishing and enforcing it (Rom. 3:31—“we establish the law”). By +removing obstacles to pardon in the mind of God, and by enabling man to +obey, grace secures the perfect fulfilment of law (Rom. 8:4—“that the +ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us”). Even grace has its law +(Rom. 8:2—“the law of the Spirit of life”); another higher law of grace, +the operation of individualizing mercy, overbears the “law of sin and of +death,”—this last, as in the case of the miracle, not being suspended, +annulled, or violated, but being merged in, while it is transcended by, +the exertion of personal divine will. + + + Hooker, Eccl. Polity, 1:155, 185, 194—“Man, having utterly + disabled his nature unto those [natural] means, hath had other + revealed by God, and hath received from heaven a law to teach him + how that which is desired naturally, must now be supernaturally + attained. Finally, we see that, because those latter exclude not + the former as unnecessary, therefore the law of grace teaches and + includes natural duties also, such as are hard to ascertain by the + law of nature.” The truth is midway between the Pelagian view, + that there is no obstacle to the forgiveness of sins, and the + modern rationalistic view, that since law fully expresses God, + there can be no forgiveness of sins at all. Greg, Creed of + Christendom, 2:217-228—“God is the only being who cannot forgive + sins.... Punishment is not the execution of a sentence, but the + occurrence of an effect.” Robertson, Lect. on Genesis, 100—“Deeds + are irrevocable,—their consequences are knit up with them + irrevocably.” So Baden Powell, Law and Gospel, in Noyes’ + Theological Essays, 27. All this is true if God be regarded as + merely the source of law. But there is such a thing as grace, and + grace is more than law. There is no forgiveness in nature, but + grace is above and beyond nature. + + Bradford, Heredity, 233, quotes from Huxley the terrible + utterance: “Nature always checkmates, without haste and without + remorse, never overlooking a mistake, or making the slightest + allowance for ignorance.” Bradford then remarks: “This is + Calvinism with God left out. Christianity does not deny or + minimize the law of retribution, but it discloses a Person who is + able to deliver in spite of it. There is grace, but grace brings + salvation to those who accept the terms of salvation—terms + strictly in accord with the laws revealed by science.” God + revealed himself, we add, not only in law but in life; see _Deut. + 1:6, 7_—“_Ye have dwelt long enough in this mountain_”—the + mountain of the law; “_turn you and take your journey_”—_i. e._, + see how God’s law is to be applied to life. + + +(_e_) Thus the revelation of grace, while it takes up and includes in +itself the revelation of law, adds something different in kind, namely, +the manifestation of the personal love of the Lawgiver. Without grace, law +has only a demanding aspect. Only in connection with grace does it become +“the perfect law, the law of liberty” (James 1:25). In fine, grace is that +larger and completer manifestation of the divine nature, of which law +constitutes the necessary but preparatory stage. + + + Law reveals God’s love and mercy, but only in their mandatory + aspect; it requires in men conformity to the love and mercy of + God; and as love and mercy in God are conditioned by holiness, so + law requires that love and mercy should be conditioned by holiness + in men. Law is therefore chiefly a revelation of holiness: it is + in grace that we find the chief revelation of love; though even + love does not save by ignoring holiness, but rather by vicariously + satisfying its demands. Robert Browning, Saul: “I spoke as I saw. + I report as man may of God’s work—All’s Love, yet all’s Law.” + + Dorner, Person of Christ, 1:64, 78—“The law was a word (λόγος), + but it was not a λόγος τέλειος, a plastic word, like the words of + God that brought forth the world, for it was only imperative, and + there was no reality nor willing corresponding to the command + (_dem Sollen fehlte das Seyn, das Wollen_). The Christian λόγος is + λόγος ἀληθειας—νόμος τέλειος τῆς ἐλευθερίας—an operative and + effective word, as that of creation.” Chaucer, The Persones Tale: + “For sothly the lawe of God is the love of God.” S. S. Times, + Sept. 14, 1901:595—“Until a man ceases to be an outsider to the + kingdom and knows the liberty of the sons of God, he is apt to + think of God as the great Exacter, the great Forbidder, who reaps + where he has not sown and gathers where he has not strewn.” + Burton, in Bap. Rev., July, 1879:261-273, art.: Law and Divine + Intervention; Farrar, Science and Theology, 184; Salmon, Reign of + Law; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 1:31. + + + +Section II.—Nature Of Sin. + + +I. Definition of Sin. + + +Sin is lack of conformity to the moral law of God, either in act, +disposition, or state. + +In explanation, we remark that (_a_) This definition regards sin as +predicable only of rational and voluntary agents. (_b_) It assumes, +however, that man has a rational nature below consciousness, and a +voluntary nature apart from actual volition. (_c_) It holds that the +divine law requires moral likeness to God in the affections and tendencies +of the nature, as well as in its outward activities. (_d_) It therefore +considers lack of conformity to the divine holiness in disposition or +state as a violation of law, equally with the outward act of +transgression. + + + In our discussion of the Will (pages 504-513), we noticed that + there are permanent states of the will, as well as of the + intellect and of the sensibilities. It is evident, moreover, that + these permanent states, unlike man’s deliberate acts, are always + very imperfectly conscious, and in many cases are not conscious at + all. Yet it is in these very states that man is most unlike God, + and so, as law only reflects God (see pages 537-544), most lacking + in conformity to God’s law. + + One main difference between Old School and New School views of sin + is that the latter constantly tends to limit sin to mere act, + while the former finds sin in the states of the soul. We propose + what we think to be a valid and proper compromise between the two. + We make sin coëxtensive, not with act, but with activity. The Old + School and the New School are not so far apart, when we remember + that the New School “choice” is _elective preference_, exercised + so soon as the child is born (Park) and reasserting itself in all + the subordinate choices of life; while the Old School “state” is + not a dead, passive, mechanical thing, but is a _state of active + movement_, or of tendency to move, toward evil. As God’s holiness + is not passive purity but purity willing (pages 268-275), so the + opposite to this, sin, is not passive impurity but is impurity + willing. + + The soul may not always be conscious, but it may always be active. + At his creation man “_became a living soul_” (_Gen. 2:7_), and it + may be doubted whether the human spirit ever ceases its activity, + any more than the divine Spirit in whose image it is made. There + is some reason to believe that even in the deepest sleep the body + rests rather than the mind. And when we consider how large a + portion of our activity is automatic and continuous, we see the + impossibility of limiting the term “sin” to the sphere of + momentary act, whether conscious or unconscious. + + E. G. Robinson: “Sin is not mere act—something foreign to the + being. It is a quality of being. There is no such thing as a sin + apart from a sinner, or an act apart from an actor. God punishes + sinners, not sins. Sin is a mode of being; as an entity by itself + it never existed. God punishes sin as a state, not as an act. Man + is not responsible for the consequences of his crimes, nor for the + acts themselves, except as they are symptomatic of his personal + states.” Dorner, Hist. Doct. Person Christ, 5:162—“The knowledge + of sin has justly been termed the β and ψ of philosophy.” + + +Our treatment of Holiness, as belonging to the nature of God (pages +268-275); of Will, as not only the faculty of volitions, but also a +permanent state of the soul (pages 504-513); and of Law as requiring the +conformity of man’s nature to God’s holiness (pages 537-544); has prepared +us for the definition of sin as a state. The chief psychological defect of +New School theology, next to its making holiness to be a mere form of +love, is its ignoring of the unconscious and subconscious elements in +human character. To help our understanding of sin as an underlying and +permanent state of the soul, we subjoin references to recent writers of +note upon psychology and its relations to theology. + + + We may preface our quotations by remarking that mind is always + greater than its conscious operations. The man is more than his + acts. Only the smallest part of the self is manifested in the + thoughts, feelings, and volitions. In counting, to put myself to + sleep, I find, when my attention has been diverted by other + thoughts, that the counting has gone on all the same. Ladd, + Philosophy of Mind, 176, speaks of the “dramatic sundering of the + ego.” There are dream-conversations. Dr. Johnson was once greatly + vexed at being worsted by his opponent in an argument in a dream. + M. Maury in a dream corrected the bad English of his real self by + the good English of his other unreal self. Spurgeon preached a + sermon in his sleep after vainly trying to excogitate one when + awake, and his wife gave him the substance of it after he woke. + Hegel said that “Life is divided into two realms—a night-life of + genius, and a day-life of consciousness.” + + Du Prel, Philosophy of Mysticism, propounds the thesis: “The ego + is not wholly embraced in self-consciousness,” and claims that + there is much of psychical activity within us of which our common + waking conception of ourselves takes no account. Thus when “dream + dramatizes”—when we engage in a dream-conversation in which our + interlocutor’s answer comes to us with a shock of surprise—if our + own mind is assumed to have furnished that answer, it has done so + by a process of unconscious activity. Dwinell, in Bib. Sac., July, + 1890:369-389—“The soul is only imperfectly in possession of its + organs, and is able to report only a small part of its activities + in consciousness.” Thoughts come to us like foundlings laid at our + door. We slip in a question to the librarian, Memory, and after + leaving it there awhile the answer appears on the bulletin board. + Delbœuf, Le Sommeil et les Rêves, 91—“The dreamer is a momentary + and involuntary dupe of his own imagination, as the poet is the + momentary and voluntary dupe, and the insane man is the permanent + and involuntary dupe.” If we are the organs not only of our own + past thinking, but, as Herbert Spencer suggests, also the organs + of the past thinking of the race, his doctrine may give + additional, though unintended, confirmation to a Scriptural view + of sin. + + William James, Will to Believe, 316, quotes from F. W. H. Myers, + in Jour. Psych. Research, who likens our ordinary consciousness to + the visible part of the solar spectrum; the total consciousness is + like that spectrum prolonged by the inclusion of the ultra-red and + the ultra-violet rays—1 to 12 and 96. “Each of us,” he says, “is + an abiding psychical entity far more extensive than he knows—an + individuality which can never express itself completely through + any corporeal manifestation. The self manifests itself through the + organism; but there is always some part of the self unmanifested, + and always, as it seems, some power of organic expression in + abeyance or reserve.” William James himself, in Scribner’s + Monthly, March, 1890:361-373, sketches the hypnotic investigations + of Janet and Binet. There is a secondary, subconscious self. + Hysteria is the lack of synthetising power, and consequent + disintegration of the field of consciousness into mutually + exclusive parts. According to Janet, the secondary and the primary + consciousnesses, added together, can never exceed the normally + total consciousness of the individual. But Prof. James says: + “There are trances which obey another type. I know a + non-hysterical woman, who in her trances knows facts which + altogether transcend her possible normal consciousness, facts + about the lives of people whom she never saw or heard of before.” + + Our affections are deeper and stronger than we know. We learn how + deep and strong they are, when their current is resisted by + affliction or dammed up by death. We know how powerful evil + passions are, only when we try to subdue them. Our dreams show us + our naked selves. On the morality of dreams, the London Spectator + remarks: “Our conscience and power of self-control act as a sort + of watchdog over our worse selves during the day, but when the + watchdog is off duty, the primitive or natural man is at liberty + to act as he pleases; our ‘soul’ has left us at the mercy of our + own evil nature, and in our dreams we become what, except for the + grace of God, we would always be.” + + Both in conscience and in will there is a self-diremption. Kant’s + categorical imperative is only one self laying down the law to the + other self. The whole Kantian system of ethics is based on this + doctrine of double consciousness. Ladd, in his Philosophy of Mind, + 169 _sq._, speaks of “psychical automatism.” Yet this automatism + is possible only to self-conscious and cognitively remembering + minds. It is always the “I” that puts itself into “that other.” We + could not conceive of the other self except under the figure of + the “I.” All our mental operations are ours, and we are + responsible for them, because the subconscious and even the + unconscious self is the product of past self-conscious thoughts + and volitions. The present settled state of our wills is the + result of former decisions. The will is a storage battery, charged + by past acts, full of latent power, ready to manifest its energy + so soon as the force which confines it is withdrawn. On + unconscious mental action, see Carpenter, Mental Physiology, 139, + 515-543, and criticism of Carpenter, in Ireland, Blot on the + Brain, 226-238; Bramwell, Hypnotism, its History, Practice and + Theory, 358-398; Porter, Human Intellect, 333, 334; _versus_ Sir + Wm. Hamilton, who adopts the maxim: “Non sentimus, nisi sentiamus + nos sentire” (Philosophy, ed. Wight, 171). Observe also that sin + may infect the body, as well as the soul, and may bring it into a + state of non-conformity to God’s law (see H. B. Smith, Syst. + Theol., 267). + + +In adducing our Scriptural and rational proof of the definition of sin as +a state, we desire to obviate the objection that this view leaves the soul +wholly given over to the power of evil. While we maintain that this is +true of man apart from God, we also insist that side by side with the evil +bent of the human will there is always an immanent divine power which +greatly counteracts the force of evil, and if not resisted leads the +individual soul—even when resisted leads the race at large—toward truth +and salvation. This immanent divine power is none other than Christ, the +eternal Word, the Light which lighteth every man; see John 1:4, 9. + + + _John 1:4, 9_—“_In him was life, and the life was the light of + men.... There was the true light, even the light which lighteth + every man._” See a further statement in A. H. Strong, Cleveland + Sermon, May, 1904, with regard to the old and the new view as to + sin:—“Our fathers believed in total depravity, and we agree with + them that man naturally is devoid of love to God and that every + faculty is weakened, disordered, and corrupted by the selfish bent + of his will. They held to original sin. The selfish bent of man’s + will can be traced back to the apostacy of our first parents; and, + on account of that departure of the race from God, all men are by + nature children of wrath. And all this is true, if it is regarded + as a statement of the facts, apart from their relation to Christ. + But our fathers did not see, as we do, that man’s relation to + Christ antedated the Fall and constituted an underlying and + modifying condition of man’s life. Humanity was naturally in + Christ, in whom all things were created and in whom they all + consist. Even man’s sin did not prevent Christ from still working + in him to counteract the evil and to suggest the good. There was + an internal, as well as an external, preparation for man’s + redemption. In this sense, of a divine principle in man striving + against the selfish and godless will, there was a total + redemption, over against man’s total depravity; and an original + grace, that was even more powerful than original sin. + + “We have become conscious that total depravity alone is not a + sufficient or proper expression of the truth; and the phrase has + been outgrown. It has been felt that the old view of sin did not + take account of the generous and noble aspirations, the unselfish + efforts, the strivings after God, of even unregenerate men. For + this reason there has been less preaching about sin, and less + conviction as to its guilt and condemnation. The good impulses of + men outside the Christian pale have been often credited to human + nature, when they should have been credited to the indwelling + Spirit of Christ. I make no doubt that one of our radical + weaknesses at this present time is our more superficial view of + sin. Without some sense of sin’s guilt and condemnation, we cannot + feel our need of redemption. John the Baptist must go before + Christ; the law must prepare the way for the gospel. + + “My belief is that the new apprehension of Christ’s relation to + the race will enable us to declare, as never before, the lost + condition of the sinner; while at the same time we show him that + Christ is with him and in him to save. This presence in every man + of a power not his own that works for righteousness is a very + different doctrine from that ’divinity of man’ which is so often + preached. The divinity is not the divinity of man, but the + divinity of Christ. And the power that works for righteousness is + not the power of man, but the power of Christ. It is a power whose + warning, inviting, persuading influence renders only more marked + and dreadful the evil will which hampers and resists it. Depravity + is all the worse, when we recognize in it the constant antagonist + of an ever-present, all-holy, and all-loving Redeemer.” + + +1. Proof. + + +As it is readily admitted that the outward act of transgression is +properly denominated sin, we here attempt to show only that lack of +conformity to the law of God in disposition or state is also and equally +to be so denominated. + +A. From Scripture. + +(_a_) The words ordinarily translated “sin,” or used as synonyms for it, +are as applicable to dispositions and states as to acts (חטאה and ἁμαρτία += a missing, failure, coming short [_sc._ of God’s will]). + + + See _Num. 15:28_—“_sinneth unwittingly_”; _Ps. 51:2_—“_cleanse me + from my sin_”; _5_—“_Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And + in sin did my mother conceive me_”; _Rom. 7:17_—“_sin which + dwelleth in me_”; compare _Judges 20:16_, where the literal + meaning of the word appears: “_sling stones at a hair-breadth, and + not miss_” (חטא). In a similar manner, משע [LXX ἀσέβεια] = + separation from, rebellion against [sc. God]; see _Lev. 16:16, + 21_; _cf._ Delitzsch on _Ps. 32:1_. עון [LXX ἀδικία] = bending, + perversion [sc. of what is right], iniquity; see _Lev. 5:17_; + _cf._ _John 7:18_. See also the Hebrew רע, רשע, [= ruin, + confusion], and the Greek ἀποστασία, ἐπιθυμία, ἔχθρα, κακία, + πονηρία, σάρξ. None of these designations of sin limits it to mere + act,—most of them more naturally suggest disposition or state. + Ἁμαρτία implies that man in sin does not reach what he seeks + therein; sin is a state of delusion and deception (Julius Müller). + On the words mentioned, see Girdlestone, O. T. Synonyms; Cremer, + Lexicon N. T. Greek; Present Day Tracts, 5: no. 28, pp. 43-47; + Trench, N. T. Synonyms, part 2:61, 73. + + +(b) The New Testament descriptions of sin bring more distinctly to view +the states and dispositions than the outward acts of the soul (1 John +3:4—ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία, where ἀνομία =, not “transgression of the +law,” but, as both context and etymology show, “lack of conformity to law” +or “lawlessness”—Rev. Vers.). + + + See _1 John 5:17_—“_All unrighteousness is sin_”; _Rom. + 14:23_—“_whatsoever is not of faith is sin_”; _James 4:17_—“_To + him therefore that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it + is sin._” Where the sin is that of _not doing_, sin cannot be said + to consist in _act_. It must then at least be a _state_. + + +(_c_) Moral evil is ascribed not only to the thoughts and affections, but +to the heart from which they spring (we read of the “evil thoughts” and of +the “evil heart”—Mat. 15:19 and Heb. 3:12). + + + See also _Mat. 5:22_—anger in the heart is murder; _28_—impure + desire is adultery. _Luke 6:45_—“_the evil man out of the evil + treasure_ [of his heart] _bringeth forth that which is evil._” + _Heb. 3:12_—“_an evil heart of unbelief_”; _cf._ _Is. 1:5_—“_the + whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint_”; _Jer. 17:9_—“_The + heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceedingly + corrupt: who can know it?_”—here the sin that cannot be known is + not sin of act, but sin of the heart. “Below the surface stream, + shallow and light, Of what we _say_ we feel; below the stream, As + light, of what we _think_ we feel, there flows, With silent + current, strong, obscure and deep, The central stream of what we + feel _indeed_.” + + +(_d_) The state or condition of the soul which gives rise to wrong desires +and acts is expressly called sin (Rom. 7:8—“Sin ... wrought in me ... all +manner of coveting”). + + + _John 8:34_—“_Every one that committeth sin is the bondservant of + sin_”; _Rom. 7:11, 13, 14, 17, 20_—“_sin ... beguiled me ... + working death to me ... I am carnal, sold under sin ... sin which + dwelleth in me._” These representations of sin as a principle or + state of the soul are incompatible with the definition of it as a + mere act. John Byrom, 1691-1763: “Think and be careful what thou + art within, For there is sin in the desire of sin. Think and be + thankful in a different case, For there is grace in the desire of + grace.” + + Alexander, Theories of the Will, 85—“In the person of Paul is + represented the man who has been already justified by faith and + who is at peace with God. In the 6th chapter of Romans, the + question is discussed whether such a man is obliged to keep the + moral law. But in the 7th chapter the question is not, _must_ man + keep the moral law? but why is he so _incapable_ of keeping the + moral law? The struggle is thus, not in the soul of the + unregenerate man who is dead in sin, but in the soul of the + regenerate man who has been pardoned and is endeavoring to keep + the law.... In a state of sin the will is determined toward the + bad; in a state of grace the will is determined toward + righteousness; but not wholly so, for the flesh is not at once + subdued, and there is a war between the good and bad principles of + action in the soul of him who has been pardoned.” + + +(_e_) Sin is represented as existing in the soul, prior to the +consciousness of it, and as only discovered and awakened by the law (Rom. +7:9, 10—“when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died”—if sin +“revived,” it must have had previous existence and life, even though it +did not manifest itself in acts of conscious transgression). + + + _Rom. 7:8_—“_apart from the law sin is dead_”—here is sin which is + not yet sin of act. Dead or unconscious sin is still sin. The fire + in a cave discovers reptiles and stirs them, but they were there + before; the light and heat do not create them. Let a beam of + light, says Jean Paul Richter, through your window-shutter into a + darkened room, and you reveal a thousand motes floating in the air + whose existence was before unsuspected. So the law of God reveals + our “_hidden faults_” (_Ps. 19:12_)—infirmities, imperfections, + evil tendencies and desires—which also cannot all be classed as + _acts_ of transgression. + + +(_f_) The allusions to sin as a permanent power or reigning principle, not +only in the individual but in humanity at large, forbid us to define it as +a momentary act, and compel us to regard it as being primarily a settled +depravity of nature, of which individual sins or acts of transgression are +the workings and fruits (Rom. 5:21—“sin reigned in death”; 6:12—“let not +therefore sin reign in your mortal body”). + + + In _Rom. 5:21_, the reign of sin is compared to the reign of + grace. As grace is not an act but a principle, so sin is not an + act but a principle. As the poisonous exhalations from a well + indicate that there is corruption and death at the bottom, so the + ever-recurring thoughts and acts of sin are evidence that there is + a principle of sin in the heart,—in other words, that sin exists + as a permanent disposition or state. A momentary act cannot + “reign” nor “dwell”; a disposition or state can. Maudsley, Sleep, + its Psychology, makes the damaging confession: “If we were held + responsible for our dreams, there is no living man who would not + deserve to be hanged.” + + +(_g_) The Mosaic sacrifices for sins of ignorance and of omission, and +especially for general sinfulness, are evidence that sin is not to be +limited to mere act, but that it includes something deeper and more +permanent in the heart and the life (Lev. 1:3; 5:11; 12:8; _cf._ Luke +2:24). + + + The sin-offering for sins of ignorance (_Lev. 4:14, 20, 31_), the + trespass-offering for sins of omission (_Lev. 5:5, 6_), and the + burnt offering to expiate general sinfulness (_Lev. 1:3_; _cf._ + _Luke 2:22-24_), all witness that sin is not confined to mere act. + _John 1:29_—“_the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin,_” not the + sins, “_of the world_”. See Oehler, O. T. Theology, 1:233; Schmid, + Bib. Theol. N. T., 194, 381, 442, 448, 492, 604; Philippi, + Glaubenslehre, 3:210-217; Julius Müller, Doctrine of Sin, + 2:259-306; Edwards, Works. 3:16-18. For the New School definition + of sin, see Fitch, Nature of Sin, and Park, in Bib. Sac., 7:551. + + +B. From the common judgment of mankind. + +(_a_) Men universally attribute vice as well as virtue not only to +conscious and deliberate acts, but also to dispositions and states. Belief +in something more permanently evil than acts of transgression is indicated +in the common phrases, “hateful temper,” “wicked pride,” “bad character.” + + + As the beatitudes (_Mat. 5:1-12_) are pronounced, not upon acts, + but upon dispositions of the soul, so the curses of the law are + uttered not so much against single acts of transgression as + against the evil affections from which they spring. Compare the + “_works of the flesh_” (_Gal. 5:19_) with the “_fruit of the + Spirit_” (_5:22_). In both, dispositions and states predominate. + + +(_b_) Outward acts, indeed, are condemned only when they are regarded as +originating in, and as symptomatic of, evil dispositions. Civil law +proceeds upon this principle in holding crime to consist, not alone in the +external act, but also in the evil motive or intent with which it is +performed. + + + The _mens rea_ is essential to the idea of crime. The + “_idle-word_” (_Mat 12:36_) shall be brought into the judgment, + not because it is so important in itself, but because it is a + floating straw that indicates the direction of the whole current + of the heart and life. Murder differs from homicide, not in any + outward respect, but simply because of the motive that prompts + it,—and that motive is always, in the last analysis, an evil + disposition or state. + + +(_c_) The stronger an evil disposition, or in other words, the more it +connects itself with, or resolves itself into, a settled state or +condition of the soul, the more blameworthy is it felt to be. This is +shown by the distinction drawn between crimes of passion and crimes of +deliberation. + + + Edwards: “Guilt consists in having one’s heart wrong, and in doing + wrong from the heart.” There is guilt in evil desires, even when + the will combats them. But there is greater guilt when the will + consents. The outward act may be in each case the same, but the + guilt of it is proportioned to the extent to which the evil + disposition is settled and strong. + + +(_d_) This condemning sentence remains the same, even although the origin +of the evil disposition or state cannot be traced back to any conscious +act of the individual. Neither the general sense of mankind, nor the civil +law in which this general sense is expressed, goes behind the fact of an +existing evil will. Whether this evil will is the result of personal +transgression or is a hereditary bias derived from generations passed, +this evil will is the man himself, and upon him terminates the blame. We +do not excuse arrogance or sensuality upon the ground that they are family +traits. + + + The young murderer in Boston was not excused upon the ground of a + congenitally cruel disposition. We repent in later years of sins + of boyhood, which we only now see to be sins; and converted + cannibals repent, after becoming Christians, of the sins of + heathendom which they once committed without a thought of their + wickedness. The peacock cannot escape from his feet by flying, nor + can we absolve ourselves from blame for an evil state of will by + tracing its origin to a remote ancestry. We are responsible for + what we are. How this can be, when we have not personally and + consciously originated it, is the problem of original sin, which + we have yet to discuss. + + +(_e_) When any evil disposition has such strength in itself, or is so +combined with others, as to indicate a settled moral corruption in which +no power to do good remains, this state is regarded with the deepest +disapprobation of all. Sin weakens man’s power of obedience, but the +can-not is a will-not, and is therefore condemnable. The opposite +principle would lead to the conclusion that, the more a man weakened his +powers by transgression, the less guilty he would be, until absolute +depravity became absolute innocence. + + + The boy who hates his father cannot change his hatred into love by + a single act of will; but he is not therefore innocent. + Spontaneous and uncontrollable profanity is the worst profanity of + all. It is a sign that the whole will, like a subterranean + Kentucky river, is moving away from God, and that no recuperative + power is left in the soul which can reach into the depths to + reverse its course. See Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:110-114; Shedd, + Hist. Doct., 2:79-92, 152-157; Richards, Lectures on Theology, + 256-301; Edwards, Works, 2:134; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 243-262; + Princeton Essays, 2:224-239; Van Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 394. + + +C. From the experience of the Christian. + +Christian experience is a testing of Scripture truth, and therefore is not +an independent source of knowledge. It may, however, corroborate +conclusions drawn from the word of God. Since the judgment of the +Christian is formed under the influence of the Holy Spirit, we may trust +this more implicitly than the general sense of the world. We affirm, then, +that just in proportion to his spiritual enlightenment and self-knowledge, +the Christian + +(_a_) Regards his outward deviations from God’s law, and his evil +inclinations and desires, as outgrowths and revelations of a depravity of +nature which lies below his consciousness; and + +(_b_) Repents more deeply for this depravity of nature, which constitutes +his inmost character and is inseparable from himself, than for what he +merely feels or does. + +In proof of these statements we appeal to the biographies and writings of +those in all ages who have been by general consent regarded as most +advanced in spiritual culture and discernment. + + + “Intelligentia prima est, ut te noris peccatorem.” Compare David’s + experience, _Ps. 51:6_—“_Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward + parts: And in the hidden part thou wilt make me to know + wisdom_”—with Paul’s experience in _Rom. 7:24_—“_Wretched man that + I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death?_”—with + Isaiah’s experience (_6:5_), when in the presence of God’s glory + he uses the words of the leper (_Lev. 13:45_) and calls himself + “_unclean_,” and with Peter’s experience (_Luke 5:8_) when at the + manifestation of Christ’s miraculous power he “_fell down at + Jesus’ __ knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O + Lord._” So the publican cries: _“__God, be thou merciful to me the + sinner__”__ (Luke 18:13)_, and Paul calls himself the “_chief_” of + sinners (_1 Tim. 1:15_). It is evident that in none of these cases + were there merely single acts of transgression in view; the + humiliation and self-abhorrence were in view of permanent states + of depravity. Van Oosterzee: “What we do outwardly is only the + revelation of our inner nature.” The outcropping and visible rock + is but small in extent compared with the rock that is underlying + and invisible. The iceberg has eight-ninths of its mass below the + surface of the sea, yet icebergs have been seen near Cape Horn + from 700 to 800 feet high above the water. + + It may be doubted whether any repentance is genuine which is not + repentance for _sin_ rather than for _sins_; compare _John + 16:8_—the Holy Spirit “_will convict the world in respect of + sin_/” On the difference between conviction of sins and conviction + of sin, see Hare, Mission of the Comforter. Dr. A. J. Gordon, just + before his death, desired to be left alone. He was then overheard + confessing his sins in such seemingly extravagant terms as to + excite fear that he was in delirium. Martensen, Dogmatics, + 389—Luther during his early experience “often wrote to Staupitz: + ‘Oh, my sins, my sins!’ and yet in the confessional he could name + no sins in particular which he had to confess; so that it was + clearly a sense of the general depravity of his nature which + filled his soul with deep sorrow and pain.” Luther’s conscience + would not accept the comfort that he _wished_ to be without sin, + and therefore had no real sin. When he thought himself too great a + sinner to be saved, Staupitz replied: “Would you have the + semblance of a sinner and the semblance of a Savior?” + + After twenty years of religious experience, Jonathan Edwards wrote + (Works 1:22, 23; also 3:16-18): “Often since I have lived in this + town I have had very affecting views of my own sinfulness and + vileness, very frequently to such a degree as to hold me in a kind + of loud weeping, sometimes for a considerable time together, so + that I have been often obliged to shut myself up. I have had a + vastly greater sense of my own wickedness and the badness of my + heart than ever I had before my conversion. It has often appeared + to me that if God should mark iniquity against me, I should appear + the very worst of all mankind, of all that have been since the + beginning of the world to this time; and that I should have by far + the lowest place in hell. When others that have come to talk with + me about their soul’s concerns have expressed the sense they have + had of their own wickedness, by saying that it seemed to them they + were as bad as the devil himself; I thought their expressions + seemed exceeding faint and feeble to represent my wickedness.” + + Edwards continues: “My wickedness, as I am in myself, has long + appeared to me perfectly ineffable and swallowing up all thought + and imagination—like an infinite deluge, or mountains over my + head. I know not how to express better what my sins appear to me + to be, than by heaping infinite on infinite and multiplying + infinite by infinite. Very often for these many years, these + expressions are in my mind and in my mouth: ‘Infinite upon + infinite—infinite upon infinite!’ When I look into my heart and + take a view of my wickedness, it looks like an abyss infinitely + deeper than hell. And it appears to me that were it not for free + grace, exalted and raised up to the infinite height of all the + fulness and glory of the great Jehovah, and the arm of his power + and grace stretched forth in all the majesty of his power and in + all the glory of his sovereignty, I should appear sunk down in my + sins below hell itself, far beyond the sight of everything but the + eye of sovereign grace that can pierce even down to such a depth. + And yet it seems to me that my conviction of sin is exceeding + small and faint; it is enough to amaze me that I have no more + sense of my sin. I know certainly that I have very little sense of + my sinfulness. When I have had turns of weeping for my sins, I + thought I knew at the time that my repentance was nothing to my + sin.... It is affecting to think how ignorant I was, when a young + Christian, of the bottomless, infinite depths of wickedness, + pride, hypocrisy, and deceit left in my heart.” + + Jonathan Edwards was not an ungodly man, but the holiest man of + his time. He was not an enthusiast, but a man of acute, + philosophic mind. He was not a man who indulged in exaggerated or + random statements, for with his power of introspection and + analysis he combined a faculty and habit of exact expression + unsurpassed among the sons of men. If the maxim “cuique in arte + sua credendum est” is of any value, Edwards’s statements in a + matter of religious experience are to be taken as correct + interpretations of the facts. H. B. Smith (System. Theol., 275) + quotes Thomasius as saying: “It is a striking fact in Scripture + that statements of the depth and power of sin are chiefly from the + regenerate.” Another has said that “a serpent is never seen at its + whole length until it is dead.” Thomas à Kempis (ed. Gould and + Lincoln, 142)—“Do not think that thou hast made any progress + toward perfection, till thou feelest that thou art less than the + least of all human beings.” Young’s Night Thoughts: “Heaven’s + Sovereign saves all beings but himself That hideous sight—a naked + human heart.” + + Law’s Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life: “You may justly + condemn yourself for being the greatest sinner that you know, 1. + Because you know more of the folly of your own heart than of other + people’s, and can charge yourself with various sins which you know + only of yourself and cannot be sure that others are guilty of + them. 2. The greatness of our guilt arises from the greatness of + God’s goodness to us. You know more of these aggravations of your + sins than you do of the sins of other people. Hence the greatest + saints have in all ages condemned themselves as the greatest + sinners.” We may add: 3. That, since each man is a peculiar being, + each man is guilty of peculiar sins, and in certain particulars + and aspects may constitute an example of the enormity and + hatefulness of sin, such as neither earth nor hell can elsewhere + show. + + Of Cromwell, as a representative of the Puritans, Green says + (Short History of the English People, 454): “The vivid sense of + the divine Purity close to such men, made the life of common men + seem sin.” Dr. Arnold of Rugby (Life and Corresp., App. D.): “In a + deep sense of moral evil, more perhaps than anything else, abides + a saving knowledge of God.” Augustine, on his death-bed, had the + 32d Psalm written over against him on the wall. For his + expressions with regard to sin, see his Confessions, book 10. See + also Shedd, Discourses and Essays, 284, note. + + +2. Inferences. + + +In the light of the preceding discussion, we may properly estimate the +elements of truth and of error in the common definition of sin as “the +voluntary transgression of known law.” + +(_a_) Not all sin is voluntary as being a distinct and conscious volition; +for evil disposition and state often precede and occasion evil volition, +and evil disposition and state are themselves sin. All sin, however, is +voluntary as springing either directly from will, or indirectly from those +perverse affections and desires which have themselves originated in will. +“Voluntary” is a term broader then “volitional,” and includes all those +permanent states of intellect and affection which the will has made what +they are. Will, moreover, is not to be regarded as simply the faculty of +volitions, but as primarily the underlying determination of the being to a +supreme end. + + + Will, as we have seen, includes preference (θέλημα, _voluntas_, + _Wille_) as well as volition (βουλή, _arbitrium_, _Willkür_). We + do not, with Edwards and Hodge, regard the sensibilities as states + of the will. They are, however, in their character and their + objects determined by the will, and so they may be called + voluntary. The permanent state of the will (New School “elective + preference”) is to be distinguished from the permanent state of + the sensibilities (dispositions, or desires). But both are + voluntary because both are due to past decisions of the will, and + “whatever springs from will we are responsible for” (Shedd, + Discourses and Essays, 243). Julius Müller, 2:51—“We speak of + self-consciousness and reason as something which the ego _has_, + but we identify the will _with_ the ego. No one would say, ‘my + will has decided this or that,’ although we do say, ‘my reason, my + conscience teaches me this or that.’ The will is the very man + himself, as Augustine says: ‘Voluntas est in omnibus; imo omnes + nihil aliud quam voluntates sunt.’ ” + + For other statements of the relation of disposition to will, see + Alexander, Moral Science, 151—“In regard to dispositions, we say + that they are in a sense voluntary. They properly belong to the + will, taking the word in a large sense. In judging of the morality + of voluntary acts, the principle from which they proceed is always + included in our view and comes in for a large part of the blame”; + see also pages 201, 207, 208. Edwards on the Affections, 3:1-22; + on the Will, 3:4—“The affections are only certain modes of the + exercise of the will.” A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, 234—“All + sin is voluntary, in the sense that all sin has its root in the + perverted dispositions, desires, and affections which constitute + the depraved state of the will.” But to Alexander, Edwards, and + Hodge, we reply that the first sin was not voluntary in this + sense, for there was no such depraved state of the will from which + it could spring. We are responsible for dispositions, not upon the + ground that they are a part of the will, but upon the ground that + they are effects of will, in other words, that past decisions of + the will have made them what they are. See pages 504-513. + + +(_b_) Deliberate intention to sin is an aggravation of transgression, but +it is not essential to constitute any given act or feeling a sin. Those +evil inclinations and impulses which rise unbidden and master the soul +before it is well aware of their nature, are themselves violations of the +divine law, and indications of an inward depravity which in the case of +each descendant of Adam is the chief and fontal transgression. + + + Joseph Cook: “Only the surface-water of the sea is penetrated with + light. Beneath is a half-lit region. Still further down is + absolute darkness. We are greater than we know.” Weismann, + Heredity, 2:8—“At the depth of 170 meters, or 552 feet, there is + about as much light as that of a starlight night when there is no + moon. Light penetrates as far as 400 meters, or 1,300 feet, but + animal life exists at a depth of 4,000 meters, or 13,000 feet. + Below 1,300 feet, all animals are blind.” (_Cf._ _Ps. 51:6; + 19:12_—“_the inward parts ... the hidden parts ... hidden + faults_”—hidden not only from others, but even from ourselves.) + The light of consciousness plays only on the surface of the waters + of man’s soul. + + +(_c_) Knowledge of the sinfulness of an act or feeling is also an +aggravation of transgression, but it is not essential to constitute it a +sin. Moral blindness is the effect of transgression, and, as inseparable +from corrupt affections and desires, is itself condemned by the divine +law. + + + It is our duty to do better than we know. Our duty of knowing is + as real as our duty of doing. Sin is an opiate. Some of the most + deadly diseases do not reveal themselves in the patient’s + countenance, nor has the patient any adequate understanding of his + malady. There is an ignorance which is indolence. Men are often + unwilling to take the trouble of rectifying their standards of + judgment. There is also an ignorance which is intention. Instance + many students’ ignorance of College laws. + + We cannot excuse disobedience by saying: “I forgot.” God’s + commandment is: “_Remember_”—as in _Ex. 20:8_; _cf._ _2 Pet. + 3:5_—“_For this they wilfully forget._” “Ignorantia legis neminem + excusat.” _Rom. 2:12_—“_as many as have sinned without the law + shall also perish without the law_”; _Luke 12:48_—“_he that knew + not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten_ [though] + _with few stripes._” The aim of revelation and of preaching is to + bring man “_to himself_” (_cf._ _Luke 15:17_)—to show him what he + has been doing and what he is. Goethe: “We are never deceived: we + deceive ourselves.” Royce, World and Individual, 2:359—“The sole + possible free moral action is then a freedom that relates to the + present fixing of attention upon the ideas of the Ought which are + already present. To sin is _consciously to choose to forget_, + through a narrowing of the field of attention, an Ought that one + already recognizes.” + + +(_d_) Ability to fulfill the law is not essential to constitute the +non-fulfilment sin. Inability to fulfill the law is a result of +transgression, and, as consisting not in an original deficiency of faculty +but in a settled state of the affections and will, it is itself +condemnable. Since the law presents the holiness of God as the only +standard for the creature, ability to obey can never be the measure of +obligation or the test of sin. + + + Not power to the contrary, in the sense of ability to change all + our permanent states by mere volition, is the basis of obligation + and responsibility; for surely Satan’s responsibility does not + depend upon his power at any moment to turn to God and be holy. + + Definitions of sin—Melanchthon: Defectus vel inclinatio vel actio + pugnans cum lege Dei. Calvin: Illegalitas, seu difformitas a lege. + Hollaz: Aberratio a lege divina. Hollaz adds: “Voluntariness does + not enter into the definition of sin, generically considered. Sin + may be called voluntary, either in respect to its cause, as it + inheres in the will, or in respect to the act, as it procedes from + deliberate volition. Here is the antithesis to the Roman Catholics + and to the Socinians, the latter of whom define sin as a voluntary + [_i. e._, a volitional] transgression of law”—a view, says Hase + (Hutterus Redivivus, 11th ed., 162-164), “which is derived from + the necessary methods of civil tribunals, and which is + incompatible with the orthodox doctrine of original sin.” On the + New School definition of sin, see Fairchild, Nature of Sin, in + Bib. Sac., 25:30-48; Whedon, in Bib. Sac., 19:251, and On the + Will, 328. _Per contra_, see Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:180-190; + Lawrence, Old School in N. E. Theol., in Bib. Sac., 20:317-328; + Julius Müller, Doc. Sin, 1:40-72; Nitzsch, Christ. Doct., 216; + Luthardt, Compendium der Dogmatik, 124-126. + + +II. The Essential Principle of Sin. + + +The definition of sin as lack of conformity to the divine law does not +exclude, but rather necessitates, an inquiry into the characterizing +motive or impelling power which explains its existence and constitutes its +guilt. Only three views require extended examination. Of these the first +two constitute the most common excuses for sin, although not propounded +for this purpose by their authors: Sin is due (1) to the human body, or +(2) to finite weakness. The third, which we regard as the Scriptural view, +considers sin as (3) the supreme choice of self, or selfishness. + +In the preceding section on the Definition of Sin, we showed that sin is a +_state_, and a state of the _will_. We now ask: What is the nature of this +state? and we expect to show that it is essentially a _selfish_ state of +the will. + + +1. Sin as Sensuousness. + + +This view regards sin as the necessary product of man’s sensuous nature—a +result of the soul’s connection with a physical organism. This is the view +of Schleiermacher and of Rothe. More recent writers, with John Fiske, +regard moral evil as man’s inheritance from a brute ancestry. + + + For statement of the view here opposed, see Schleiermacher, Der + Christliche Glaube, 1:361-364—“Sin is a prevention of the + determining power of the spirit, caused by the independence + (Selbständigkeit) of the sensuous functions.” The child lives at + first a life of sense, in which the bodily appetites are supreme. + The senses are the avenues of all temptation, the physical + domineers over the spiritual, and the soul never shakes off the + body. Sin is, therefore, a malarious exhalation from the low + grounds of human nature, or, to use the words of Schleiermacher, + “a positive opposition of the flesh to the spirit.” Pfleiderer, + Prot. Theol. seit Kant, 113,—says that Schleiermacher here repeats + Spinoza’s “inability of the spirit to control the sensuous + affections.” Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 1:230—“In the + development of man out of naturality, the lower impulses have + already won a power of self-assertion and resistance, before the + reason could yet come to its valid position and authority. As this + propensity of the self-will is grounded in the specific nature of + man, it may be designated as inborn, hereditary, or _original_ + sinfulness.” + + Rothe’s view of sin may be found in his Dogmatik, 1:300-302; + notice the connection of Rothe’s view of sin with his doctrine of + continuous creation (see page 416 of this Compendium). + Encyclopædia Britannica, 21:2—“Rothe was a thorough going + evolutionist who regarded the natural man as the consummation of + the development of physical nature, and regarded spirit as the + personal attainment, with divine help, of those beings in whom the + further creative process of moral development is carried on. This + process of development necessarily takes an abnormal form and + passes through the phase of sin. This abnormal condition + necessitates a fresh creative act, that of salvation, which was + however from the very first a part of the divine plan of + development. Rothe, notwithstanding his evolutionary doctrine, + believed in the supernatural birth of Christ.” + + John Fiske, Destiny of Man, 103—“Original sin is neither more nor + less than the brute inheritance which every man carries with him, + and the process of evolution is an advance toward true salvation.” + Thus man is a sphynx in whom the human has not yet escaped from + the animal. So Bowne, Atonement, 69, declares that sin is “a relic + of the animal not yet outgrown, a resultant of the mechanism of + appetite and impulse and reflex action for which the proper + inhibitions are not yet developed. Only slowly does it grow into a + consciousness of itself as evil.... It would be hysteria to regard + the common life of men as rooting in a conscious choice of + unrighteousness.” + + +In refutation of this view, it will be sufficient to urge the following +considerations: + +(_a_) It involves an assumption of the inherent evil of matter, at least +so far as regards the substance of man’s body. But this is either a form +of dualism, and may be met with the objections already brought against +that system, or it implies that God, in being the author of man’s physical +organism, is also the responsible originator of human sin. + + + This has been called the “caged-eagle theory” of man’s existence; + it holds that the body is a prison only, or, as Plato expressed + it, “the tomb of the soul,” so that the soul can be pure only by + escaping from the body. But matter is not eternal. God made it, + and made it pure. The body was made to be the servant of the + spirit. We must not throw the blame of sin upon the senses, but + upon the spirit that used the senses so wickedly. To attribute sin + to the body is to make God, the author of the body, to be also the + author of sin,—which is the greatest of blasphemies. Men cannot + “justly accuse Their Maker, or their making, or their fate” + (Milton, Paradise Lost, 3:112). Sin is a contradiction within the + spirit itself, and not simply between the spirit and the flesh. + Sensuous activities are not themselves sinful—this is essential + Manichæanism. Robert Burns was wrong when he laid the blame for + his delinquencies upon “the passions wild and strong.” And Samuel + Johnson was wrong when he said that “Every man is a rascal so soon + as he is sick.” The normal soul has power to rise above both + passion and sickness and to make them serve its moral development. + On the development of the body, as the organ of sin, see + Straffen’s Hulsean Lectures on Sin, 33-50. The essential error of + this view is its identification of the moral with the physical. If + it were true, then Jesus, who came in human flesh, must needs be a + sinner. + + +(_b_) In explaining sin as an inheritance from the brute, this theory +ignores the fact that man, even though derived from a brute ancestry, is +no longer brute, but man, with power to recognize and to realize moral +ideals, and under no necessity to violate the law of his being. + + + See A. H. Strong, Christ in Creation, 163-180, on The Fall and the + Redemption of Man, in the Light of Evolution: “Evolution has been + thought to be incompatible with any proper doctrine of a fall. It + has been assumed by many that man’s immoral course and conduct are + simply survivals of his brute inheritance, inevitable remnants of + his old animal propensities, yieldings of the weak will to fleshly + appetites and passions. This is to deny that sin is truly sin, but + it is also to deny that man is truly man.... Sin must be referred + to freedom, or it is not sin. To explain it as the natural result + of weak will overmastered by lower impulses is to make the animal + nature, and not the will, the cause of transgression. And that is + to say that man at the beginning is not man, but brute.” See also + D. W. Simon, in Bib. Sac., Jan. 1897:1-20—“The key to the strange + and dark contrast between man and his animal ancestry is to be + found in the fact of the Fall. Other species live normally. No + remnant of the reptile hinders the bird. The bird is a true bird. + Only man fails to live normally and is a true man only after ages + of sin and misery.” Marlowe very properly makes his Faustus to be + tempted by sensual baits only after he has sold himself to Satan + for power. + + To regard vanity, deceitfulness, malice, and revenge as inherited + from brute ancestors is to deny man’s original innocence and the + creatorship of God. B. W. Lockhart: “The animal mind knows not + God, is not subject to his law, neither indeed can be, just + because it is animal, and as such is incapable of right or + wrong.... If man were an animal and nothing more, he could not + sin. It is by virtue of being something more, that he becomes + capable of sin. Sin is the yielding of the known higher to the + known lower. It is the soul’s abdication of its being to the + brute.... Hence the need of spiritual forces from the spiritual + world of divine revelation, to heal and build and discipline the + soul within itself, giving it the victory over the animal passions + which constitute the body and over the kingdom of blind desire + which constitutes the world. The final purpose of man is growth of + the soul into liberty, truth, love, likeness to God. Education is + the word that covers the movement, and probation is incident to + education.” We add that reparation for past sin and renewing power + from above must follow probation, in order to make education + possible. + + Some recent writers hold to a real fall of man, and yet regard + that fall as necessary to his moral development. Emma Marie + Caillard, in Contemp. Rev., Dec. 1893: 879—“Man passed out of a + state of innocence—unconscious of his own imperfection—into a + state of consciousness of it. The will became slave instead of + master. The result would have been the complete stoppage of his + evolution but for redemption, which restored his will and made the + continuance of his evolution possible. Incarnation was the method + of redemption. But even apart from the fall, this incarnation + would have been necessary to reveal to man the goal of his + evolution and so to secure his coöperation in it.” Lisle, + Evolution of Spiritual Man, 39, and in Bib. Sac., July, 1892: + 431-452—“Evolution by catastrophe in the natural world has a + striking analogue in the spiritual world.... Sin is primarily not + so much a fall from a higher to a lower, as a failure to rise from + a lower to a higher; not so much eating of the forbidden tree, as + failure to partake of the tree of life. The latter represented + communion and correspondence with God, and had innocent man + continued to reach out for this, he would not have fallen. Man’s + refusal to choose the higher preceded and conditioned his fall to + the lower, and the essence of sin is therefore in this refusal, + whatever may cause the will to make it.... Man chose the lower of + his own free will. Then his centripetal force was gone. His + development was swiftly and endlessly away from God. He reverted + to his original type of savage animalism; and yet, as a + self-conscious and free-acting being, he retained a sense of + responsibility that filled him with fear and suffering.” + + On the development-theory of sin, see W. W. McLane, in New + Englander, 1891: 180-188; A. B. Bruce, Apologetics, 60-62; Lyman + Abbott, Evolution of Christianity, 203-208; Le Conte, Evolution, + 330, 365-375; Henry Drummond, Ascent of Man, 1-13, 329, 342; Salem + Wilder, Life, its Nature, 266-273; Wm. Graham, Creed of Science, + 38-44; Frank H. Foster, Evolution and the Evangelical System; + Chandler, The Spirit of Man, 45-47. + + +(_c_) It rests upon an incomplete induction of facts, taking account of +sin solely in its aspect of self-degradation, but ignoring the worst +aspect of it as self-exaltation. Avarice, envy, pride, ambition, malice, +cruelty, revenge, self-righteousness, unbelief, enmity to God, are none of +them fleshly sins, and upon this principle are incapable of explanation. + + + Two historical examples may suffice to show the insufficiency of + the sensuous theory of sin. Goethe was not a markedly sensual man; + yet the spiritual vivisection which he practised on Friederike + Brion, his perfidious misrepresentation of his relations with + Kestner’s wife in the “Sorrows of Werther,” and his flattery of + Napoleon, when a patriot would have scorned the advances of the + invader of his country, show Goethe to have been a very + incarnation of heartlessness and selfishness. The patriot Boerne + said of him: “Not once has he ever advanced a poor solitary word + in his country’s cause—he who from the lofty height he has + attained might speak out what none other but himself would dare + pronounce.” It has been said that Goethe’s first commandment to + genius was: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor and thy neighbor’s + wife.” His biographers count up sixteen women to whom he made love + and who reciprocated his affection, though it is doubtful whether + he contented himself with the doctrine of 16 to 1. As Sainte-Beuve + said of Châteaubriand’s attachments: “They are like the stars in + the sky,—the longer you look, the more of them you discover.” + Christiane Vulpius, after being for seventeen years his mistress, + became at last his wife. But the wife was so slighted that she was + driven to intemperance, and Goethe’s only son inherited her + passion and died of drink. Goethe was the great heathen of modern + Christendom, deriding self-denial, extolling self-confidence, + attention to the present, the seeking of enjoyment, and the + submission of one’s self to the decrees of fate. Hutton calls + Goethe “a Narcissus in love with himself.” Like George Eliot’s + “Dinah,” in Adam Bede, Goethe’s “Confessions of a Beautiful Soul,” + in Wilhelm Meister, are the purely artistic delineation of a + character with which he had no inner sympathy. On Goethe, see + Hutton, Essays, 2:1-79; Shedd, Dogm. Theology, 1:490; A. H. + Strong, Great Poets, 279-331; Principal Shairp, Culture and + Religion, 16—“Goethe, the high priest of culture, loathes Luther, + the preacher of righteousness”; S. Law Wilson, Theology of Modern + Literature, 149-156. + + Napoleon was not a markedly sensual man, but “his self-sufficiency + surpassed the self-sufficiency of common men as the great Sahara + desert surpasses an ordinary sand patch.” He wantonly divulged his + amours to Josephine, with all the details of his ill-conduct, and + when she revolted from them, he only replied: “I have the right to + meet all your complaints with an eternal I.” When his wars had + left almost no able-bodied men in France, he called for the boys, + saying: “A boy can stop a bullet as well as a man,” and so the + French nation lost two inches of stature. Before the battle of + Leipzig, when there was prospect of unexampled slaughter, he + exclaimed: “What are the lives of a million of men, to carry out + the will of a man like me?” His most truthful epitaph was: “The + little butchers of Ghent to Napoleon the Great” [butcher]. Heine + represents Napoleon as saying to the world: “Thou shalt have no + other gods before me.” Memoirs of Madame de Rémusat, 1:225—“At a + fête given by the city of Paris to the Emperor, the repertory of + inscriptions being exhausted, a brilliant device was resorted to. + Over the throne which he was to occupy, were placed, in letters of + gold, the following words from the Holy Scriptures: ‘I am the I + am.’ And no one seemed to be scandalized.” Iago, in Shakespeare’s + Othello, is the greatest villain of all literature; but Coleridge, + Works, 4:180, calls attention to his passionless character. His + sin is, like that of Goethe and of Napoleon, sin not of the flesh + but of the intellect and will. + + +(_d_) It leads to absurd conclusions,—as, for example, that asceticism, by +weakening the power of sense, must weaken the power of sin; that man +becomes less sinful as his senses fail with age; that disembodied spirits +are necessarily holy; that death is the only Redeemer. + + + Asceticism only turns the current of sin in other directions. + Spiritual pride and tyranny take the place of fleshly desires. The + miser clutches his gold more closely as he nears death. Satan has + no physical organism, yet he is the prince of evil. Not our own + death, but Christ’s death, saves us. But when Rousseau’s Émile + comes to die, he calmly declares: “I am delivered from the + trammels of the body, and am myself without contradiction.” At the + age of seventy-five Goethe wrote to Eckermann: “I have ever been + esteemed one of fortune’s favorites, nor can I complain of the + course my life has taken. Yet truly there has been nothing but + care and toil, and I may say that I have never had four weeks of + genuine pleasure.” Shedd, Dogm. Theology, 2:743—“When the + authoritative demand of Jesus Christ, to confess sin and beg + remission through atoning blood, is made to David Hume, or David + Strauss, or John Stuart Mill, none of whom were sensualists, it + wakens intense mental hostility.” + + +(_e_) It interprets Scripture erroneously. In passages like Rom. 7:18—οὐκ +οἰκεῖ ἐν ἐμοί, τοῦτ᾽ ἐστιν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου, ἀγαθόν—σάρξ, or flesh, +signifies, not man’s body, but man’s whole being when destitute of the +Spirit of God. The Scriptures distinctly recognize the seat of sin as +being in the soul itself, not in its physical organism. God does not tempt +man, nor has he made man’s nature to tempt him (James 1:13, 14). + + + In the use of the term “_flesh_,” Scripture puts a stigma upon + sin, and intimates that human nature without God is as corruptible + and perishable as the body would be without the soul to inhabit + it. The “carnal mind,” or _“__mind of the flesh__”__ (Rom. 8:7)_, + accordingly means, not the sensual mind, but the mind which is not + under the control of the Holy Spirit, its true life. See Meyer, on + _1 Cor. 1:26_—σάρξ—“the purely human element in man, as opposed to + the divine principle”; Pope, Theology, 2:65—σάρξ—“the whole being + of man, body, soul, and spirit, separated from God and subjected + to the creature”; Julius Müller, Proof-texts, 19—σάρξ—“human + nature as living in and for itself, sundered from God and opposed + to him.” The earliest and best statement of this view of the term + σάρξ is that of Julius Müller, Doctrine of Sin, 1:295-333, + especially 321. See also Dickson, St. Paul’s Use of the Terms + Flesh and Spirit, 270-271—σάρξ—“human nature without the + πνεῦμα.... man standing by himself, or left to himself, over + against God.... the natural man, conceived as not having yet + received grace, or as not yet wholly under its influence.” + + _James 1:14, 15_—“_desire, when it hath conceived, beareth + sin_”—innocent desire—for it comes in before the sin—innocent + constitutional propensity, not yet of the nature of depravity, is + only the _occasion_ of sin. The love of freedom is a part of our + nature; sin arises only when the will determines to indulge this + impulse without regard to the restraints of the divine law. + Luther, Preface to Ep. to Romans: “Thou must not understand + ‘flesh’ as though that only were ‘flesh’ which is connected with + unchastity. St. Paul uses ‘flesh’ of the whole man, body and soul, + reason and all his faculties included, because all that is in him + longs and strives after the ‘flesh’.” Melanchthon: “Note that + ‘flesh’ signifies the entire nature of man, sense and reason, + without the Holy Spirit.” Gould, Bib. Theol. N. T., 76—“The σάρξ + of Paul corresponds to the κόσμος of John. Paul sees the divine + economy; John the divine nature. That Paul did not hold sin to + consist in the possession of a body appears from his doctrine of a + bodily resurrection (_1 Cor. 15:38-49_). This resurrection of the + body is an integral part of immortality.” On σάρξ, see Thayer, N. + T. Lexicon, 571; Kaftan, Dogmatik, 319. + + +(_f_) Instead of explaining sin, this theory virtually denies its +existence,—for if sin arises from the original constitution of our being, +reason may recognize it as misfortune, but conscience cannot attribute to +it guilt. + + + Sin which in its ultimate origin is a necessary thing is no longer + sin. On the whole theory of the sensuous origin of sin, see + Neander, Planting and Training, 386, 428; Ernesti, Ursprung der + Sünde, 1:29-274; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 2:132-147; Tulloch, + Doctrine of Sin, 144—“That which is an inherent and necessary + power in the creation cannot be a contradiction of its highest + law.” This theory confounds sin with the mere consciousness of + sin. On Schleiermacher, see Julius Müller, Doctrine of Sin, + 1:341-349. On the sense-theory of sin in general, see John Caird, + Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 2:26-52; N. R. Wood, The Witness of + Sin, 79-87. + + +2. Sin as Finiteness. + + +This view explains sin as a necessary result of the limitations of man’s +finite being. As an incident of imperfect development, the fruit of +ignorance and impotence, sin is not absolutely but only relatively evil—an +element in human education and a means of progress. This is the view of +Leibnitz and of Spinoza. Modern writers, as Schurman and Royce, have +maintained that moral evil is the necessary background and condition of +moral good. + + + The theory of Leibnitz may be found in his Théodicée, part 1, + sections 20 and 31; that of Spinoza in his Ethics, part 4, + proposition 20. Upon this view sin is the blundering of + inexperience, the thoughtlessness that takes evil for good, the + ignorance that puts its fingers into the fire, the stumbling + without which one cannot learn to walk. It is a fruit which is + sour and bitter simply because it is immature. It is a means of + discipline and training for something better,—it is holiness in + the germ, good in the making—“Erhebung des Menschen zur freien + Vernunft.” The Fall was a fall up, and not down. + + John Fiske, in addition to his sense-theory of sin already + mentioned, seems to hold this theory also. In his Mystery of Evil, + he says: “Its impress upon the human soul is the indispensable + background against which shall be set hereafter the eternal joys + of heaven”; in other words, sin is necessary to holiness, as + darkness is the indispensable contrast and background to light; + without black, we should never be able to know white. Schurman, + Belief in God, 251 _sq._—“The possibility of sin is the + correlative of the free initiative God has vacated on man’s + behalf.... The essence of sin is the enthronement of self.... Yet, + without such self-absorption, there could be no sense of union + with God. For consciousness is possible only through opposition. + To know A, we must know it through not-A. Alienation from God is + the necessary condition of communion with God. And this is the + meaning of the Scripture that ‘where sin abounded, grace shall + much more abound.’... Modern culture protests against the Puritan + enthronement of goodness above truth.... For the decalogue it + would substitute the wider new commandment of Goethe: ‘Live + resolutely in the Whole, in the Good, in the Beautiful.’ The + highest religion can be content with nothing short of the + synthesis demanded by Goethe.... God is the universal life in + which individual activities are included as movements of a single + organism.” + + Royce, World and Individual, 2:364-384—“Evil is a discord + necessary to perfect harmony. In itself it is evil, but in + relation to the whole it has value by showing us its own + finiteness and imperfection. It is a sorrow to God as much as to + us; indeed, all our sorrow is his sorrow. The evil serves the good + only by being overcome, thwarted, overruled. Every evil deed must + somewhere and at some time be atoned for, by some other than the + agent, if not by the agent himself.... All finite life is a + struggle with evil. Yet from the final point of view the Whole is + good. The temporal order contains at no moment anything that can + satisfy. Yet the eternal order is perfect. We have all sinned and + come short of the glory of God. Yet in just our life, viewed in + its entirety, the glory of God is completely manifest. These hard + sayings are the deepest expressions of the essence of true + religion. They are also the most inevitable outcome of + philosophy.... Were there no longing in time, there would be no + peace in eternity. The prayer that God’s will may be done on earth + as it is in heaven is identical with what philosophy regards as + simple fact.” + + +We object to this theory that + +(_a_) It rests upon a pantheistic basis, as the sense-theory rests upon +dualism. The moral is confounded with the physical; might is identified +with right. Since sin is a necessary incident of finiteness, and creatures +can never be infinite, it follows that sin must be everlasting, not only +in the universe, but in each individual soul. + + + Goethe, Carlyle, and Emerson are representatives of this view in + literature. Goethe spoke of the “idleness of wishing to jump off + from one’s own shadow.” He was a disciple of Spinoza, who believed + in one substance with contradictory attributes of thought and + extension. Goethe took the pantheistic view of God with the + personal view of man. He ignored the fact of sin. Hutton calls him + “the wisest man the world has seen who was without humility and + faith, and who lacked the wisdom of a child.” Speaking of Goethe’s + Faust, Hutton says: “The great drama is radically false in its + fundamental philosophy. Its primary notion is that even a spirit + of pure evil is an exceedingly useful being, because he stirs into + activity those whom he leads into sin, and so prevents them from + rusting away in pure indolence. There are other and better means + of stimulating the positive affections of men than by tempting + them to sin.” On Goethe, see Hutton, Essays, 2:1-79; Shedd, Dogm. + Theol., 1:490; A. H. Strong, Great Poets and their Theology, + 279-331. + + Carlyle was a Scotch Presbyterian _minus_ Christianity. At the age + of twenty-five, he rejected miraculous and historical religion, + and thenceforth had no God but natural Law. His worship of + objective truth became a worship of subjective sincerity, and his + worship of personal will became a worship of impersonal force. He + preached truth, service, sacrifice, but all in a mandatory and + pessimistic way. He saw in England and Wales “twenty-nine + millions—mostly fools.” He had no love, no remedy, no hope. In our + civil war, he was upon the side of the slaveholder. He claimed + that his philosophy made right to be might, but in practice he + made might to be right. Confounding all moral distinctions, as he + did in his later writings, he was fit to wear the title which he + invented for another: “President of the + Heaven-and-Hell-Amalgamation Society.” Froude calls him “a + Calvinist without the theology”—a believer in predestination + without grace. On Carlyle, see S. Law Wilson, Theology of Modern + Literature, 131-178. + + Emerson also is the worshiper of successful force. His pantheism + is most manifest in his poems “Cupido” and “Brahma,” and in his + Essays on “Spirit” and on “The Over-soul.” Cupido: “The solid, + solid universe Is pervious to Love; With bandaged eyes he never + errs, Around, below, above. His blinding light He flingeth white + On God’s and Satan’s brood, And reconciles by mystic wiles The + evil and the good.” Brahma: “If the red slayer thinks he slays, Or + if the slain think he is slain, They know not well the subtle ways + I keep, and pass, and turn again. Far or forgot to me is near; + Shadow and sunlight are the same; The vanished gods to me appear; + And one to me are shame or fame. They reckon ill who leave me out; + When me they fly, I am the wings; I am the doubter and the doubt, + And I the hymn the Brahmin sings. The strong gods pine for my + abode, And pine in vain the sacred Seven; But thou, meek lover of + the good, Find me, and turn thy back on heaven.” + + Emerson taught that man’s imperfection is not sin, and that the + cure for it lies in education. “He lets God evaporate into + abstract Ideality. Not a Deity in the concrete, nor a superhuman + Person, but rather the immanent divinity in things, the + essentially spiritual structure of the universe, is the object of + the transcendental cult.” His view of Jesus is found in his + Essays, 2:263—“Jesus would absorb the race; but Tom Paine, or the + coarsest blasphemer, helps humanity by resisting this exuberance + of power.” In his Divinity School Address, he banished the person + of Jesus from genuine religion. He thought “one could not be a man + if he must subordinate his nature to Christ’s nature.” He failed + to see that Jesus not only absorbs but transforms, and that we + grow only by the impact of nobler souls than our own. Emerson’s + essay style is devoid of clear and precise theological statement, + and in this vagueness lies its harmfulness. Fisher, Nature and + Method of Revelation, xii—“Emerson’s pantheism is not hardened + into a consistent creed, for to the end he clung to the belief in + personal immortality, and he pronounced the acceptance of this + belief ‘the test of mental sanity.’ ” On Emerson, see S. L. + Wilson, Theology of Modern Literature, 97-123. + + We may call this theory the “green-apple theory” of sin. Sin is a + green apple, which needs only time and sunshine and growth to + bring it to ripeness and beauty and usefulness. But we answer that + sin is not a green apple, but an apple with a worm at its heart. + The evil of it can never be cured by growth. The fall can never be + anything else than downward. Upon this theory, sin is an + inseparable factor in the nature of finite things. The highest + archangel cannot be without it. Man in moral character is “the + asymptote of God,”—forever learning, but never able to come to the + knowledge of the truth. The throne of iniquity is set up forever + in the universe. If this theory were true, Jesus, in virtue of his + partaking of our finite humanity, must needs be a sinner. His + perfect development, without sin, shows that sin was not a + necessity of finite progress. Matthews, in Christianity and + Evolution, 137—“It was not necessary for the prodigal to go into + the far country and become a swineherd, in order to find out the + father’s love.” E. H. Johnson, Syst. Theol., 141—“It is not the + privilege of the Infinite alone to be good.” Dorner, System, + 1:119, speaks of the moral career which this theory describes, as + “a _progressus in infinitum_, where the constant approach to the + goal has as its reverse side an eternal separation from the goal.” + In his “Transformation,” Hawthorne hints, though rather + hesitatingly, that without sin the higher humanity of man could + not be taken up at all, and that sin may be essential to the first + conscious awakening of moral freedom and to the possibility of + progress; see Hutton, Essays, 2:381. + + +(_b_) So far as this theory regards moral evil as a necessary +presupposition and condition of moral good, it commits the serious error +of confounding the possible with the actual. What is necessary to goodness +is not the actuality of evil, but only the possibility of evil. + + + Since we cannot know white except in contrast to black, it is + claimed that without knowing actual evil we could never know + actual good. George A. Gordon, New Epoch for Faith, 49, 50, has + well shown that in that case the elimination of evil would imply + the elimination of good. Sin would need to have place in God’s + being in order that he might be holy, and thus he would be + divinity and devil in one person. Jesus too must needs be evil as + well as good. Not only would it be true, as intimated above, that + Christ, since his humanity is finite, must be a sinner, but also + that we ourselves, who must always be finite, must always be + sinners. We grant that holiness, in either God or man, must + involve the abstract possibility of its opposite. But we maintain + that, as this possibility in God is only abstract and never + realized, so in man it should be only abstract and never realized. + Man has power to reject this possible evil. His sin is a turning + of the merely possible evil, by the decision of his will, into + actual evil. Robert Browning is not free from the error above + mentioned; see S. Law Wilson, Theology of Modern Literature, + 207-210; A. H. Strong, Great Poets and their Theology, 433-444. + + This theory of sin dates back to Hegel. To him there is no real + sin and cannot be. Imperfection there is and must always be, + because the relative can never become the absolute. Redemption is + only an evolutionary process, indefinitely prolonged, and evil + must remain an eternal condition. All finite thought is an element + in the infinite thought, and all finite will an element in the + infinite will. As good cannot exist without evil as its + antithesis, infinite righteousness should have for its counterpart + an infinite wickedness. Hegel’s guiding principle was that “What + is rational is real, and what is real is rational.” Seth, + Hegelianism and Personality, remarks that this principle ignores + “the riddle of the painful earth.” The disciples of Hegel thought + that nothing remained for history to accomplish, now that the + World-spirit had come to know himself in Hegel’s philosophy. + + Biedermann’s Dogmatik is based upon the Hegelian philosophy. At + page 649 we read: “Evil is the finiteness of the world-being which + clings to all individual existences by virtue of their belonging + to the immanent world-order. Evil is therefore a necessary element + in the divinely willed being of the world.” Bradley follows Hegel + in making sin to be no reality, but only a relative appearance. + There is no free will, and no antagonism between the will of God + and the will of man. Darkness is an evil, a destroying agent. But + it is not a positive force, as light is. It cannot be attacked and + overcome as an entity. Bring light, and darkness disappears. So + evil is not a positive force, as good is. Bring good, and evil + disappears. Herbert Spencer’s Evolutionary Ethics fits in with + such a system, for he says: “A perfect man in an imperfect race is + impossible.” On Hegel’s view of sin, a view which denies holiness + even to Christ, see J. Müller, Doct. Sin, 1:390-407; Dorner, Hist. + Doct. Person of Christ, B. 3:131-162; Stearns, Evidence of Christ. + Experience, 92-96; John Caird, Fund. Ideas, 2:1-25; Forrest, + Authority of Christ, 13-16. + + +(_c_) It is inconsistent with known facts,—as for example, the following: +Not all sins are negative sins of ignorance and infirmity; there are acts +of positive malignity, conscious transgressions, wilful and presumptuous +choices of evil. Increased knowledge of the nature of sin does not of +itself give strength to overcome it; but, on the contrary, repeated acts +of conscious transgression harden the heart in evil. Men of greatest +mental powers are not of necessity the greatest saints, nor are the +greatest sinners men of least strength of will and understanding. + + + Not the weak but the strong are the greatest sinners. We do not + pity Nero and Cæsar Borgia for their weakness; we abhor them for + their crimes. Judas was an able man, a practical administrator; + and Satan is a being of great natural endowments. Sin is not + simply a weakness,—it is also a power. A pantheistic philosophy + should worship Satan most of all; for he is the truest type of + godless intellect and selfish strength. + + _John 12:6_—Judas, “_having the bag, made away with what was put + therein_.” Judas was set by Christ to do the work he was best + fitted for, and that was best fitted to interest and save him. + Some men may be put into the ministry, because that is the only + work that will prevent their destruction. Pastors should find for + their members work suited to the aptitudes of each. Judas was + tempted, or tried, as all men are, according to his native + propensity. While his motive in objecting to Mary’s generosity was + really avarice, his pretext was charity, or regard for the poor. + Each one of the apostles had his own peculiar gift, and was chosen + because of it. The sin of Judas was not a sin of weakness, or + ignorance, or infirmity. It was a sin of disappointed ambition, of + malice, of hatred for Christ’s self-sacrificing purity. + + E. H. Johnson: “Sins are not men’s limitations, but the active + expressions of a perverse nature.” M. F. H. Round, Sec. of Nat. + Prison Association, on examining the record of a thousand + criminals, found that one quarter of them had an exceptionally + fine basis of physical life and strength, while the other three + quarters fell only a little below the average of ordinary + humanity; see The Forum, Sept. 1893. The theory that sin is only + holiness in the making reminds us of the view that the most + objectionable refuse can by ingenious processes be converted into + butter or at least into oleomargarine. It is not true that “tout + comprendre est tout pardonner.” Such doctrine obliterates all + moral distinctions. Gilbert, Bab Ballads, “My Dream”: “I dreamt + that somehow I had come To dwell in Topsy-Turvydom, Where vice is + virtue, virtue vice; Where nice is nasty, nasty nice; Where right + is wrong, and wrong is right; Where white is black and black is + white.” + + +(_d_) like the sense-theory of sin, it contradicts both conscience and +Scripture by denying human responsibility and by transferring the blame of +sin from the creature to the Creator. This is to explain sin, again, by +denying its existence. + + + Œdipus said that his evil deeds had been suffered, not done. + Agamemnon, in the Iliad, says the blame belongs, not to himself, + but to Jupiter and to fate. So sin blames everything and everybody + but self. _Gen. 3:12_—“_The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, + she gave me of the tree, and I did eat._” But self-vindicating is + God-accusing. Made imperfect at the start, man cannot help his + sin. By the very fact of his creation he is cut loose from God. + That cannot be sin which is a necessary outgrowth of human nature, + which is not our act but our fate. To all this, the one answer is + found in Conscience. Conscience testifies that sin is not “das + Gewordene,” but “das Gemachte,” and that it was his own act when + man by transgression fell. The Scriptures refer man’s sin, not to + the limitations of his being, but to the free will of man himself. + On the theory here combated, see Müller, Doct. Sin, 1:271-295; + Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 3:123-131; N. R. Wood, The Witness of + Sin, 20-42. + + +3. Sin as Selfishness. + + +We hold the essential principle of sin to be selfishness. By selfishness +we mean not simply the exaggerated self-love which constitutes the +antithesis of benevolence, but that choice of self as the supreme end +which constitutes the antithesis of supreme love to God. That selfishness +is the essence of sin may be shown as follows: + +A. Love to God is the essence of all virtue. The opposite to this, the +choice of self as the supreme end, must therefore be the essence of sin. + +We are to remember, however, that the love to God in which virtue consists +is love for that which is most characteristic and fundamental in God, +namely, his holiness. It is not to be confounded with supreme regard for +God’s interests or for the good of being in general. Not mere benevolence, +but love for God as holy, is the principle and source of holiness in man. +Since the love of God required by the law is of this sort, it not only +does not imply that love, in the sense of benevolence, is the essence of +holiness in God,—it implies rather that holiness, or self-loving and +self-affirming purity, is fundamental in the divine nature. From this +self-loving and self-affirming purity, love properly so-called, or the +self-communicating attribute, is to be carefully distinguished (see vol. +1, pages 271-275). + + + Bossuet, describing heathendom, says: “Every thing was God but God + himself.” Sin goes further than this, and says: “I am myself all + things,”—not simply as Louis XVI: “I am the state,” but: “I am the + world, the universe, God.” Heinrich Heine: “I am no child. I do + not want a heavenly Father any more.” A French critic of Fichte’s + philosophy said that it was a flight toward the infinite which + began with the ego, and never got beyond it. Kidd, Social + Evolution, 75—“In Calderon’s tragic story, the unknown figure, + which throughout life is everywhere in conflict with the + individual whom it haunts, lifts the mask at last to disclose to + the opponent his own features.” Caird, Evolution of Religion, + 1:78—“Every self, once awakened, is naturally a despot, and + ‘bears, like the Turk, no brother near the throne.’ ” Every one + has, as Hobbes said, “an infinite desire for gain or glory,” and + can be satisfied with nothing but a whole universe for himself. + Selfishness—“homo homini lupus.” James Martineau: “We ask Comte to + lift the veil from the holy of holies and show us the all-perfect + object of worship,—he produces a looking-glass and shows us + ourselves.” Comte’s religion is a “synthetic idealization of our + existence”—a worship, not of God, but of humanity; and “the + festival of humanity” among Positivists—Walt Whitman’s “I + celebrate myself.” On Comte, see Martineau, Types, 1:499. The most + thorough discussion of the essential principle of sin is that of + Julius Müller, Doct. Sin, 1:147-182. He defines sin as “a turning + away from the love of God to self-seeking.” + + N. W. Taylor holds that self-love is the primary cause of all + moral action; that selfishness is a different thing, and consists + not in making our own happiness our ultimate end, which we must do + if we are moral beings, but in love of the world, and in + preferring the world to God as our portion or chief good (see N. + W. Taylor, Moral Govt., 1:24-26; 2:20-24, and Rev. Theol., + 134-162; Tyler, Letters on the New Haven Theology, 72). We claim, + on the contrary, that to make our own happiness our ultimate aim + is itself sin, and the essence of sin. As God makes his holiness + the central thing, so we are to live for that, loving self only in + God and for God’s sake. This love for God as holy is the essence + of virtue. The opposite to this, or supreme love for self, is sin. + As Richard Lovelace writes: “I could not love thee, dear, so much, + Loved I not honor more,” so Christian friends can say: “Our loves + in higher love endure.” The sinner raises some lower object of + instinct or desire to supremacy, regardless of God and his law, + and this he does for no other reason than to gratify self. On the + distinction between mere benevolence and the love required by + God’s law, see Hovey, God With Us, 187-200; Hopkins, Works, 1:235; + F. W. Robertson, Sermon I. Emerson: “Your goodness must have some + edge to it, else it is none.” See Newman Smyth, Christian Ethics, + 327-370, on duties toward self as a moral end. + + Love to God is the essence of all virtue. We are to love God with + all the heart. But what God? Surely, not the false God, the God + who is indifferent to moral distinctions and who treats the wicked + as he treats the righteous. The love which the law requires is + love for the true God, the God of holiness. Such love aims at the + reproduction of God’s holiness in ourselves and in others. We are + to love ourselves only for God’s sake and for the sake of + realizing the divine idea in us. We are to love others only for + God’s sake and for the sake of realizing the divine idea in them. + In our moral progress we, first, love self for our own sake; + secondly, God for our own sake; thirdly, God for his own sake; + fourthly, ourselves for God’s sake. The first is our state by + nature; the second requires prevenient grace; the third, + regenerating grace; and the fourth, sanctifying grace. Only the + last is reasonable self-love. Balfour, Foundations of Belief, + 27—“Reasonable self-love is a virtue wholly incompatible with what + is commonly called selfishness. Society suffers, not from having + too much of it, but from having too little.” Altruism is not the + whole of duty. Self-realization is equally important. But to care + only for self, like Goethe, is to miss the true self-realization, + which love to God ensures. + + Love desires only _the best_ for its object, and the best is + _God_. The golden rule bids us give, not what others desire, but + what they need. _Rom. 15:2_—“_Let each one of us please his + neighbor for that which is good, unto edifying._” Deutsche Liebe: + “Nicht Liebe die fragt: Willst du mein sein? Sondern Liebe die + sagt: Ich muss dein sein.” Sin consists in taking for one’s self + alone and apart from God that in one’s self and in others to which + one has a right only in God and for God’s sake. Mrs. Humphrey + Ward, David Grieve, 403—“How dare a man pluck from the Lord’s + hand, for his wild and reckless use, a soul and body for which he + died? How dare he, the Lord’s bondsman, steal his joy, carrying it + off by himself into the wilderness, like an animal his prey, + instead of asking it at the hands and under the blessing of the + Master? How dare he, a member of the Lord’s body, forget the + whole, in his greed for the one—eternity in his thirst for the + present?” Wordsworth, Prelude, 546—“Delight how pitiable, Unless + this love by a still higher love Be hallowed, love that breathes + not without awe; Love that adores, but on the knees of prayer. By + heaven inspired.... This spiritual love acts not nor can exist + Without imagination, which in truth Is but another name for + absolute power, And clearest insight, amplitude of mind, And + reason in her most exalted mood.” + + Aristotle says that the wicked have no right to love themselves, + but that the good may. So, from a Christian point of view, we may + say: No unregenerate man can properly respect himself. + Self-respect belongs only to the man who lives in God and who has + God’s image restored to him thereby. True self-love is not love + for the _happiness_ of the self, but for the _worth_ of the self + in God’s sight, and this self-love is the condition of all genuine + and worthy love for others. But true self-love is in turn + conditioned by love to God as holy, and it seeks primarily, not + the happiness, but the holiness, of others. Asquith, Christian + Conception of Holiness, 98, 145, 154, 207—“Benevolence or love is + not the same with altruism. Altruism is instinctive, and has not + its origin in the moral reason. It has utility, and it may even + furnish material for reflection on the part of the moral reason. + But so far as it is not deliberate, not indulged for the sake of + the end, but only for the gratification of the instinct of the + moment, it is not moral.... Holiness is dedication to God, the + Good, not as an external Ruler, but as an internal controller and + transformer of character.... God is a being whose every thought is + love, of whose thoughts not one is for himself, save so far as + himself is not himself, that is, so far as there is a distinction + of persons in the Godhead. Creation is one great unselfish + thought—the bringing into being of creatures who can know the + happiness that God knows.... To the spiritual man holiness and + love are one. Salvation is deliverance from selfishness.” Kaftan, + Dogmatik, 319, 320, regards the essence of sin as consisting, not + in selfishness, but in turning away from God and so from the love + which would cause man to grow in knowledge and likeness to God. + But this seems to be nothing else than choosing self instead of + God as our object and end. + + +B. All the different forms of sin can be shown to have their root in +selfishness, while selfishness itself, considered as the choice of self as +a supreme end, cannot be resolved into any simpler elements. + +(_a_) Selfishness may reveal itself in the elevation to supreme dominion +of any one of man’s natural appetites, desires, or affections. Sensuality +is selfishness in the form of inordinate appetite. Selfish desire takes +the forms respectively of avarice, ambition, vanity, pride, according as +it is set upon property, power, esteem, independence. Selfish affection is +falsehood or malice, according as it hopes to make others its voluntary +servants, or regards them as standing in its way; it is unbelief or enmity +to God, according as it simply turns away from the truth and love of God, +or conceives of God’s holiness as positively resisting and punishing it. + + + Augustine and Aquinas held the essence of sin to be pride; Luther + and Calvin regarded its essence to be unbelief. Kreibig + (Versöhnungslehre) regards it as “world-love”; still others + consider it as enmity to God. In opposing the view that sensuality + is the essence of sin, Julius Müller says: “Wherever we find + sensuality, there we find selfishness, but we do not find that, + where there is selfishness, there is always sensuality. + Selfishness may embody itself in fleshly lust or inordinate desire + for the creature, but this last cannot bring forth spiritual sins + which have no element of sensuality in them.” + + Covetousness or avarice makes, not sensual gratification itself, + but the things that may minister thereto, the object of pursuit, + and in this last chase often loses sight of its original aim. + Ambition is selfish love of power; vanity is selfish love of + esteem. Pride is but the self-complacency, self-sufficiency, and + self-isolation of a selfish spirit that desires nothing so much as + unrestrained independence. Falsehood originates in selfishness, + first as self-deception, and then, since man by sin isolates + himself and yet in a thousand ways needs the fellowship of his + brethren, as deception of others. Malice, the perversion of + natural resentment (together with hatred and revenge), is the + reaction of selfishness against those who stand, or are imagined + to stand, in its way. Unbelief and enmity to God are effects of + sin, rather than its essence; selfishness leads us first to doubt, + and then to hate, the Lawgiver and Judge. Tacitus: “Humani generis + proprium est odisse quem læseris.” In sin, self-affirmation and + self-surrender are not coördinate elements, as Dorner holds, but + the former conditions the latter. + + As love to God is love to God’s holiness, so love to man is love + for holiness in man and desire to impart it. In other words, true + love for man is the longing to make man like God. Over against + this normal desire which should fill the heart and inspire the + life, there stands a hierarchy of lower desires which may be + utilized and sanctified by the higher love, but which may assert + their independence and may thus be the occasions of sin. Physical + gratification, money, esteem, power, knowledge, family, virtue, + are proper objects of regard, so long as these are sought for + God’s sake and within the limitations of his will. Sin consists in + turning our backs on God and in seeking any one of these objects + for its own sake; or, which is the same thing, for our own sake. + Appetite gratified without regard to God’s law is lust; the love + of money becomes avarice; the desire for esteem becomes vanity; + the longing for power becomes ambition; the love for knowledge + becomes a selfish thirst for intellectual satisfaction; parental + affection degenerates into indulgence and nepotism; the seeking of + virtue becomes self-righteousness and self-sufficiency. Kaftan, + Dogmatik, 323—“Jesus grants that even the heathen and sinners love + those who love them. But family love becomes family pride; + patriotism comes to stand for country right or wrong; happiness in + one’s calling leads to class distinctions.” + + Dante, in his Divine Comedy, divides the Inferno into three great + sections: those in which are punished, respectively, incontinence, + bestiality, and malice. Incontinence—sin of the heart, the + emotions, the affections. Lower down is found bestiality—sin of + the head, the thoughts, the mind, as infidelity and heresy. Lowest + of all is malice—sin of the will, deliberate rebellion, fraud and + treachery. So we are taught that the heart carries the intellect + with it, and that the sin of unbelief gradually deepens into the + intensity of malice. See A. H. Strong, Great Poets and their + Theology, 133—“Dante teaches us that sin is the self-perversion of + the will. If there is any thought fundamental to his system, it is + the thought of freedom. Man is not a waif swept irresistibly + downward on the current; he is a being endowed with power to + resist, and therefore guilty if he yields. Sin is not misfortune, + or disease, or natural necessity; it is wilfulness, and crime, and + self-destruction. The Divine Comedy is, beyond all other poems, + the poem of conscience; and this could not be, if it did not + recognize man as a free agent, the responsible cause of his own + evil acts and his own evil state.” See also Harris, in Jour. Spec. + Philos., 21:350-451; Dinsmore, Atonement in Literature and Life, + 69-86. + + In Greek tragedy, says Prof. Wm. Arnold Stevens, the one sin which + the gods hated and would not pardon was ὕβρις—obstinate + self-assertion of mind or will, absence of reverence and + humility—of which we have an illustration in Ajax. George + MacDonald: “A man may be possessed of himself, as of a devil.” + Shakespeare depicts this insolence of infatuation in Shylock, + Macbeth, and Richard III. Troilus and Cressida, 4:4—“Something may + be done that we will not; And sometimes we are devils to + ourselves, When we will tempt the frailty of our powers, Presuming + on their changeful potency.” Yet Robert G. Ingersoll said that + Shakespeare holds crime to be the mistake of ignorance! N. P. + Willis, Parrhasius: “How like a mounting devil in the heart Rules + unrestrained ambition!” + + +(_b_) Even in the nobler forms of unregenerate life, the principle of +selfishness is to be regarded as manifesting itself in the preference of +lower ends to that of God’s proposing. Others are loved with idolatrous +affection because these others are regarded as a part of self. That the +selfish element is present even here, is evident upon considering that +such affection does not seek the highest interest of its object, that it +often ceases when unreturned, and that it sacrifices to its own +gratification the claims of God and his law. + + + Even in the mother’s idolatry of her child, the explorer’s + devotion to science, the sailor’s risk of his life to save + another’s, the gratification sought may be that of a lower + instinct or desire, and any substitution of a lower for the + highest object is non-conformity to law, and therefore sin. H. B. + Smith, System Theology, 277—“Some lower affection is supreme.” And + the underlying motive which leads to this substitution is + self-gratification. There is no such thing as disinterested sin, + for “_every one that loveth is begotten of God_” (_1 John 4:7_). + Thomas Hughes, The Manliness of Christ: Much of the heroism of + battle is simply “resolution in the actors to have their way, + contempt for ease, animal courage which we share with the bulldog + and the weasel, intense assertion of individual will and force, + avowal of the rough-handed man that he has that in him which + enables him to defy pain and danger and death.” + + Mozley on Blanco White, in Essays, 2:143: Truth may be sought in + order to absorb truth in self, not for the sake of absorbing self + in truth. So Blanco White, in spite of the pain of separating from + old views and friends, lived for the selfish pleasure of new + discovery, till all his early faith vanished, and even immortality + seemed a dream. He falsely thought that the pain he suffered in + giving up old beliefs was evidence of self-sacrifice with which + God must be pleased, whereas it was the inevitable pain which + attends the victory of selfishness. Robert Browning, Paracelsus, + 81—“I still must hoard, and heap, and class all truths With one + ulterior purpose: I must know! Would God translate me to his + throne, believe That I should only listen to his words To further + my own ends.” F. W. Robertson on Genesis, 57—“He who sacrifices + his sense of right, his conscience, for another, sacrifices the + God within him; he is not sacrificing self.... He who prefers his + dearest friend or his beloved child to the call of duty, will soon + show that he prefers himself to his dearest friend, and would not + sacrifice himself for his child.” _Ib._, 91—“In those who love + little, love [for finite beings] is a primary affection,—a + secondary, in those who love much.... The only true affection is + that which is subordinate to a higher.” True love is love for the + soul and its highest, its eternal, interests; love that seeks to + make it holy; love for the sake of God and for the accomplishment + of God’s idea in his creation. + + Although we cannot, with Augustine, call the virtues of the + heathen “splendid vices”—for they were relatively good and + useful,—they still, except in possible instances where God’s + Spirit wrought upon the heart, were illustrations of a morality + divorced from love to God, were lacking in the most essential + element demanded by the law, were therefore infected with sin. + Since the law judges all action by the heart from which it + springs, no action of the unregenerate can be other than sin. The + ebony-tree is white in its outer circles of woody fibre; at heart + it is black as ink. There is no unselfishness in the unregenerate + heart, apart from the divine enlightenment and energizing. + Self-sacrifice for the sake of self is selfishness after all. + Professional burglars and bank-robbers are often carefully + abstemious in their personal habits, and they deny themselves the + use of liquor and tobacco while in the active practice of their + trade. Herron, The Larger Christ, 47—“It is as truly immoral to + seek truth out of mere love of knowing it, as it is to seek money + out of love to gain. Truth sought for truth’s sake is an + intellectual vice; it is spiritual covetousness. It is an + idolatry, setting up the worship of abstractions and generalities + in place of the living God.” + + +(_c_) It must be remembered, however, that side by side with the selfish +will, and striving against it, is the power of Christ, the immanent God, +imparting aspirations and impulses foreign to unregenerate humanity, and +preparing the way for the soul’s surrender to truth and righteousness. + + + _Rom. 8:7_—“_the mind of the flesh is enmity against God_”; _Acts + 17:27, 28_—“_he is not far from each one of us: for in him we + live, and move, and have our being_”; _Rom. 2:4_—“_the goodness of + God leadeth thee to repentance_”; _John 1:9_—“_the light which + lighteth every man._” Many generous traits and acts of + self-sacrifice in the unregenerate must be ascribed to the + prevenient grace of God and to the enlightening influence of the + Spirit of Christ. A mother, during the Russian famine, gave to her + children all the little supply of food that came to her in the + distribution, and died that they might live. In her decision to + sacrifice herself for her offspring she may have found her + probation and may have surrendered herself to God. The impulse to + make the sacrifice may have been due to the Holy Spirit, and her + yielding may have been essentially an act of saving faith. In + _Mark 10:21, 22_—“_And Jesus looking upon him loved him ... he + went away sorrowful_”—our Lord apparently loved the young man, not + only for his gifts, his efforts, and his possibilities, but also + for the manifest working in him of the divine Spirit, even while + in his natural character he was without God and without love, + self-ignorant, self-righteous, and self-seeking. + + Paul, in like manner, before his conversion, loved and desired + righteousness, provided only that this righteousness might be the + product and achievement of his own will and might reflect honor on + himself; in short, provided only that self might still be + uppermost. To be dependent for righteousness upon another was + abhorrent to him. And yet this very impulse toward righteousness + may have been due to the divine Spirit within him. On Paul’s + experience before conversion, see E. D. Burton, Bib. World, Jan. + 1893. Peter objected to the washing of his feet by Jesus (_John + 13:8_), not because it humbled the Master too much in the eyes of + the disciple, but because it humbled the disciple too much in his + own eyes. Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 1:218—“Sin is the + violation of the God-willed moral order of the world by the + self-will of the individual.” Tophel on the Holy Spirit, 17—“You + would deeply wound him [the average sinner] if you told him that + his heart, full of sin, is an object of horror to the holiness of + God.” The impulse to repentance, as well as the impulse to + righteousness, is the product, not of man’s own nature, but of the + Christ within him who is moving him to seek salvation. + + Elizabeth Barrett wrote to Robert Browning after she had accepted + his proposal of marriage: “Henceforth I am yours for everything + but to do you harm.” George Harris, Moral Evolution, 138—“Love + seeks the true good of the person loved. It will not minister in + an unworthy way to afford a temporary pleasure. It will not + approve or tolerate that which is wrong. It will not encourage the + coarse, base passions of the one loved. It condemns impurity, + falsehood, selfishness. A parent does not really love his child if + he tolerates the self-indulgence, and does not correct or punish + the faults, of the child.” Hutton: “You might as well say that it + is a fit subject for art to paint the morbid exstasy of cannibals + over their horrid feasts, as to paint lust without love. If you + are to delineate man at all, you must delineate him with his human + nature, and therefore you can never omit from any worthy picture + that conscience which is its crown.” + + Tennyson, in In Memoriam, speaks of “Fantastic beauty such as + lurks In some wild poet when he works Without a conscience or an + aim.” Such work may be due to mere human nature. But the lofty + work of true creative genius, and the still loftier acts of men + still unregenerate but conscientious and self-sacrificing, must be + explained by the working in them of the immanent Christ, the life + and light of men. James Martineau, Study, 1:20—“Conscience may act + as human, before it is discovered to be divine.” See J. D. Stoops, + in Jour. Philos., Psych., and Sci. Meth., 2:512—“If there is a + divine life over and above the separate streams of individual + lives, the welling up of this larger life in the experience of the + individual is precisely the point of contact between the + individual person and God.” Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, + 2:122—“It is this divine element in man, this relationship to God, + which gives to sin its darkest and direst complexion. For such a + life is the turning of a light brighter than the sun into + darkness, the squandering or bartering away of a boundless wealth, + the suicidal abasement, to the things that perish, of a nature + destined by its very constitution and structure for participation + in the very being and blessedness of God.” + + On the various forms of sin as manifestations of selfishness, see + Julius Müller, Doct. Sin, 1:147-182; Jonathan Edwards, Works, + 2:268, 269; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 3:5, 6; Baird, Elohim + Revealed, 243-262; Stewart, Active and Moral Powers, 11-91; + Hopkins, Moral Science, 86-156. On the Roman Catholic “Seven + Deadly Sins” (Pride, Envy, Anger, Sloth, Avarice, Gluttony, Lust), + see Wetzer und Welte, Kirchenlexikon, and Orby Shipley, Theory + about Sin, preface, xvi-xviii. + + +C. This view accords best with Scripture. + +(_a_) The law requires love to God as its all-embracing requirement. (_b_) +The holiness of Christ consisted in this, that he sought not his own will +or glory, but made God his supreme end. (_c_) The Christian is one who has +ceased to live for self. (_d_) The tempter’s promise is a promise of +selfish independence. (_e_) The prodigal separates himself from his +father, and seeks his own interest and pleasure. (_f_) The “man of sin” +illustrates the nature of sin, in “opposing and exalting himself against +all that is called God.” + + + (_a_) _Mat. 22:37-39_—the command of love to God and man; _Rom. + 13:8-10_—“_love therefore is the fulfilment of the law_”; _Gal. + 5:14_—“_the whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: Thou + shalt love thy neighbor as thyself_”; _James 2:8_—“_the royal + law._” (_b_) _John 5:30_—“_my judgment is righteous; because I + seek not mine own will, but the will of him that sent me_”; + _7:18_—“_He that speaketh from himself seeketh his own glory: but + he that seeketh the glory of him that sent him, the same is true, + and no unrighteousness is in him_”; _Rom. 15:3_—“_Christ also + pleased not himself._” (_c_) _Rom. 14:7_—“_none of us liveth to + himself, and none dieth to himself_”; _2 Cor. 5:15_—“_he died for + all, that they that live should no longer live unto themselves, + but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again_”; _Gal. + 2:20_—“_I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I + that live, but Christ liveth in me._” Contrast _2 Tim. + 3:2_—“_lovers of self._” (_d_) _Gen. 3:5_—“_ye shall be as God, + knowing good and evil._” (_e_) _Luke 15:12, 13_—“_give me the + portion of thy substance ... gathered all together and took his + journey into a far country._” (_f_) _2 Thess. 2:3, 4_—“_the man of + sin ... the son of perdition, he that opposeth and exalteth + himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so + that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as + God._” + + Contrast “_the man of sin_” who “_exalteth himself_” (_2 Thess. + 2:3, 4_) with the Son of God who “_emptied himself_” (_Phil. + 2:7_). On “_the man of sin_”, see Wm. Arnold Stevens, in Bap. + Quar. Rev., July, 1889:328-360. Ritchie, Darwin, and Hegel, 24—“We + are conscious of sin, because we know that our true self is God, + from whom we are severed. No ethics is possible unless we + recognize an ideal for all human effort in the presence of the + eternal Self which any account of conduct presupposes.” John + Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 2:53-73—“Here, as in all + organic life, the individual member or organ has no independent or + exclusive life, and the attempt to attain to it is fatal to + itself.” Milton describes man as “affecting Godhead, and so losing + all.” Of the sinner, we may say with Shakespeare, Coriolanus, + 5:4—“He wants nothing of a god but eternity and a heaven to throne + in.... There is no more mercy in him than there is milk in a male + tiger.” No one of us, then, can sign too early “the declaration of + dependence.” Both Old School and New School theologians agree that + sin is selfishness; see Bellamy, Hopkins, Emmons, the younger + Edwards, Finney, Taylor. See also A. H. Strong, Christ in + Creation, 287-292. + + +Sin, therefore, is not merely a negative thing, or an absence of love to +God. It is a fundamental and positive choice or preference of self instead +of God, as the object of affection and the supreme end of being. Instead +of making God the centre of his life, surrendering himself unconditionally +to God and possessing himself only in subordination to God’s will, the +sinner makes self the centre of his life, sets himself directly against +God, and constitutes his own interest the supreme motive and his own will +the supreme rule. + +We may follow Dr. E. G. Robinson in saying that, while sin as a state is +unlikeness to God, as a principle is opposition to God, and as an act is +transgression of God’s law, the essence of it always and everywhere is +selfishness. It is therefore not something external, or the result of +compulsion from without; it is a depravity of the affections and a +perversion of the will, which constitutes man’s inmost character. + + + See Harris, in Bib. Sac., 18:148—“Sin is essentially egoism or + selfism, putting self in God’s place. It has four principal + characteristics or manifestations: (1) self-sufficiency, instead + of faith; (2) self-will, instead of submission; (3) self-seeking, + instead of benevolence; (4) self-righteousness, instead of + humility and reverence.” All sin is either explicit or implicit + “_enmity against God_” (_Rom. 8:7_). All true confessions are like + David’s (_Ps. 51:4_)—“_Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, And + done that which is evil in thy sight._” Of all sinners it might be + said that they “_Fight neither with small nor great, save only + with the king of Israel_” (_1 K. 22:31_). + + Not every sinner is conscious of this enmity. Sin is a principle + in course of development. It is not yet “_full-grown_” (_James + 1:15_—“_the sin, when it is full-grown, bringeth forth death_”). + Even now, as James Martineau has said: “If it could be known that + God was dead, the news would cause but little excitement in the + streets of London and Paris.” But this indifference easily grows, + in the presence of threatening and penalty, into violent hatred to + God and positive defiance of his law. If the sin which is now + hidden in the sinner’s heart were but permitted to develop itself + according to its own nature, it would hurl the Almighty from his + throne, and would set up its own kingdom upon the ruins of the + moral universe. Sin is world-destroying, as well as + God-destroying, for it is inconsistent with the conditions which + make being as a whole possible; see Royce, World and Individual, + 2:366; Dwight, Works, sermon 80. + + + +Section III.—Universality Of Sin. + + +We have shown that sin is a state, a state of the will, a selfish state of +the will. We now proceed to show that this selfish state of the will is +universal. We divide our proof into two parts. In the first, we regard sin +in its aspect as conscious violation of law; in the second, in its aspect +as a bias of the nature to evil, prior to or underlying consciousness. + + +I. Every human being who has arrived at moral consciousness has committed +acts, or cherished dispositions, contrary to the divine law. + + +1. _Proof from Scripture._ + +The universality of transgression is: + +(_a_) Set forth in direct statements of Scripture. + + + _1 K. 8:46_—“_there is no man that sinneth not_”; _Ps. + 143:2_—“_enter not into judgment with thy servant; For in thy + sight no man living is righteous_”; _Prov. 20:9_—“_Who can say, I + have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?_”; _Eccl. + 7:20_—“_Surely there is not a righteous man upon earth, that doeth + good, and sinneth not_”; _Luke 11:13_—“_If ye, then, being evil_”; + _Rom. 3:10, 12_—“_There is none righteous, no, not one.... There + is none that doeth good, no, not so much as one_”; _19, 20_—“_that + every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be brought under + the judgment of God: because by the works of the law shall no + flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law cometh the + knowledge of sin_”; _23_—“_for all have sinned, and fall short of + the glory of God_”; _Gal. 3:22_—“_the scripture shut up all things + under sin_”; _James 3:2_—“_For in many things we all stumble_”; _1 + John 1:8_—“_If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, + and the truth is not in us._” Compare _Mat. 6:12_—“_forgive us our + debts_”—given as a prayer for all men; _14_—“_if ye forgive men + their trespasses_”—the condition of our own forgiveness. + + +(_b_) Implied in declarations of the universal need of atonement, +regeneration, and repentance. + + + Universal need of atonement: _Mark 16:16_—“_He that believeth and + is baptised shall be saved_” (Mark 16:9-20, though probably not + written by Mark, is nevertheless of canonical authority); _John + 3:16_—“_God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten + Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish_”; + _6:50_—“_This is the bread which cometh down out of heaven, that a + man may eat thereof, and not die_”; _12:47_—“_I came not to judge + the world, but to save the world_”; _Acts 4:12_—“_in none other is + there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, + that is given among men, wherein we must be saved._” Universal + need of regeneration: _John 3:3, 5_—“_Except one be born anew, he + cannot see the kingdom of God.... Except one be born of water and + the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God._” Universal + need of repentance: _Acts 17:30_—“_commandeth men that they should + all everywhere repent._” Yet Mrs. Mary Baker G. Eddy, in her + “Unity of Good,” speaks of “the illusion which calls sin real and + man a sinner needing a Savior.” + + +(_c_) Shown from the condemnation resting upon all who do not accept +Christ. + + + _John 3:18_—“_he that believeth not hath been judged already, + because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son + of God_”; _36_—“_he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, + but the wrath of God abideth on him_”; Compare _1 John 5:19_—“_the + whole world lieth in_ [_i. e._, in union with] _the evil one_”; + see Annotated Paragraph Bible, _in loco_. Kaftan, Dogmatik, + 318—“Law requires love to God. This implies love to our neighbor, + not only abstaining from all injury to him, but righteousness in + all our relations, forgiving instead of requiting, help to enemies + as well as friends in all salutary ways, self-discipline, + avoidance of all sensuous immoderation, subjection of all sensuous + activity as means for spiritual ends in the kingdom of God, and + all this, not as a matter of outward conduct merely, but from the + heart and as the satisfaction of one’s own will and desire. This + is the will of God respecting us, which Jesus has revealed and of + which he is the example in his life. Instead of this, man + universally seeks to promote his own life, pleasure, and honor.” + + +(_d_) Consistent with those passages which at first sight seem to ascribe +to certain men a goodness which renders them acceptable to God, where a +closer examination will show that in each case the goodness supposed is a +merely imperfect and fancied goodness, a goodness of mere aspiration and +impulse due to preliminary workings of God’s Spirit, or a goodness +resulting from the trust of a conscious sinner in God’s method of +salvation. + + + In _Mat 9:12_—“_They that are whole have no need of a physician, + but they that are sick_”—Jesus means those who in their own esteem + are whole; _cf._ _13_—“_I came not to call the righteous, but + sinners_”—“if any were truly righteous, they would not need my + salvation; if they think themselves so, they will not care to seek + it” (An. Par. Bib.). In _Luke 10:30-37_—the parable of the good + Samaritan—Jesus intimates, not that the good Samaritan was not a + sinner, but that there were saved sinners outside of the bounds of + Israel. In _Acts 10:35_—“_in every nation he that feareth him, and + worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him_”—Peter declares, not + that Cornelius was not a sinner, but that God had accepted him + through Christ; Cornelius was already justified, but he needed to + know (1) _that_ he was saved, and (2) _how_ he was saved; and + Peter was sent to tell him of the fact, and of the method, of his + salvation in Christ. In _Rom. 2:14_—“_for when Gentiles that have + not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having + the law, are a law unto themselves_”—it is only said that in + certain respects the obedience of these Gentiles shows that they + have an unwritten law in their hearts; it is not said that they + perfectly obey the law and therefore have no sin—for Paul says + immediately after (_Rom. 3:9_)—“_we before laid to the charge both + of Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin._” + + So with regard to the words “_perfect_” and “_upright_,” as + applied to godly men. We shall see, when we come to consider the + doctrine of Sanctification, that the word “_perfect_,” as applied + to spiritual conditions already attained, signifies only a + relative perfection, equivalent to sincere piety or maturity of + Christian judgment, in other words, the perfection of a sinner who + has long trusted in Christ, and in whom Christ has overcome his + chief defects of character. See _1 Cor. 2:6_—“_we speak wisdom + among the perfect_” (Am. Rev.: “_among them that are + full-grown_”); _Phil. 3:15_—“_let us therefore, as many as are + perfect, be thus minded_”—_i. e._, to press toward the goal—a goal + expressly said by the apostles to be not yet attained (_v. + 12-14_). + + “Est deus in nobis; agitante calescimus illo.” God is the “spark + that fires our clay.” S. S. Times, Sept. 21, 1901:609—“Humanity is + better and worse than men have painted it. There has been a kind + of theological pessimism in denouncing human sinfulness, which has + been blind to the abounding love and patience and courage and + fidelity to duty among men.” A. H. Strong, Christ in Creation, + 287-290—“There is a natural life of Christ, and that life pulses + and throbs in all men everywhere. All men are created in Christ, + before they are recreated in him. The whole race lives, moves, and + has its being in him, for he is the soul of its soul and the life + of its life.” To Christ then, and not to unaided human nature, we + attribute the noble impulses of unregenerate men. These impulses + are drawings of his Spirit, moving men to repentance. But they are + influences of his grace which, if resisted, leave the soul in more + than its original darkness. + + +2. _Proof from history, observation, and the common judgment of mankind._ + +(_a_) History witnesses to the universality of sin, in its accounts of the +universal prevalence of priesthood and sacrifice. + + + See references in Luthardt, Fund. Truths, 161-172, 335-339. + Baptist Review, 1882:343—“Plutarch speaks of the tear-stained + eyes, the pallid and woe-begone countenances which he sees at the + public altars, men rolling themselves in the mire and confessing + their sins. Among the common people the dull feeling of guilt was + too real to be shaken off or laughed away.” + + +(_b_) Every man knows himself to have come short of moral perfection, and, +in proportion to his experience of the world, recognizes the fact that +every other man has come short of it also. + + + Chinese proverb: “There are but two good men; one is dead, and the + other is not yet born.” Idaho proverb: “The only good Indian is a + dead Indian.” But the proverb applies to the white man also. Dr. + Jacob Chamberlain, the missionary, said: “I never but once in + India heard a man deny that he was a sinner. But once a Brahmin + interrupted me and said: ‘I deny your premisses. I am not a + sinner. I do not need to do better.’ For a moment I was abashed. + Then I said: ‘But what do your neighbors say?’ Thereupon one cried + out: ‘He cheated me in trading horses’; another: ‘He defrauded a + widow of her inheritance.’ The Brahmin went out of the house, and + I never saw him again.” A great nephew of Richard Brinsley + Sheridan, Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu, when a child, wrote in a few + lines an “Essay on the Life of Man,” which ran as follows: “A + man’s life naturally divides itself into three distinct parts: the + first when he is contriving and planning all kinds of villainy and + rascality,—that is the period of youth and innocence. In the + second, he is found putting in practice all the villainy and + rascality he has contrived,—that is the flower of mankind and + prime of life. The third and last period is that when he is making + his soul and preparing for another world,—that is the period of + dotage.” + + +(_c_) The common judgment of mankind declares that there is an element of +selfishness in every human heart, and that every man is prone to some form +of sin. This common judgment is expressed in the maxims: “No man is +perfect”; “Every man has his weak side”, or “his price”; and every great +name in literature has attested its truth. + + + Seneca, De Ira, 3:26—“We are all wicked. What one blames in + another he will find in his own bosom. We live among the wicked, + ourselves being wicked”; Ep., 22—“No one has strength of himself + to emerge [from this wickedness]; some one must needs hold forth a + hand; some one must draw us out.” Ovid, Met., 7:19—“I see the + things that are better and I approve them, yet I follow the + worse.... We strive even after that which is forbidden, and we + desire the things that are denied.” Cicero: “Nature has given us + faint sparks of knowledge; we extinguish them by our + immoralities.” + + Shakespeare, Othello, 3:3—“Where’s that palace whereinto foul + things Sometimes Intrude not? Who has a breast so pure, But some + uncleanly apprehensions keep leets [meetings in court] and + law-days, and in sessions sit With meditations lawful?” Henry VI., + II:3:3—“Forbear to judge, for we are sinners all.” Hamlet, 2:2, + compares God’s influence to the sun which “breeds maggots in a + dead dog, Kissing carrion,”—that is, God is no more responsible + for the corruption in man’s heart and the evil that comes from it, + than the sun is responsible for the maggots which its heat breeds + in a dead dog; 3:1—“We are arrant knaves all.” Timon of Athens, + 1:2—“Who lives that’s not depraved or depraves?” + + Goethe: “I see no fault committed which I too might not have + committed.” Dr. Johnson: “Every man knows that of himself which he + dare not tell to his dearest friend.” Thackeray showed himself a + master in fiction by having no heroes; the paragons of virtue + belonged to a cruder age of romance. So George Eliot represents + life correctly by setting before us no perfect characters; all act + from mixed motives. Carlyle, hero-worshiper as he was inclined to + be, is said to have become disgusted with each of his heroes + before he finished his biography. Emerson said that to understand + any crime, he had only to look into his own heart. Robert Burns: + “God knows I’m no thing I would be, Nor am I even the thing I + could be.” Huxley: “The best men of the best epochs are simply + those who make the fewest blunders and commit the fewest sins.” + And he speaks of “the infinite wickedness” which has attended the + course of human history. Matthew Arnold: “What mortal, when he + saw, Life’s voyage done, his heavenly Friend, Could ever yet dare + tell him fearlessly:—I have kept uninfringed my nature’s law: The + inly written chart thou gavest me, to guide me, I have kept by to + the end?” Walter Besant, Children of Gibeon: “The men of ability + do not desire a system in which they shall not be able to do good + to themselves first.” “Ready to offer praise and prayer on Sunday, + if on Monday they may go into the market place to skin their + fellows and sell their hides.” Yet Confucius declares that “man is + born good.” He confounds conscience with will—the _sense_ of right + with the _love_ of right. Dean Swift’s worthy sought many years + for a method of extracting sunbeams from cucumbers. Human nature + of itself is as little able to bear the fruits of God. + + Every man will grant (1) that he is not perfect in moral + character; (2) that love to God has not been the constant motive + of his actions, _i. e._, that he has been to some degree selfish; + (3) that he has committed at least one known violation of + conscience. Shedd, Sermons to the Natural Man, 86, 87—“Those + theorists who reject revealed religion, and remand man to the + first principles of ethics and morality as the only religion that + he needs, send him to a tribunal that damns him”; for it is simple + fact that “no human creature, in any country or grade of + civilization, has ever glorified God to the extent of his + knowledge of God.” + + +3. _Proof from Christian experience._ + +(_a_) In proportion to his spiritual progress does the Christian recognize +evil dispositions within him, which but for divine grace might germinate +and bring forth the most various forms of outward transgression. + + + See Goodwin’s experience, in Baird, Elohim Revealed, 409; Goodwin, + member of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, speaking of his + conversion, says: “An abundant discovery was made to me of my + inward lusts and concupiscence, and I was amazed to see with what + greediness I had sought the gratification of every sin.” Töllner’s + experience, in Martensen’s Dogmatics: Töllner, though inclined to + Pelagianism, says: “I look into my own heart and I see with + penitent sorrow that I must in God’s sight accuse myself of all + the offences I have named,”—and he had named only deliberate + transgressions;—“he who does not allow that he is similarly + guilty, let him look deep into his own heart.” John Newton sees + the murderer led to execution, and says: “There, but for the grace + of God, goes John Newton.” Count de Maistre: “I do not know what + the heart of a villain may be—I only know that of a virtuous man, + and that is frightful.” Tholuck, on the fiftieth anniversary of + his professorship at Halle, said to his students: “In review of + God’s manifold blessings, the thing I seem most to thank him for + is the conviction of sin.” + + Roper Ascham: “By experience we find out a short way, by a long + wandering.” _Luke 15:25-32_ is sometimes referred to as indicating + that there are some of God’s children who never wander from the + Father’s house. But there were two prodigals in that family. The + elder was a servant in spirit as well as the younger. J. J. + Murphy, Nat. Selection and Spir. Freedom, 41, 42—“In the wish of + the elder son that he might sometimes feast with his own friends + apart from his father, was contained the germ of that desire to + escape the wholesome restraints of home which, in its full + development, had brought his brother first to riotous living, and + afterwards to the service of the stranger and the herding of + swine. This root of sin is in us all, but in him it was not so + full-grown as to bring death. Yet he says: ‘_Lo, these many years + do I serve thee_’ (δουλεύω—as a bondservant), ‘_and I never + transgressed a commandment of thine._’ Are the father’s + commandments grievous? Is service true and sincere, without love + from the heart? The elder brother was calculating toward his + father and unsympathetic toward his brother.” Sir J. R. Seelye, + Ecce Homo: “No virtue can be safe, unless it is enthusiastic.” + Wordsworth: “Heaven rejects the love Of nicely calculated less or + more.” + + +(_b_) Since those most enlightened by the Holy Spirit recognize themselves +as guilty of unnumbered violations of the divine law, the absence of any +consciousness of sin on the part of unregenerate men must be regarded as +proof that they are blinded by persistent transgression. + + + It is a remarkable fact that, while those who are enlightened by + the Holy Spirit and who are actually overcoming their sins see + more and more of the evil of their hearts and lives, those who are + the slaves of sin see less and less of that evil, and often deny + that they are sinners at all. Rousseau, in his Confessions, + confesses sin in a spirit which itself needs to be confessed. He + glosses over his vices, and magnifies his virtues. “No man,” he + says, “can come to the throne of God and say: ‘I am a better man + than Rousseau.’... Let the trumpet of the last judgment sound when + it will: I will present myself before the Sovereign Judge with + this book in my hand, and I will say aloud: ‘Here is what I did, + what I thought, and what I was.’ ” “Ah,” said he, just before he + expired, “how happy a thing it is to die, when one has no reason + for remorse or self-reproach!” And then, addressing himself to the + Almighty, he said: “Eternal Being, the soul that I am going to + give thee back is as pure at this moment as it was when it + proceeded from thee; render it a partaker of thy felicity!” Yet, + in his boyhood, Rousseau was a petty thief. In his writings, he + advocated adultery and suicide. He lived for more than twenty + years in practical licentiousness. His children, most of whom, if + not all, were illegitimate, he sent off to the foundling hospital + as soon as they were born, thus casting them upon the charity of + strangers, yet he inflamed the mothers of France with his eloquent + appeals to them to nurse their own babies. He was mean, + vacillating, treacherous, hypocritical, and blasphemous. And in + his Confessions, he rehearses the exciting scenes of his life in + the spirit of the bold adventurer. See N. M. Williams, in Bap. + Review, art.: Rousseau, from which the substance of the above is + taken. + + Edwin Forrest, when accused of being converted in a religious + revival, wrote an indignant denial to the public press, saying + that he had nothing to regret; his sins were those of omission + rather than commission; he had always acted upon the principle of + loving his friends and hating his enemies; and trusting in the + justice as well as the mercy of God, he hoped, when he left this + earthly sphere, to “wrap the drapery of his couch about him, and + lie down to pleasant dreams.” And yet no man of his time was more + arrogant, self-sufficient, licentious, revengeful. John Y. McCane, + when sentenced to Sing Sing prison for six years for violating the + election laws by the most highhanded bribery and ballot-stuffing, + declared that he had never done anything wrong in his life. He was + a Sunday School Superintendent, moreover. A lady who lived to the + age of 92, protested that, if she had her whole life to live over + again, she would not alter a single thing. Lord Nelson, after he + had received his death wound at Trafalgar, said: “I have never + been a great sinner.” Yet at that very time he was living in open + adultery. Tennyson, Sea Dreams: “With all his conscience and one + eye askew, So false, he partly took himself for true.” Contrast + the utterance of the apostle Paul: _1 Tim. 1:15_—“_Christ Jesus + came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief_.” It has + been well said that “the greatest of sins is to be conscious of + none.” Rowland Hill: “The devil makes little of sin, that he may + retain the sinner.” + + The following reasons may be suggested for men’s unconsciousness + of their sins: 1. We never know the force of any evil passion or + principle within us, until we begin to resist it. 2. God’s + providential restraints upon sin have hitherto prevented its full + development. 3. God’s judgments against sin have not yet been made + manifest. 4. Sin itself has a blinding influence upon the mind. 5. + Only he who has been saved from the penalty of sin is willing to + look into the abyss from which he has been rescued.—That a man is + unconscious of any sin is therefore only proof that he is a great + and hardened transgressor. This is also the most hopeless feature + of his case, since for one who never realizes his sin there is no + salvation. In the light of this truth, we see the amazing grace of + God, not only in the gift of Christ to die for sinners, but in the + gift of the Holy Spirit to convince men of their sins and to lead + them to accept the Savior. _Ps. 90:8_—“_Thou hast set ... Our + secret sins in the light of thy countenance_” = man’s inner + sinfulness is hidden from himself, until it is contrasted with the + holiness of God. Light = a luminary or sun, which shines down into + the depths of the heart and brings out its hidden evil into + painful relief. See Julius Müller, Doctrine of Sin, 2:248-259; + Edwards, Works, 2:326; John Caird, Reasons for Men’s + Unconsciousness of their Sins, in Sermons, 33. + + +II. Every member of the human race, without exception, possesses a +corrupted nature, which is a source of actual sin, and is itself sin. + + +1. _Proof from Scripture._ + +A. The sinful acts and dispositions of men are referred to, and explained +by, a corrupt nature. + + + By “nature” we mean that which is _born_ in a man, that which he + has by birth. That there is an inborn corrupt state, from which + sinful acts and dispositions flow, is evident from _Luke + 6:43-45_—“_there is no good tree that bringeth forth corrupt + fruit.... the evil man out of the evil treasure_ [of his heart] + _bringeth forth that which is evil_”; _Mat. 12:34_—“_Ye offspring + of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things?_” _Ps. + 58:3_—“_The wicked are estranged from the womb: They go astray as + soon as they are born, speaking lies._” + + +This corrupt nature (_a_) belongs to man from the first moment of his +being; (_b_) underlies man’s consciousness; (_c_) cannot be changed by +man’s own power; (_d_) first constitutes him a sinner before God; (_e_) is +the common heritage of the race. + + + (_a_) _Ps. 51:5_—“_Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in + sin did my mother conceive me_”—here David is confessing, not his + mother’s sin, but his own sin; and he declares that this sin goes + back to the very moment of his conception. Tholuck, quoted by H. + B. Smith, System, 281—“David confesses that sin begins with the + life of man; that not only his works, but the man himself, is + guilty before God.” Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:94—“David mentions the + fact that he was born sinful, as an aggravation of his particular + act of adultery, and not as an excuse for it.” (_b_) _Ps. + 19:12_—“_Who can discern his errors? Clear thou me from hidden + faults_”; _51:6, 7_—“_Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward + parts; And in the hidden part thou wilt make me to know wisdom. + Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: Wash me, and I shall + be whiter than snow._” (_c_) _Jer. 13:23_—“_Can the Ethiopian + change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do + good, that are accustomed to do evil_”; _Rom. 7:24_—“_Wretched man + that I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death?_” + (_d_) _Ps. 51:6_—“_Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward + parts_”; _Jer. 17:9_—“_The heart is deceitful above all things and + it is exceedingly corrupt: who can know it? I, Jehovah, search the + mind, I try the heart,_”—only God can fully know the native and + incurable depravity of the human heart; see Annotated Paragraph + Bible, _in loco_, (_e_) _Job 14:4_—“_Who can bring a clean thing + out of an unclean? not one_”; _John 3:6_—“_That which is born of + the flesh is flesh,_” _i. e._, human nature sundered from God. + Pope, Theology, 2:53—“Christ, who knew what was in man, says: ‘_If + ye then, being evil_’ (_Mat. 7:11_), and ‘_That which is born of + the flesh is flesh_’ (_John 3:6_), that is—putting the two + together—‘men are evil, because they are born evil.’ ” + + Nathaniel Hawthorne’s story of The Minister’s Black Veil portrays + the isolation of every man’s deepest life, and the awe which any + visible assertion of that isolation inspires. C. P. Cranch: “We + are spirits clad in veils; Man by man was never seen; All our deep + communing fails To remove the shadowy screen.” In the heart of + every one of us is that fearful “black drop,” which the Koran says + the angel showed to Mohammed. Sin is like the taint of scrofula in + the blood, which shows itself in tumors, in consumption, in + cancer, in manifold forms, but is everywhere the same organic + evil. Byron spoke truly of “This ineradicable taint of sin, this + boundless Upas, this all-blasting tree.” + + E. G. Robinson, Christ. Theol., 161, 162—“The objection that + conscience brings no charge of guilt against inborn depravity, + however true it may be of the nature in its passive state, is + seen, when the nature is roused to activity, to be unfounded. This + faculty, on the contrary, lends support to the doctrine it is + supposed to overthrow. When the conscience holds intelligent + inquisition upon single acts, it soon discovers that these are + mere accessories to crime, while the principal is hidden away + beyond the reach of consciousness. In following up its + inquisition, it in due time extorts the exclamation of David: _Ps. + 51:5_—‘_Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my + mother conceive me._’ Conscience traces guilt to its seat in the + inherited nature.” + + +B. All men are declared to be by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3). Here +“nature” signifies something inborn and original, as distinguished from +that which is subsequently acquired. The text implies that: (_a_) Sin is a +nature, in the sense of a congenital depravity of the will. (_b_) This +nature is guilty and condemnable,—since God’s wrath rests only upon that +which deserves it. (_c_) All men participate in this nature and in this +consequent guilt and condemnation. + + + _Eph. 2:3_—“_were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest._” + Shedd: “Nature here is not substance created by God, but + corruption of that substance, which corruption is created by man.” + “Nature” (from _nascor_) may denote anything inborn, and the term + may just as properly designate inborn evil tendencies and state, + as inborn faculties or substance. “_By nature_” therefore = “by + birth”; compare _Gal. 2:15_—“_Jews by nature._” E. G. Robinson: + “Nature = not οὐσία, or essence, but only qualification of + essence, as something born in us. There is just as much difference + in babes, from the beginning of their existence, as there is in + adults. If sin is defined as ‘voluntary transgression of known + law,’ the definition of course disposes of original sin.” But if + sin is a selfish state of the will, such a state is demonstrably + inborn. Aristotle speaks of some men as born to be savages (φύσει + βάρβαροι), and of others as destined by nature to be slaves (φύσει + δοῦλοι). Here evidently is a congenital aptitude and disposition. + Similarly we can interpret Paul’s words as declaring nothing less + than that men are possessed at birth of an aptitude and + disposition which is the object of God’s just displeasure. + + The opposite view can be found in Stevens, Pauline Theology, + 152-157. Principal Fairbairn also says that inherited sinfulness + “is _not_ transgression, and is _without_ guilt.” Ritschl, Just. + and Recon., 344—“The predicate ‘children of wrath’ refers to the + former actual transgression of those who now as Christians have + the right to apply to themselves that divine purpose of grace + which is the antithesis of wrath.” Meyer interprets the verse; “We + _become_ children of wrath by following a natural propensity.” He + claims the doctrine of the apostle to be, that man incurs the + divine wrath by his _actual_ sin, when he submits his will to the + inborn sin principle. So N. W. Taylor, Concio ad Clerum, quoted in + H. B. Smith, System, 281—“We were by nature such that we became + through our own act children of wrath.” “But,” says Smith, “if the + apostle had meant this, he could have said so; there is a proper + Greek word for ‘became’; the word which is used can only be + rendered ‘were.’ ” So _1 Cor. 7:14_—“_else were your children + unclean_”—implies that, apart from the operations of grace, all + men are defiled in virtue of their very birth from a corrupt + stock. Cloth is first died in the wool, and then dyed again after + the weaving. Man is a “double-dyed villain.” He is corrupted by + nature and afterwards by practice. The colored physician in New + Orleans advertised that his method was “first to remove the + disease, and then to eradicate the system.” The New School method + of treating this text is of a similar sort. Beginning with a + definition of sin which excludes from that category all inborn + states of the will, it proceeds to vacate of their meaning the + positive statements of Scripture. + + For the proper interpretation of _Eph. 2:3_, see Julius Müller, + Doct. of Sin, 2:278, and Commentaries of Harless and Olshausen. + See also Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 3:212 _sq._; Thomasius, Christi + Person und Werk, 1:289; and an excellent note in the Expositor’s + Greek N.T., _in loco_. _Per contra_, see Reuss, Christ. Theol. in + Apost. Age, 2:29, 79-84; Weiss, Bib. Theol. N.T., 239. + + +C. Death, the penalty of sin, is visited even upon those who have never +exercised a personal and conscious choice (Rom. 5:12-14). This text +implies that (_a_) Sin exists in the case of infants prior to moral +consciousness, and therefore in the nature, as distinguished from the +personal activity. (_b_) Since infants die, this visitation of the penalty +of sin upon them marks the ill-desert of that nature which contains in +itself, though undeveloped, the germs of actual transgression. (_c_) It is +therefore certain that a sinful, guilty, and condemnable nature belongs to +all mankind. + + + _Rom. 5:12-14_—“_Therefore, as through one man sin entered into + the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all + men, for that all sinned:—for until the law sin was in the world; + but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death + reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned + after the likeness of Adam’s transgression_”—that is, over those + who, like infants, had never personally and consciously sinned. + See a more full treatment of these last words in connection with + an exegesis of the whole passage—_Rom. 5:12-19_—under Imputation + of Sin, pages 625-627. + + N. W. Taylor maintained that infants, prior to moral agency, are + not subjects of the moral government of God, any more than are + animals. In this he disagreed with Edwards, Bellamy, Hopkins, + Dwight, Smalley, Griffin. See Tyler, Letters on N. E. Theol., 8, + 132-142—“To say that animals die, and therefore death can be no + proof of sin in infants, is to take infidel ground. The infidel + has just as good a right to say: Because animals die without being + sinners, therefore adults may. If death may reign to such an + alarming extent over the human race and yet be no proof of sin, + then you adopt the principle that death may reign to any extent + over the universe, yet never can be made a proof of sin in any + case.” We reserve our full proof that physical death is the + penalty of sin to the section on Penalty as one of the + Consequences of Sin. + + +2. _Proof from Reason._ + +Three facts demand explanation: (_a_) The universal existence of sinful +dispositions in every mind, and of sinful acts in every life. (_b_) The +preponderating tendencies to evil, which necessitate the constant +education of good impulses, while the bad grow of themselves. (_c_) The +yielding of the will to temptation, and the actual violation of the divine +law, in the case of every human being so soon as he reaches moral +consciousness. + + + The fundamental selfishness of man is seen in childhood, when + human nature acts itself out spontaneously. It is difficult to + develop courtesy in children. There can be no true courtesy + without regard for man as man and willingness to accord to each + man his place and right as a son of God equal with ourselves. But + children wish to please themselves without regard to others. The + mother asks the child: “Why don’t you do right instead of doing + wrong?” and the child answers: “Because it makes me so tired,” or + “Because I do wrong without trying.” Nothing runs itself, unless + it is going down hill. “No other animal does things habitually + that will injure and destroy it, and does them from the love of + it. But man does this, and he is born to do it, he does it from + birth. As the seedlings of the peach-tree are all peaches, not + apples, and those of thorns are all thorns, not grapes, so all the + descendants of man are born with evil in their natures. That sin + continually comes back to us, like a dog or cat that has been + driven away, proves that our hearts are its home.” + + Mrs. Humphrey Ward’s novel, Robert Elsmere, represents the + milk-and-water school of philanthropists. “Give man a chance,” + they say; “give him good example and favorable environment and he + will turn out well. He is more sinned against than sinning. It is + the outward presence of evil that drives men to evil courses.” But + God’s indictment is found in _Rom. 8:7_—“_the mind of the flesh is + enmity against God._” G. P. Fisher: “Of the ideas of natural + religion, Plato, Plutarch and Cicero found in the fact that they + are in man’s _reason_, but not obeyed and realized in man’s + _will_, the most convincing evidence that humanity is at schism + with itself, and therefore depraved, fallen, and unable to deliver + itself. The reason why many moralists fail and grow bitter and + hateful is that they do not take account of this state of sin.” + + +Reason seeks an underlying principle which will reduce these multitudinous +phenomena to unity. As we are compelled to refer common physical and +intellectual phenomena to a common physical and intellectual nature, so we +are compelled to refer these common moral phenomena to a common moral +nature, and to find in it the cause of this universal, spontaneous, and +all-controlling opposition to God and his law. The only possible solution +of the problem is this, that the common nature of mankind is corrupt, or, +in other words, that the human will, prior to the single volitions of the +individual, is turned away from God and supremely set upon +self-gratification. This unconscious and fundamental direction of the +will, as the source of actual sin, must itself be sin; and of this sin all +mankind are partakers. + + + The greatest thinkers of the world have certified to the + correctness of this conclusion. See Aristotle’s doctrine of “the + slope,” described in Chase’s Introduction to Aristotle’s Ethics, + XXXV and 32—“In regard to moral virtue, man stands on a slope. His + appetites and passions gravitate downward; his reason attracts him + upward. Conflict occurs. A step upward, and reason gains what + passion has lost; but the reverse is the case if he steps + downward. The tendency in the former case is to the entire + subjection of passion; in the latter case, to the entire + suppression of reason. The slope will terminate upwards in a level + summit where men’s steps will be secure, or downwards in an + irretrievable plunge over the precipice. Continual self-control + leads to absolute self-mastery; continual failure, to the utter + absence of self-control. But _all we can see is the slope_. No man + is ever at the ἠρεμία of the summit, nor can we say that a man has + irretrievably fallen into the abyss. How it is that men constantly + act against their own convictions of what is right, and their + previous determinations to follow right, is a mystery Which + Aristotle discusses, but leaves unexplained. + + “Compare the passage in the Ethics, 1:11—‘Clearly there is in them + [men], besides the Reason, some other Inborn principle (πεφυκός) + which fights with and strains against the Reason.... There is in + the soul also somewhat besides the Reason which is opposed to this + and goes against it.’—Compare this passage with Paul, in _Rom. + 7:23_—‘_I see a different law in my members, warring against the + law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of + sin which is in my members._’ But as Aristotle does not explain + the cause, so he suggests no cure. Revelation alone can account + for the disease, or point out the remedy.” + + Wuttke, Christian Ethics, 1:102—“Aristotle makes the significant + and almost surprising observation, that the character which has + become evil by guilt can just as little be thrown off again at + mere volition, as the person who has made himself sick by his own + fault can become well again at mere volition; once become evil or + sick, it stands no longer within his discretion to cease to be so; + a stone, when once cast, cannot be caught back from its flight; + and so is it with the character that has become evil.” He does not + tell “how a reformation in character is possible,—moreover, he + does not concede to evil any other than an individual + effect,—knows nothing of any natural solidarity of evil in + self-propagating, morally degenerated races” (Nic. Eth., 3:6, 7; + 5:12; 7:2, 3; 10:10). The good nature, he says, “is evidently not + within our power, but is by some kind of divine causality + conferred upon the truly happy.” + + Plato speaks of “that blind, many-headed wild beast of all that is + evil within thee.” He repudiates the idea that men are naturally + good, and says that, if this were true, all that would be needed + to make them holy would be to shut them up, from their earliest + years, so that they might not be corrupted by others. Republic, 4 + (Jowett’s translation, 11:276)—“There is a rising up of part of + the soul against the whole of the soul.” Meno, 89—“The cause of + corruption is from our parents, so that we never relinquish their + evil way, or escape the blemish of their evil habit.” Horace, Ep., + 1:10—“Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret.” Latin + proverb: “Nemo repente fuit turpissimus.” Pascal: “We are born + unrighteous; for each one tends to himself, and the bent toward + self is the beginning of all disorder.” Kant, in his Metaphysical + Principles of Human Morals, speaks of “the indwelling of an evil + principle side by side with the good one, or the radical evil of + human nature,” and of “the contest between the good and the evil + principles for the control of man.” “Hegel, pantheist as he was, + declared that original sin is the nature of every man,—every man + begins with it” (H. B. Smith). + + Shakespeare, Timon of Athens, 4:3—“All is oblique: There’s nothing + level in our cursed natures, But direct villainy.” All’s Well, + 4:3—“As we are in ourselves, how weak we are! Merely our own + traitors.” Measure for Measure, 1:2—“Our natures do pursue, Like + rats that ravin down their proper bane, A thirsty evil, and when + we drink, we die.” Hamlet, 3:1—“Virtue cannot so inoculate our old + stock, but we shall relish of it.” Love’s Labor Lost, 1:1—“Every + man with his affects is born, Not by might mastered, but by + special grace.” Winter’s Tale, 1:2—“We should have answered Heaven + boldly, Not guilty; the imposition cleared Hereditary ours”—that + is, provided our hereditary connection with Adam had not made us + guilty. On the theology of Shakespeare, see A. H. Strong, Great + Poets, 196-211—“If any think it irrational to believe in man’s + depravity, guilt, and need of supernatural redemption, they must + also be prepared to say that Shakespeare did not understand human + nature.” + + S. T. Coleridge, Omniana, at the end: “It is a fundamental article + of Christianity that I am a fallen creature ... that an evil + ground existed in my will, previously to any act or assignable + moment of time in my consciousness; I am born a child of wrath. + This fearful mystery I pretend not to understand. I cannot even + conceive the possibility of it; but I know that it is so, ... and + what is real must be possible.” A sceptic who gave his children no + religious training, with the view of letting them each in mature + years choose a faith for himself, reproved Coleridge for letting + his garden run to weeds; but Coleridge replied, that he did not + think it right to prejudice the soil in favor of roses and + strawberries. Van Oosterzee: Rain and sunshine make weeds grow + more quickly, but could not draw them out of the soil if the seeds + did not lie there already; so evil education and example draw out + sin, but do not implant it. Tennyson, Two Voices: “He finds a + baseness in his blood, At such strange war with what is good, He + cannot do the thing he would.” Robert Browning, Gold Hair: a + Legend of Pornic: “The faith that launched point-blank her dart At + the head of a lie—taught Original Sin, The corruption of Man’s + Heart.” Taine, Ancien Régime: “Savage, brigand and madman each of + us harbors, in repose or manacled, but always living, in the + recesses of his own heart.” Alexander Maclaren: “A great mass of + knotted weeds growing in a stagnant pool is dragged toward you as + you drag one filament.” Draw out one sin, and it brings with it + the whole matted nature of sin. + + Chief Justice Thompson, of Pennsylvania: “If those who preach had + been lawyers previous to entering the ministry, they would know + and say far more about the depravity of the human heart than they + do. The old doctrine of total depravity is the only thing that can + explain the falsehoods, the dishonesties, the licentiousness, and + the murders which are so rife in the world. Education, refinement, + and even a high order of talent, cannot overcome the inclination + to evil which exists in the heart, and has taken possession of the + very fibres of our nature.” See Edwards, Original Sin, in Works, + 2:309-510; Julius Müller, Doct. Sin, 2:259-307; Hodge, Syst. + Theol., 2:231-238; Shedd, Discourses and Essays, 226-236. + + + +Section IV.—Origin Of Sin In The Personal Act Of Adam. + + +With regard to the origin of this sinful nature which is common to the +race, and which is the occasion of all actual transgressions, reason +affords no light. The Scriptures, however, refer the origin of this nature +to that free act of our first parents by which they turned away from God, +corrupted themselves, and brought themselves under the penalties of the +law. + + + Chandler, Spirit of Man, 76—“It is vain to attempt to sever the + moral life of Christianity from the historical fact in which it is + rooted. We may cordially assent to the assertion that the whole + value of historical events is in their ideal significance. But in + many cases, part of that which the idea signifies is the fact that + it has been exhibited in history. The value and interest of the + conquest of Greece over Persia lie in the significant idea of + freedom and intelligence triumphing over despotic force; but + surely a part, and a very important part, of the idea, is the fact + that this triumph was won in a historical past, and the + encouragement for the present which rests upon that fact. So too, + the value of Christ’s resurrection lies in its immense moral + significance as a principle of life; but an essential part of that + very significance is the fact that the principle was actually + realized by One in whom mankind was summed up and expressed, and + by whom, therefore, the power of realizing it is conferred on all + who receive him.” + + As it is important for us to know that redemption is not only + ideal but actual, so it is important for us to know that sin is + not an inevitable accompaniment of human nature, but that it had a + historical beginning. Yet no _a priori_ theory should prejudice + our examination of the facts. We would preface our consideration + of the Scriptural account, therefore, by stating that our view of + inspiration would permit us to regard that account as inspired, + even if it were mythical or allegorical. As God can use all + methods of literary composition, so he can use all methods of + instructing mankind that are consistent with essential truth. + George Adam Smith observes that the myths and legends of primitive + folk-lore are the intellectual equivalents of later philosophies + and theories of the universe, and that “at no time has revelation + refused to employ such human conceptions for the investiture and + conveyance of the higher spiritual truths.” Sylvester Burnham: + “Fiction and myth have not yet lost their value for the moral and + religious teacher. What a knowledge of his own nature has shown + man to be good for his own use, God surely may also have found to + be good for his use. Nor would it of necessity affect the value of + the Bible if the writer, in using for his purpose myth or fiction, + supposed that he was using history. Only when the value of the + truth of the teaching depends upon the historicity of the alleged + fact, does it become impossible to use myth or fiction for the + purpose of teaching.” See vol. 1, page 241 of this work, with + quotations from Denney, Studies in Theology, 218, and Gore, in Lux + Mundi, 356. Euripides: “Thou God of all! infuse light into the + souls of men, whereby they may be enabled to know what is the root + from which all their evils spring, and by what means they may + avoid them!” + + +I. The Scriptural Account of the Temptation and Fall in Genesis 3:1-7. + + +1. Its general, character not mythical or allegorical, but historical. + + +We adopt this view for the following reasons:—(_a_) There is no intimation +in the account itself that it is not historical. (_b_) As a part of a +historical book, the presumption is that it is itself historical. (_c_) +The later Scripture writers refer to it as a veritable history even in its +details. (_d_) Particular features of the narrative, such as the placing +of our first parents in a garden and the speaking of the tempter through a +serpent-form, are incidents suitable to man’s condition of innocent but +untried childhood. (_e_) This view that the narrative is historical does +not forbid our assuming that the trees of life and of knowledge were +symbols of spiritual truths, while at the same time they were outward +realities. + + + See _John 8:44_—“_Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts + of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the + beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no + truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for + he is a liar and the father thereof_”; _2 Cor. 11:3_—“_the serpent + beguiled Eve in his craftiness_”; _Rev. 20:2_—“_the dragon, the + old serpent, which is the Devil and Satan._” H. B. Smith, System, + 261—“If Christ’s temptation and victory over Satan were historical + events, there seems to be no ground for supposing that the first + temptation was not a historical event.” We believe in the unity + and sufficiency of Scripture. We moreover regard the testimony of + Christ and the apostles as conclusive with regard to the + historicity of the account in Genesis. We assume a divine + superintendence in the choice of material by its author, and the + fulfilment to the apostles of Christ’s promise that they should be + guided into the truth. Paul’s doctrine of sin is so manifestly + based upon the historical character of the Genesis story, that the + denial of the one must naturally lead to the denial of the other. + John Milton writes, in his Areopagitica: “It was from out of the + rind of one apple tasted that the knowledge of good and evil, as + two twins cleaving together, leaped forth into the world. And + perhaps this is that doom which Adam fell into, that is to say, of + knowing good by evil.” He should have learned to know evil as God + knows it—as a thing possible, hateful, and forever rejected. He + actually learned to know evil as Satan knows it—by making it + actual and matter of bitter experience. + + Infantile and innocent man found his fit place and work in a + garden. The language of appearances is doubtless used. Satan might + enter into a brute-form, and might appear to speak through it. In + all languages, the stories of brutes speaking show that such a + temptation is congruous with the condition of early man. Asiatic + myths agree in representing the serpent as the emblem of the + spirit of evil. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the + symbol of God’s right of eminent domain, and indicated that all + belonged to him. It is not necessary to suppose that it was known + by this name before the Fall. By means of it man came to know + good, by the loss of it; to know evil, by bitter experience; C. H. + M.: “To know good, without the power to do it; to know evil, + without the power to avoid it.” Bible Com., 1:40—The tree of life + was symbol of the fact that “life is to be sought, not from + within, from himself, in his own powers or faculties; but from + that which is without him, even from him who hath life in + himself.” + + As the water of baptism and the bread of the Lord’s supper, though + themselves common things, are symbolic of the greatest truths, so + the tree of knowledge and the tree of life were sacramental. + McIlvaine, Wisdom of Holy Scripture, 99-141—“The two trees + represented good and evil. The prohibition of the latter was a + declaration that man of himself could not distinguish between good + and evil, and must trust divine guidance. Satan urged man to + discern between good and evil by his own wisdom, and so become + independent of God. Sin is the attempt of the creature to exercise + God’s attribute of discerning and choosing between good and evil + by his own wisdom. It is therefore self-conceit, self-trust, + self-assertion, the preference of his own wisdom and will to the + wisdom and will of God.” McIlvaine refers to Lord Bacon, Works, + 1:82, 162. See also Pope, Theology, 2:10, 11; Boston Lectures for + 1871:80, 81. + + Griffith-Jones, Ascent through Christ, 142, on the tree of the + knowledge of good and evil—“When for the first time man stood face + to face with definite conscious temptation to do that which he + knew to be wrong, he held in his hand the fruit of that tree, and + his destiny as a moral being hung trembling in the balance. And + when for the first time he succumbed to temptation and faint + dawnings of remorse visited his heart, at that moment he was + banished from the Eden of innocence, in which his nature had + hitherto dwelt, and he was driven forth from the presence of the + Lord.” With the first sin, was started another and a downward + course of development. For the mythical or allegorical explanation + of the narrative, see also Hase, Hutterus Redivivus, 164, 165, and + Nitzsch, Christian Doctrine, 218. + + +2. The course of the temptation, and the resulting fall. + + +The stages of the temptation appear to have been as follows: + +(_a_) An appeal on the part of Satan to innocent appetites, together with +an implied suggestion that God was arbitrarily withholding the means of +their gratification (Gen. 3:1). The first sin was in Eve’s isolating +herself and choosing to seek her own pleasure without regard to God’s +will. This initial selfishness it was, which led her to listen to the +tempter instead of rebuking him or flying from him, and to exaggerate the +divine command in her response (Gen. 3:3). + + + _Gen. 3:1_—“_Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of any tree of + the garden?_” Satan emphasizes the _limitation_, but is silent + with regard to the generous _permission_—“_Of every tree of the + garden_ [but one] _thou mayest freely eat_” (_2:16_). C. H. M., + _in loco_: “To admit the question ‘_hath God said?_’ is already + positive infidelity. To add to God’s word is as bad as to take + from it. ‘_Hath God said?_’ is quickly followed by ‘_Ye shall not + surely die._’ Questioning whether God has spoken, results in open + contradiction of what God has said. Eve suffered God’s word to be + contradicted by a creature, only because she had abjured its + authority over her conscience and heart.” The command was simply: + “_thou shalt not eat of it_” (_Gen. 2:17_). In her rising dislike + to the authority she had renounced, she exaggerates the command + into: “_Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it_” (_Gen. + 3:3_). Here is already self-isolation, instead of love. Matheson, + Messages of the Old Religions, 318—“Ere ever the human soul + disobeyed, it had learned to distrust.... Before it violated the + existing law, it had come to think of the Lawgiver as one who was + jealous of his creatures.” Dr. C. H. Parkhurst: “The first + question ever asked in human history was asked by the devil, and + the interrogation point still has in it the trail of the serpent.” + + +(_b_) A denial of the veracity of God, on the part of the tempter, with a +charge against the Almighty of jealousy and fraud in keeping his creatures +in a position of ignorance and dependence (Gen. 3:4, 5). This was +followed, on the part of the woman, by positive unbelief, and by a +conscious and presumptuous cherishing of desire for the forbidden fruit, +as a means of independence and knowledge. Thus unbelief, pride, and lust +all sprang from the self-isolating, self-seeking spirit, and fastened upon +the means of gratifying it (Gen. 3:6). + + + _Gen. 3:4, 5_—“_And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not + surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then + your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good + and evil_”; _3:6_—“_And when the woman saw that the tree was good + for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree + was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, + and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he + did eat_”—so “taking the word of a Professor of Lying, that he + does not lie” (John Henry Newman). Hooker, Eccl. Polity, book + I—“To live by one man’s will became the cause of all men’s + misery.” Godet on _John 1:4_—“In the words ‘_life_’ and ‘_light_’ + it is natural to see an allusion to the tree of life and to that + of knowledge. After having eaten of the former, man would have + been called to feed on the second. John initiates us into the real + essence of these primordial and mysterious facts and gives us in + this verse, as it were, the philosophy of Paradise.” Obedience is + the way to knowledge, and the sin of Paradise was the seeking of + light without life; _cf._ _John 7:17_—“_If any man willeth to do + his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or + whether I speak from myself._” + + +(_c_) The tempter needed no longer to urge his suit. Having poisoned the +fountain, the stream would naturally be evil. Since the heart and its +desires had become corrupt, the inward disposition manifested itself in +act (Gen. 3:6—“did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her” = who +had been with her, and had shared her choice and longing). Thus man fell +inwardly, before the outward act of eating the forbidden fruit,—fell in +that one fundamental determination whereby he made supreme choice of self +instead of God. This sin of the inmost nature gave rise to sins of the +desires, and sins of the desires led to the outward act of transgression +(James 1:15). + + + _James 1:15_—“_Then the lust, when it hath conceived, beareth + sin._” Baird, Elohim Revealed, 888—“The law of God had already + been violated; man was fallen before the fruit had been plucked, + or the rebellion had been thus signalized. The law required not + only outward obedience but fealty of the heart, and this was + withdrawn before any outward token indicated the change.” Would he + part company with God, or with his wife? When the Indian asked the + missionary where his ancestors were, and was told that they were + in hell, he replied that he would go with his ancestors. He + preferred hell with his tribe to heaven with God. Sapphira, in + like manner, had opportunity given her to part company with her + husband, but she preferred him to God; _Acts 5:7-11_. + + Philippi, Glaubenslehre: “So man became like God, a setter of law + to himself. Man’s self-elevation to godhood was his fall. God’s + self-humiliation to manhood was man’s restoration and + elevation.... _Gen. 3:22_—‘_The man has become as one of us_’ in + his condition of self-centered activity,—thereby losing all real + likeness to God, which consists in having the same aim with God + himself. _De te fabula narratur_; it is the condition, not of one + alone, but of all the race.” Sin once brought into being is + self-propagating; its seed is in itself: the centuries of misery + and crime that have followed have only shown what endless + possibilities of evil were wrapped up in that single sin. Keble: + “’Twas but a little drop of sin We saw this morning enter in, And + lo, at eventide a world is drowned!” Farrar, Fall of Man: “The + guilty wish of one woman has swollen into the irremediable + corruption of a world.” See Oehler, O.T. Theology, 1:231; Müller, + Doct. Sin, 2:381-385; Edwards, on Original Sin, part 4, chap. 2; + Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:168-180. + + +II. Difficulties connected with the Fall considered as the personal Act of +Adam. + + +1. How could a holy being fall? + + +Here we must acknowledge that we cannot understand how the first unholy +emotion could have found lodgment in a mind that was set supremely upon +God, nor how temptation could have overcome a soul in which there were no +unholy propensities to which it could appeal. The mere power of choice +does not explain the fact of an unholy choice. The fact of natural desire +for sensuous and intellectual gratification does not explain how this +desire came to be inordinate. Nor does it throw light upon the matter, to +resolve this fall into a deception of our first parents by Satan. Their +yielding to such deception presupposes distrust of God and alienation from +him. Satan’s fall, moreover, since it must have been uncaused by +temptation from without, is more difficult to explain than Adam’s fall. + + + We may distinguish six incorrect explanations of the origin of + sin: 1. Emmons: Sin is due to God’s efficiency—God wrought the sin + in man’s heart. This is the “exercise system,” and is essentially + pantheistic. 2. Edwards: Sin is due to God’s providence—God caused + the sin indirectly by presenting motives. This explanation has all + the difficulties of determinism. 3. Augustine: Sin is the result + of God’s withdrawal from man’s soul. But inevitable sin is not + sin, and the blame of it rests on God who withdrew the grace + needed for obedience, 4. Pfleiderer: The fall results from man’s + already existing sinfulness. The fault then belongs, not to man, + but to God who made man sinful. 5. Hadley: Sin is due to man’s + moral insanity. But such concreated ethical defect would render + sin impossible. Insanity is the effect of sin, but not its cause. + 6. Newman: Sin is due to man’s weakness. It is a negative, not a + positive, thing, an incident of finiteness. But conscience and + Scripture testify that it is positive as well as negative, + opposition to God as well as non-conformity to God. + + Emmons was really a pantheist: “Since God,” he says, “works in all + men both to will and to do of his good pleasure, it is as easy to + account for the first offence of Adam as for any other sin.... + There is no difficulty respecting the fall of Adam from his + original state of perfection and purity into a state of sin and + guilt, which is in any way peculiar.... It is as consistent with + the moral rectitude of the Deity to produce sinful as holy + exercises in the minds of men. He puts forth a positive influence + to make moral agents act, in every instance of their conduct, as + he pleases.... There is but one satisfactory answer to the + question _Whence came evil?_ and that is: It came from the great + first Cause of all things”; see Nathaniel Emmons, Works, 2:683. + + Jonathan Edwards also denied power to the contrary even in Adam’s + first sin. God did not immediately cause that sin. But God was + active in the region of motives though his action was not seen. + Freedom of the Will, 161—“It was fitting that the transaction + should so take place that it might not appear to be from God as + the apparent fountain.” Yet “God may actually in his providence so + dispose and permit things that the event may be certainly and + infallibly connected with such disposal and permission”; see + Allen, Jonathan Edwards, 304. Encyc. Britannica, 7:690—“According + to Edwards, Adam had two principles,—natural and supernatural. + When Adam sinned, the supernatural or divine principle was + withdrawn from him, and thus his nature became corrupt without God + infusing any evil thing into it. His posterity came into being + entirely under the government of natural and inferior principles. + But this solves the difficulty of making God the author of sin + only at the expense of denying to sin any real existence, and also + destroys Edwards’s essential distinction between natural and moral + ability.” Edwards on Trinity, Fisher’s edition, 44—“The sun does + not cause darkness and cold, when these follow infallibly upon the + withdrawal of his beams. God’s disposing the result is not a + positive exertion on his part.” Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:50—“God did + not withdraw the common supporting grace of his Spirit from Adam + until after transgression.” To us Adam’s act was irrational, but + not impossible; to a determinist like Edwards, who held that men + simply act out their characters, Adam’s act should have been not + only irrational, but impossible. Edwards nowhere shows how, + according to his principles, a holy being could possibly fall. + + Pfleiderer, Grundriss, 123—“The account of the fall is the first + appearance of an already existing sinfulness, and a typical + example of the way in which every individual becomes sinful. + Original sin is simply the universality and originality of sin. + There is no such thing as indeterminism. The will can lift itself + from natural unfreedom, the unfreedom of the natural impulses, to + real spiritual freedom, only by distinguishing itself from the law + which sets before it its true end of being. The opposition of + nature to the law reveals an original nature power which precedes + all free self-determination. Sin is the evil bent of lawless + self-willed selfishness.” Pfleiderer appears to make this + sinfulness concreated, and guiltless, because proceeding from God. + Hill, Genetic Philosophy, 288—“The wide discrepancy between + precept and practice gives rise to the theological conception of + _sin_, which, in low types of religion, is as often a violation of + some trivial prescription as it is of an ethical principle. The + presence of sin, contrasted with a state of innocence, occasions + the idea of a fall, or lapse from a sinless condition. This is not + incompatible with man’s derivation from an animal ancestry, which + prior to the rise of self-consciousness may be regarded as having + been in a state of moral _innocence_, the sense and reality of sin + being impossible to the animal.... The existence of sin, both as + an inherent disposition, and as a perverted form of action, may be + explained as a survival of animal propensity in human life.... Sin + is the disturbance of higher life by the intrusion of lower.” + + Professor James Hadley: “Every man is more or less insane.” We + prefer to say: Every man, so far as he is apart from God, is + morally insane. But we must not make sin the result of insanity. + Insanity is the result of sin. Insanity, moreover, is a physical + disease,—sin is a perversion of the will. John Henry Newman, Idea + of a University, 60—“Evil has no substance of its own, but is only + the defect, excess, perversion or corruption of that which has + substance.” Augustine seems at times to favor this view. He + maintains that evil has no origin, inasmuch as it is negative, not + positive; that it is merely defect or failure. He illustrates it + by the damaged state of a discordant harp; see Moule, Outlines of + Theology, 171. So too A. A. Hodge, Popular Lectures, 190, tells us + that Adam’s will was like a violin in tune, which through mere + inattention and neglect got out of tune at last. But here, too, we + must say with E. G. Robinson, Christ. Theology, 124—“Sin explained + is sin defended.” All these explanations fail to explain, and + throw the blame of sin upon God, as directly or indirectly its + cause. + + +But sin is an existing fact. God cannot be its author, either by creating +man’s nature so that sin was a necessary incident of its development, or +by withdrawing a supernatural grace which was necessary to keep man holy. +Reason, therefore, has no other recourse than to accept the Scripture +doctrine that sin originated in man’s free act of revolt from God—the act +of a will which, though inclined toward God, was not yet confirmed in +virtue and was still capable of a contrary choice. The original possession +of such power to the contrary seems to be the necessary condition of +probation and moral development. Yet the exercise of this power in a +sinful direction can never be explained upon grounds of reason, since sin +is essentially unreason. It is an act of wicked arbitrariness, the only +motive of which is the desire to depart from God and to render self +supreme. + + + Sin is a “_mystery of lawlessness_” (_2 Thess. 2:7_), at the + beginning, as well as at the end. Neander, Planting and Training, + 388—“Whoever explains sin nullifies it.” Man’s power at the + beginning to choose evil does not prove that, now that he has + fallen, he has equal power of himself permanently to choose good. + Because man has power to cast himself from the top of a precipice + to the bottom, it does not follow that he has equal power to + transport himself from the bottom to the top. + + Man fell by wilful resistance to the inworking God. Christ is in + all men as he was in Adam, and all good impulses are due to him. + Since the Holy Spirit is the Christ within, all men are the + subjects of his striving. He does not withdraw from them except + upon, and in consequence of, their withdrawing from him. John + Milton makes the Almighty say of Adam’s sin: “Whose fault? Whose + but his own? Ingrate, he had of me All he could have; I made him + just and right, Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall. + Such I created all the Etherial Powers, And Spirits, both them who + stood and them who failed; Freely they stood who stood, and fell + who failed.” The word “cussedness” has become an apt word here. + The Standard Dictionary defines it as “1. Cursedness, meanness, + perverseness; 2. resolute courage, endurance: ‘Jim Bludsoe’s voice + was heard, And they all had trust in his cussedness And knowed he + would keep his word.’ ” (John Hay, Jim Bludsoe, stanza 6). Not the + last, but the first, of these definitions best describes the first + sin. The most thorough and satisfactory treatment of the fall of + man in connection with the doctrine of evolution is found in + Griffith-Jones, Ascent through Christ, 73-240. + + Hodge, Essays and Reviews, 30—“There is a broad difference between + the commencement of holiness and the commencement of sin, and more + is necessary for the former than for the latter. An act of + obedience, if it is performed under the mere impulse of self-love, + is virtually no act of obedience. It is not performed with any + intention to obey, for that is holy, and cannot, according to the + theory, precede the act. But an act of disobedience, performed + from the desire of happiness, is rebellion. The cases are surely + different. If, to please myself, I do what God commands, it is not + holiness; but if, to please myself, I do what he forbids, it is + sin. Besides, no creature is immutable. Though created holy, the + taste for holy enjoyments may be overcome by a temptation + sufficiently insidious and powerful, and a selfish motive or + feeling excited in the mind. Neither is a sinful character + immutable. By the power of the Holy Spirit, the truth may be + clearly presented and so effectually applied as to produce that + change which is called regeneration; that is, to call into + existence a taste for holiness, so that it is chosen for its own + sake, and not as a means of happiness.” + + H. B. Smith, System, 262—“The state of the case, as far as we can + enter into Adam’s experience, is this: Before the command, there + was the state of love without the thought of the opposite: a + knowledge of good only, a yet unconscious goodness: there was also + the knowledge that the eating of the fruit was against the divine + command. The temptation aroused pride; the yielding to that was + the sin. The change was there. The change was not in the choice as + an executive act, nor in the result of that act—the eating; but in + the choice of supreme love to the world and self, rather than + supreme devotion to God. It was an immanent preference of the + world,—not a love of the world following the choice, but a love of + the world which is the choice itself.” + + 263—“We cannot account for Adam’s fall, psychologically. In saying + this we mean: It is inexplicable by anything outside itself. We + must receive the fact as ultimate, and rest there. Of course we do + not mean that it was not in accordance with the laws of moral + agency—that it was a violation of those laws: but only that we do + not see the mode, that we cannot construct it for ourselves in a + rational way. It differs from all other similar cases of ultimate + preference _which we know_; _viz._, the sinner’s immanent + preference of the world, where we know there is an antecedent + ground in the bias to sin, and the Christian’s regeneration, or + immanent preference of God, where we know there is an influence + from without, the working of the Holy Spirit.” 264—“We must leave + the whole question with the immanent preference standing forth as + the ultimate fact in the case, which is not to be constructed + philosophically, as far as the processes of Adam’s soul are + concerned: we must regard that immanent preference as both a + choice and an affection, not an affection the result of a choice, + not a choice which is the consequence of an affection, but both + together.” + + In one particular, however, we must differ with H. B. Smith: Since + the power of voluntary internal movement is the power of the will, + we must regard the change from good to evil as primarily a choice, + and only secondarily a state of affection caused thereby. Only by + postulating a free and conscious act of transgression on the part + of Adam, an act which bears to evil affection the relation not of + effect but of cause, do we reach, at the beginning of human + development, a proper basis for the responsibility and guilt of + Adam and the race. See Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:148-167. + + +2. How could God justly permit Satanic temptation? + + +We see in this permission not justice but benevolence. + +(_a_) Since Satan fell without external temptation, it is probable that +man’s trial would have been substantially the same, even though there had +been no Satan to tempt him. + + + Angels had no animal nature to obscure the vision; they could not + be influenced through sense; yet they were tempted and they fell. + As Satan and Adam sinned under the best possible circumstances, we + may conclude that the human race would have sinned with equal + certainty. The only question at the time of their creation, + therefore, was how to modify the conditions so as best to pave the + way for repentance and pardon. These conditions are: 1. a material + body—which means confinement, limitation, need of self-restraint; + 2. infancy—which means development, deliberation, with no memory + of the first sin; 3. the parental relation—repressing the + wilfulness of the child, and teaching submission to authority. + + +(_b_) In this case, however, man’s fall would perhaps have been without +what now constitutes its single mitigating circumstance. Self-originated +sin would have made man himself a Satan. + + + _Mat. 13:28_—“_An enemy hath done this._” “God permitted Satan to + divide the guilt with man, so that man might be saved from + despair.” See Trench, Studies in the Gospels, 16-29. Mason, Faith + of the Gospel, 103—“Why was not the tree made outwardly repulsive? + Because only the abuse of that which was positively good and + desirable could have attractiveness for Adam or could constitute a + real temptation.” + + +(_c_) As, in the conflict with temptation, it is an advantage to objectify +evil under the image of corruptible flesh, so it is an advantage to meet +it as embodied in a personal and seducing spirit. + + + Man’s body, corruptible and perishable as it is, furnishes him + with an illustration and reminder of the condition of soul to + which sin has reduced him. The flesh, with its burdens and pains, + is thus, under God, a help to the distinct recognition and + overcoming of sin. So it was an advantage to man to have + temptation confined to a single external voice. We may say of the + influence of the tempter, as Birks, in his Difficulties of Belief, + 101, says of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: + “Temptation did not depend upon the tree. Temptation was certain + in any event. The tree was a type into which God contracted the + possibilities of evil, so as to strip them of delusive vastness, + and connect them with definite and palpable warning,—to show man + that it was only one of the many possible activities of his spirit + which was forbidden, that God had right to all and could forbid + all.” The originality of sin was the most fascinating element in + it. It afforded boundless range for the imagination. Luther did + well to throw his inkstand at the devil. It was an advantage to + localize him. The concentration of the human powers upon a + definite offer of evil helps our understanding of the evil and + increases our disposition to resist it. + + +(_d_) Such temptation has in itself no tendency to lead the soul astray. +If the soul be holy, temptation may only confirm it in virtue. Only the +evil will, self-determined against God, can turn temptation into an +occasion of ruin. + + + As the sun’s heat has no tendency to wither the plant rooted in + deep and moist soil, but only causes it to send down its roots the + deeper and to fasten itself the more strongly, so temptation has + in itself no tendency to pervert the soul. It was only the seeds + that “_fell upon the rocky places, where they had not much earth_” + (_Mat. 13:5, 6_), that “_were scorched_” when “_the sun was + risen_”; and our Lord attributes their failure, not to the sun, + but to their lack of root and of soil: “_because they had no + root_,” “_because they had no deepness of earth._” The same + temptation which occasions the ruin of the false disciple + stimulates to sturdy growth the virtue of the true Christian. + Contrast with the temptation of Adam the temptation of Christ. + Adam had everything to plead for God, the garden and its delights, + while Christ had everything to plead against him, the wilderness + and its privations. But Adam had confidence in Satan, while Christ + had confidence in God; and the result was in the former case + defeat, in the latter victory. See Baird, Elohim Revealed, + 385-396. + + C. H. Spurgeon: “All the sea outside a ship can do it no damage + till the water enters and fills the hold. Hence, it is clear, our + greatest danger is within. All the devils in hell and tempters on + earth could do us no injury, if there were no corruption in our + own natures. The sparks will fly harmlessly, if there is no + tinder. Alas, our heart is our greatest enemy; this is the little + home-born thief. Lord, save me from that evil man, myself!” + + Lyman Abbott: “The scorn of goody-goody is justified; for + goody-goody is innocence, not virtue; and the boy who never does + anything wrong because he never does anything at all is of no use + in the world.... Sin is not a help in development; it is a + hindrance. But temptation is a help; it is an indispensable + means.” E. G. Robinson, Christ. Theology, 123—“Temptation in the + bad sense and a fall from innocence were no more necessary to the + perfection of the first man, than a marring of any one’s character + is now necessary to its completeness.” John Milton, Areopagitica: + “Many there be that complain of divine providence for suffering + Adam to transgress. Foolish tongues! When God gave him reason, he + gave him freedom to choose, for reason is but choosing; he had + been else a mere artificial Adam, such an Adam as he is in the + motions” (puppet shows). Robert Browning, Ring and the Book, 204 + (Pope, 1183)—“Temptation sharp? Thank God a second time! Why comes + temptation but for man to meet And master and make crouch beneath + his foot, And so be pedestaled in triumph? Pray ‘Lead us into no + such temptations. Lord’? Yea, but, O thou whose servants are the + bold, Lead such temptations by the head and hair, Reluctant + dragons, up to who dares fight, That so he may do battle and have + praise!” + + +3. How could a penalty so great be justly connected with disobedience to +so slight a command? + + +To this question we may reply: + +(_a_) So slight a command presented the best test of the spirit of +obedience. + + + Cicero: “Parva res est, at magna culpa.” The child’s persistent + disobedience in one single respect to the mother’s command shows + that in all his other acts of seeming obedience he does nothing + for his mother’s sake, but all for his own,—shows, in other words, + that he does not possess the spirit of obedience in a single act. + S. S. Times: “Trifles are trifles only to triflers. Awake to the + significance of the insignificant! for you are in a world that + belongs not alone to the God of the Infinite, but also to the God + of the infinitesimal.” + + +(_b_) The external command was not arbitrary or insignificant in its +substance. It was a concrete presentation to the human will of God’s claim +to eminent domain or absolute ownership. + + + John Hall, Lectures on the Religious rise of Property, 10—“It + sometimes happens that owners of land, meaning to give the use of + it to others, without alienating it, impose a nominal rent—a + quit-rent, the passing of which acknowledges the recipient as + owner and the occupier as tenant. This is understood in all lands. + In many an old English deed, ‘three barley-corns,’ ‘a fat capon,’ + or ‘a shilling,’ is the consideration which permanently recognizes + the rights of lordship. God taught men by the forbidden tree that + he was owner, that man was occupier. He selected the matter of + property to be the test of man’s obedience, the outward and + sensible sign of a right state of heart toward God; and when man + put forth his hand and did eat, he denied God’s ownership and + asserted his own. Nothing remained but to eject him.” + + +(_c_) The sanction attached to the command shows that man was not left +ignorant of its meaning or importance. + + + _Gen. 2:17_—“_in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt + surely die._” _Cf._ _Gen. 3:3_—“_the tree which is in the midst of + the garden_”; and see Dodge, Christian Theology, 206, 207—“The + tree was central, as the commandment was central. The choice was + between the tree of life and the tree of death,—between self and + God. Taking the one was rejecting the other.” + + +(_d_) The act of disobedience was therefore the revelation of a will +thoroughly corrupted and alienated from God—a will given over to +ingratitude, unbelief, ambition, and rebellion. + + + The motive to disobedience was not appetite, but the ambition to + be as God. The outward act of eating the forbidden fruit was only + the thin edge of the wedge, behind which lay the whole mass—the + fundamental determination to isolate self and to seek personal + pleasure regardless of God and his law. So the man under + conviction for sin commonly clings to some single passion or plan, + only half-conscious of the fact that opposition to God in one + thing is opposition in all. + + +III. Consequences of the Fall, so far as respects Adam. + + +1. Death. + + +This death was twofold. It was partly: + +A. Physical death, or the separation of the soul from the body.—The seeds +of death, naturally implanted in man’s constitution, began to develop +themselves the moment that access to the tree of life was denied him. Man +from that moment was a dying creature. + + + In a true sense death began at once. To it belonged the pains + which both man and woman should suffer in their appointed + callings. The fact that man’s earthly existence did not at once + end, was due to God’s counsel of redemption. “_The law of the + Spirit of life_” (_Rom. 8:2_) began to work even then, and grace + began to counteract the effects of the Fall. Christ has now + “_abolished death_” (_2 Tim. 1:10_) by taking its terrors away, + and by turning it into the portal of heaven. He will destroy it + utterly (_1 Cor. 15:26_) when by resurrection from the dead, the + bodies of the saints shall be made immortal. Dr. William A. + Hammond, following a French scientist, declares that there is no + reason in a normal physical system why man should not live + forever. + + That death is not a physical necessity is evident if we once + remember that life is, not fuel, but fire. Weismann, Heredity, 8, + 24, 72, 159—“The organism must not be looked upon as a heap of + combustible material, which is completely reduced to ashes in a + certain time, the length of which is determined by its size and by + the rate at which it burns; but it should be compared to a fire, + to which fresh fuel can be continually added, and which, whether + it burns quickly or slowly, can be kept burning as long as + necessity demands.... Death is not a primary necessity, but it has + been acquired secondarily, as an adaptation.... Unicellular + organisms, increasing by means of fission, in a certain sense + possess immortality. No Amœba has ever lost an ancestor by + death.... Each individual now living is far older than mankind, + and is almost as old as life itself.... Death is not an essential + attribute of living matter.” + + If we regard man as primarily spirit, the possibility of life + without death is plain. God lives on eternally, and the future + physical organism of the righteous will have in it no seed of + death. Man might have been created without being mortal. That he + is mortal is due to anticipated sin. Regard body as simply the + constant energizing of God, and we see that there is no inherent + necessity of death. Denney, Studies in Theology, 98—“Man, it is + said, must die because he is a natural being, and what belongs to + nature belongs to him. But we assert, on the contrary, that he was + created a supernatural being, with a primacy over nature, so + related to God as to be immortal. Death is an intrusion, and it is + finally to be abolished.” Chandler, The Spirit of Man, 45-47—“The + first stage in the fall was the disintegration of spirit into body + and mind; and the second was the enslavement of mind to body.” + + Some recent writers, however, deny that death is a consequence of + the Fall, except in the sense that man’s fear of death results + from his sin. Newman Smyth, Place of Death in Evolution, 19-22, + indeed, asserts the value and propriety of death as an element of + the normal universe. He would oppose to the doctrine of Weismann + the conclusions of Maupas, the French biologist, who has followed + infusoria through 600 generations. Fission, says Maupas, + reproduces for many generations, but the unicellular germ + ultimately weakens and dies out. The asexual reproduction must be + supplemented by a higher conjugation, the meeting and partial + blending of the contents of two cells. This is only occasional, + but it is necessary to the permanence of the species. Isolation is + ultimate death. Newman Smyth adds that death and sex appear + together. When sex enters to enrich and diversify life, all that + will not take advantage of it dies out. Survival of the fittest is + accompanied by death of that which will not improve. Death is a + secondary thing—a consequence of life. A living form acquired the + power of giving up its life for another. It died in order that its + offspring might survive in a higher form. Death helps life on and + up. It does not put a stop to life. It became an advantage to life + as a whole that certain primitive forms should be left by the way + to perish. We owe our human birth to death in nature. The earth + before us has died that we might live. We are the living children + of a world that has died for us. Death is a means of life, of + increasing specialization of function. Some cells are born to give + up their life sacrificially for the organism to which they belong. + + While we regard Newman Smyth’s view as an ingenious and valuable + explanation of the incidental results of death, we do not regard + it as an explanation of death’s origin. God has overruled death + for good, and we can assent to much of Dr. Smyth’s exposition. But + that this good could be gained only by death seems to us wholly + unproved and unprovable. Biology shows us that other methods of + reproduction are possible, and that death is an incident and not a + primary requisite to development. We regard Dr. Smyth’s theory as + incompatible with the Scripture representations of death as the + consequence of sin, as the sign of God’s displeasure, as a means + of discipline for the fallen, as destined to complete abolition + when sin itself has been done away. We reserve, however, the full + proof that physical death is part of the penalty of sin until we + discuss the Consequences of Sin to Adam’s Posterity. + + +But this death was also, and chiefly, + +B. Spiritual death, or the separation of the soul from God.—In this are +included: (_a_) Negatively, the loss of man’s moral likeness to God, or +that underlying tendency of his whole nature toward God which constituted +his original righteousness. (_b_) Positively, the depraving of all those +powers which, in their united action with reference to moral and religious +truth, we call man’s moral and religious nature; or, in other words, the +blinding of his intellect, the corruption of his affections, and the +enslavement of his will. + + + Seeking to be a god, man became a slave; seeking independence, he + ceased to be master of himself. Once his intellect was pure,—he + was supremely conscious of God, and saw all things also in God’s + light. Now he was supremely conscious of self, and saw all things + as they affected self. This self-consciousness—how unlike the + objective life of the first apostles, of Christ and of every + loving soul! Once man’s affections were pure,—he loved God + supremely, and other things in subordination to God’s will. Now he + loved self supremely, and was ruled by inordinate affections + toward the creatures which could minister to his selfish + gratification. Now man could do nothing pleasing to God, because + he lacked the love which is necessary to all true obedience. + + G. F. Wilkin, Control in Evolution, shows that the will may + initiate a counter-evolution which shall reverse the normal course + of man’s development. First comes an act, then a habit, of + surrender to animalism; then subversion of faith in the true and + the good; then active championship of evil; then transmission of + evil disposition and tendencies to posterity. This subversion of + the rational will by an evil choice took place very early, indeed + in the first man. All human history has been a conflict between + these two antagonistic evolutions, the upward and the downward. + Biological rather than moral phenomena predominate. No human being + escapes transgressing the law of his evolutionary nature. There is + a moral deadness and torpor resulting. The rational will must be + restored before man can go right again. Man must commit himself to + a true life; then to the restoration of other men to that same + life; then there must be coöperation of society; this work must + extend to the limits of the human species. But this will be + practicable and rational only as it is shown that the unfolding + plan of the universe has destined the righteous to a future + incomparably more desirable than that of the wicked; in other + words, immortality is necessary to evolution. + + “If immortality be necessary to evolution, then immortality + becomes scientific. Jesus has the authority and omnipresence of + the power behind evolution. He imposes upon his followers the same + normal evolutionary mission that sent him into the world. He + organizes them into churches. He teaches a moral evolution of + society through the united voluntary efforts of his followers. + They are ‘_the good seed ... the sons of the kingdom_’ (_Mat. + 13:38_). Theism makes a definite attempt to counteract the evil of + the counter-evolution, and the attempt justifies itself by its + results. Christianity is scientific (1) in that it satisfies the + conditions of _knowledge_: the persisting and comprehensive + harmony of phenomena, and the interpretation of all the facts; (2) + in its _aim_, the moral regeneration of the world; (3) in its + _methods_, adapting itself to man as an ethical being, capable of + endless progress; (4) in its conception of normal _society_, as of + sinners uniting together to help one another to depend on God and + conquer self, so recognizing the ethical bond as the most + essential. This doctrine harmonizes science and religion, + revealing the new species of control which marks the highest stage + of evolution; shows that the religion of the N. T. is essentially + scientific and its truths capable of practical verification; that + Christianity is not any particular church, but the teachings of + the Bible; that Christianity is the true system of ethics, and + should be taught in public institutions; that cosmic evolution + comes at last to depend on the wisdom and will of man, the + immanent God working in finite and redeemed humanity.” + + +In fine, man no longer made God the end of his life, but chose self +instead. While he retained the power of self-determination in subordinate +things, he lost that freedom which consisted in the power of choosing God +as his ultimate aim, and became fettered by a fundamental inclination of +his will toward evil. The intuitions of the reason were abnormally +obscured, since these intuitions, so far as they are concerned with moral +and religious truth, are conditioned upon a right state of the affections; +and—as a necessary result of this obscuring of reason—conscience, which, +as the normal judiciary of the soul, decides upon the basis of the law +given to it by reason, became perverse in its deliverances. Yet this +inability to judge or act aright, since it was a moral inability springing +ultimately from will, was itself hateful and condemnable. + + + See Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 3:61-73; Shedd, Sermons to the + Natural Man, 202-230, esp. 205—“Whatsoever springs from will we + are responsible for. Man’s inability to love God supremely results + from his intense self-will and self-love, and therefore his + impotence is a part and element of his sin, and not an excuse for + it.” And yet the question “_Adam, where art thou?_” (_Gen. 3:9_), + says C. J. Baldwin, “was, (1) a question, not as to Adam’s + physical locality, but as to his moral condition; (2) a question, + not of justice threatening, but of love inviting to repentance and + return; (3) a question, not to Adam as an individual only, but to + the whole humanity of which he was the representative.” + + Dale, Ephesians, 40—“Christ is the eternal Son of God; and it was + the first, the primeval purpose of the divine grace that his life + and sonship should be shared by all mankind; that through Christ + all men should rise to a loftier rank than that which belonged to + them by their creation; should be ‘_partakers of the divine + nature_’ (_2 Pet. 1:4_), and share the divine righteousness and + joy. Or rather, the race was actually created in Christ; and it + was created that the whole race might in Christ inherit the life + and glory of God. The divine purpose has been thwarted and + obstructed and partially defeated by human sin. But it is being + fulfilled in all who are ‘_in Christ_’ (_Eph. 1:3_).” + + +2. Positive and formal exclusion from God’s presence. + + +This included: + +(_a_) The cessation of man’s former familiar intercourse with God, and the +setting up of outward barriers between man and his Maker (cherubim and +sacrifice). + + + “In die Welt hinausgestossen, Steht der Mensch verlassen da.” + Though God punished Adam and Eve, he did not curse them as he did + the serpent. Their exclusion from the tree of life was a matter of + benevolence as well as of justice, for it prevented the + immortality of sin. + + +(_b_) Banishment from the garden, where God had specially manifested his +presence.—Eden was perhaps a spot reserved, as Adam’s body had been, to +show what a _sinless_ world would be. This positive exclusion from God’s +presence, with the sorrow and pain which it involved, may have been +intended to illustrate to man the nature of that eternal death from which +he now needed to seek deliverance. + + + At the gates of Eden, there seems to have been a manifestation of + God’s presence, in the cherubim, which constituted the place a + sanctuary. Both Cain and Abel brought offerings “_unto the Lord_” + (_Gen. 4:3, 4_), and when Cain fled, he is said to have gone out + “_from the presence of the Lord_” (_Gen. 4:16_). On the + consequences of the Fall to Adam, see Edwards, Works, 2:390-405; + Hopkins, Works, 1:206-246; Dwight, Theology, 1:393-434; Watson, + Institutes, 2:19-42; Martensen, Dogmatics, 155-173; Van Oosterzee, + Dogmatics, 402-412. + + + +Section V.—Imputation Of Adam’s Sin To His Posterity. + + +We have seen that all mankind are sinners; that all men are by nature +depraved, guilty, and condemnable; and that the transgression of our first +parents, so far as respects the human race, was the first sin. We have +still to consider the connection between Adam’s sin and the depravity, +guilt, and condemnation of the race. + +(_a_) The Scriptures teach that the transgression of our first parents +constituted their posterity sinners (Rom. 5:19—“through the one man’s +disobedience the many were made sinners”), so that Adam’s sin is imputed, +reckoned, or charged to every member of the race of which he was the germ +and head (Rom. 5:16—“the judgment came of one [offence] unto +condemnation”). It is because of Adam’s sin that we are born depraved and +subject to God’s penal inflictions (Rom. 5:12—“through one man sin entered +into the world, and death through sin”; Eph. 2:3—“by nature children of +wrath”). Two questions demand answer,—first, how we can be responsible for +a depraved nature which we did not personally and consciously originate; +and, secondly, how God can justly charge to our account the sin of the +first father of the race. These questions are substantially the same, and +the Scriptures intimate the true answer to the problem when they declare +that “in Adam all die” (1 Cor. 15:22) and “that death passed unto all men, +for that all sinned” when “through one man sin entered into the world” +(Rom. 5:12). In other words, Adam’s sin is the cause and ground of the +depravity, guilt, and condemnation of all his posterity, simply because +Adam and his posterity are one, and, by virtue of their organic unity, the +sin of Adam is the sin of the race. + + + Amiel says that “the best measure of the profundity of any + religious doctrine is given by its conception of sin and of the + cure of sin.” We have seen that sin is a state; a state of the + will; a selfish state of the will; a selfish state of the will + inborn and universal; a selfish state of the will inborn and + universal by reason of man’s free act. Connecting the present + discussion with the preceding doctrines of theology, the steps of + our treatment thus far are as follows: 1. God’s holiness is purity + of nature. 2. God’s law demands purity of nature. 3. Sin is impure + nature. 4. All men have this impure nature. 5. Adam originated + this impure nature. In the present section we expect to add: 6. + Adam and we are one; and, in the succeeding section, to complete + the doctrine with: 7. The guilt and penalty of Adam’s sin are + ours. + + +(_b_) According as we regard this twofold problem from the point of view +of the abnormal human condition, or of the divine treatment of it, we may +call it the problem of original sin, or the problem of imputation. Neither +of these terms is objectionable when its meaning is defined. By imputation +of sin we mean, not the arbitrary and mechanical charging to a man of that +for which he is not naturally responsible, but the reckoning to a man of a +guilt which is properly his own, whether by virtue of his individual acts, +or by virtue of his connection with the race. By original sin we mean that +participation in the common sin of the race with which God charges us, in +virtue of our descent from Adam, its first father and head. + + + We should not permit our use of the term “imputation” to be + hindered or prejudiced by the fact that certain schools of + theology, notably the Federal school, have attached to it an + arbitrary, external, and mechanical meaning—holding that God + imputes sin to men, not because they are sinners, but upon the + ground of a legal fiction whereby Adam, without their consent, was + made their representative. We shall see, on the contrary, that (1) + in the case of Adam’s sin imputed to us, (2) in the case of our + sins imputed to Christ, and (3) in the case of Christ’s + righteousness imputed to the believer, there is always a realistic + basis for the imputation, namely, a real union, (1) between Adam + and his descendants, (2) between Christ and the race, and (3) + between believers and Christ, such as gives in each case community + of life, and enables us to say that God imputes to no man what + does not properly belong to him. + + Dr. E. G. Robinson used to say that “imputed righteousness and + imputed sin are as absurd as any notion that ever took possession + of human nature.” He had in mind, however, only that constructive + guilt and merit which was advocated by Princeton theologians. He + did not mean to deny the imputation to men of that which is their + own. He recognized the fact that all men are sinners by + inheritance as well as by voluntary act, and he found this taught + in Scripture, both in the O. T. and in the N. T.; _e. g._, _Neh. + 1:6_—“_I confess the sins of the children of Israel, which we have + sinned against thee. Yea, I and my father’s house have sinned_”; + _Jer. 3:25_—“_Let us lie down in our shame, and let our confusion + cover us; for we have sinned against Jehovah our God, we and our + fathers_”; _14:20_—“_We acknowledge, O Jehovah, our wickedness, + and the iniquity of our fathers; for we have sinned against + thee._” The word “_imputed_” is itself found in the N. T.; _e. + g._, _2 Tim. 4:16_—“_At my first defence no one took my part: may + it not be laid to their account,_” or “_imputed to them_”—μὴ + αὐτοῖς λογισθείη. _Rom. 5:13_—“_sin is not imputed when there is + no law_”—οὐκ ἐλλογᾶται. + + Not only the saints of Scripture times, but modern saints also, + have imputed to themselves the sins of others, of their people, of + their times, of the whole world. Jonathan Edwards, Resolutions, + quoted by Allen, 28—“I will take it for granted that no one is so + evil as myself; I will identify myself with all men and act as if + their evil were my own, as if I had committed the same sins and + had the same infirmities, so that the knowledge of their failings + will promote in me nothing but a sense of shame.” Frederick + Denison Maurice: “I wish to confess the sins of the time as my + own.” Moberly, Atonement and Personality, 87—“The phrase + ‘solidarity of humanity’ is growing every day in depth and + significance. Whatever we do, we do not for ourselves alone. It is + not as an individual alone that I can be measured or judged.” + Royce, World and Individual, 2:404—“The problem of evil indeed + demands the presence of free will in the world; while, on the + other hand, it is equally true that no moral world whatever can be + made consistent with the realistic thesis according to which free + will agents are, in fortune and in penalty, independent of the + deeds of other moral agents. It follows that, in our moral world, + the righteous can suffer without individually deserving their + suffering, just because their lives have no independent being, but + are linked with all life—God himself also sharing in their + suffering.” + + The above quotations illustrate the belief in a human + responsibility that goes beyond the bounds of personal sins. What + this responsibility is, and what its limits are, we have yet to + define. The problem is stated, but not solved, by A. H. Bradford, + Heredity, 198, and The Age of Faith, 235—“Stephen prays: ‘_Lord, + lay not this sin to their charge_’ (_Acts 7:60_). To whose charge + then? We all have a share in one another’s sins. We too stood by + and consented, as Paul did. ‘My sins gave sharpness to the nails, + And pointed every thorn’ that pierced the brow of Jesus.... Yet in + England and Wales the severer forms of this teaching [with regard + to sin] have almost disappeared; not because of more thorough + study of the Scripture, but because the awful congestion of + population, with its attendant miseries, has convinced the + majority of Christian thinkers that the old interpretations were + too small for the near and terrible facts of human life, such as + women with babies in their arms at the London gin-shops giving the + infants sips of liquor out of their glasses, and a tavern keeper + setting his four or five year old boy upon the counter to drink + and swear and fight in imitation of his elders.” + + +(_c_) There are two fundamental principles which the Scriptures already +cited seem clearly to substantiate, and which other Scriptures +corroborate. The first is that man’s relations to moral law extend beyond +the sphere of conscious and actual transgression, and embrace those moral +tendencies and qualities of his being which he has in common with every +other member of the race. The second is, that God’s moral government is a +government which not only takes account of persons and personal acts, but +also recognizes race responsibilities and inflicts race-penalties; or, in +other words, judges mankind, not simply as a collection of separate +individuals, but also as an organic whole, which can collectively revolt +from God and incur the curse of the violated law. + + + On race-responsibility, see H. R. Smith, System of Theology, + 288-302—“No one can apprehend the doctrine of original sin, nor + the doctrine of redemption, who insists that the whole moral + government of God has respect only to individual desert, who does + not allow that the moral government of God, _as_ moral, has a + wider scope and larger relations, so that God may dispense + suffering and happiness (in his all-wise and inscrutable + providence) on other grounds than that of personal merit and + demerit. The dilemma here is: the facts connected with native + depravity and with the redemption through Christ either belong to + the moral government of God, or not. If they do, then that + government has to do with other considerations than those of + personal merit and demerit (since our disabilities in consequence + of sin and the grace offered in Christ are not in any sense the + result of our personal choice, though we do choose in our + relations to both). If they do not belong to the moral government + of God, where shall we assign them? To the physical? That + certainly can not be. To the divine sovereignty? But that does not + relieve any difficulty; for the question still remains, Is that + sovereignty, as thus exercised, just or unjust? We must take one + or the other of these. The whole (of sin and grace) is either a + mystery of sovereignty—of mere omnipotence—or a proceeding of + moral government. The question will arise with respect to grace as + well as to sin: How can the theory that all moral government has + respect only to the merit or demerit of personal acts be applied + to our justification? If all sin is in sinning, with a personal + desert of everlasting death, by parity of reasoning all holiness + must consist in a holy choice with personal merit of eternal life. + We say then, generally, that all definitions of sin which mean _a_ + sin are irrelevant here.” Dr. Smith quotes Edwards, + 2:309—“Original sin, the innate sinful depravity of the heart, + includes not only the depravity of nature but the imputation of + Adam’s first sin, or, in other words, the liableness or + exposedness of Adam’s posterity, in the divine judgment, to + partake of the punishment of that sin.” + + The watchword of a large class of theologians—popularly called + “New School”—is that “all sin consists in sinning,”—that is, all + sin is sin of act. But we have seen that the dispositions and + states in which a man is unlike God and his purity are also sin + according to the meaning of the law. We have now to add that each + man is responsible also for that sin of our first father in which + the human race apostatized from God. In other words, we recognize + the guilt of race-sin as well as of personal sin. We desire to say + at the outset, however, that our view, and, as we believe, the + Scriptural view, requires us also to hold to certain + qualifications of the doctrine which to some extent alleviate its + harshness and furnish its proper explanation. These qualifications + we now proceed to mention. + + +(_d_) In recognizing the guilt of race-sin, we are to bear in mind: (1) +that actual sin, in which the personal agent reaffirms the underlying +determination of his will, is more guilty than original sin alone; (2) +that no human being is finally condemned solely on account of original +sin; but that all who, like infants, do not commit personal +transgressions, are saved through the application of Christ’s atonement; +(3) that our responsibility for inborn evil dispositions, or for the +depravity common to the race, can be maintained only upon the ground that +this depravity was caused by an original and conscious act of free will, +when the race revolted from God in Adam; (4) that the doctrine of original +sin is only the ethical interpretation of biological facts—the facts of +heredity and of universal congenital ills, which demand an ethical ground +and explanation; and (5) that the idea of original sin has for its +correlate the idea of original grace, or the abiding presence and +operation of Christ, the immanent God, in every member of the race, in +spite of his sin, to counteract the evil and to prepare the way, so far as +man will permit, for individual and collective salvation. + + + Over against the maxim: “All sin consists in sinning,” we put the + more correct statement: Personal sin consists in sinning, but in + Adam’s first sinning the race also sinned, so that “_in Adam all + die_” (_1 Cor. 15:22_). Denney, Studies in Theology, 86—“Sin is + not only personal but social; not only social but organic; + character and all that is involved in character are capable of + being attributed not only to individuals but to societies, and + eventually to the human race itself; in short, there are not only + isolated sins and individual sinners, but what has been called a + kingdom of sin upon earth.” Leslie Stephen: “Man not dependent on + a race is as meaningless a phrase as an apple that does not grow + on a tree.” “Yet Aaron Burr and Abraham Lincoln show how a man may + throw away every advantage of the best heredity and environment, + while another can triumph over the worst. Man does not take his + character from external causes, but shapes it by his own willing + submission to influences from beneath or from above.” + + Wm. Adams Brown: “The idea of inherited guilt can be accepted only + if paralleled by the idea of inherited good. The consequences of + sin have often been regarded as social, while the consequences of + good have been regarded as only individual. But heredity transmits + both good and evil.” Mrs. Lydia Avery Coonley Ward: “Why bowest + thou, O soul of mine, Crushed by ancestral sin? Thou hast a noble + heritage, That bids thee victory win. The tainted past may bring + forth flowers, As blossomed Aaron’s rod: No legacy of sin annuls + Heredity from God.” For further statements with regard to + race-responsibility, see Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:29-39 (System + Doctrine, 2:324-333). For the modern view of the Fall, and its + reconciliation with the doctrine of evolution, see J. H. Bernard, + art.: The Fall, in Hastings’ Dict. of Bible; A. H. Strong, Christ + in Creation, 163-180; Griffith-Jones, Ascent through Christ. + + +(_e_) There is a race-sin, therefore, as well as a personal sin; and that +race-sin was committed by the first father of the race, when he comprised +the whole race in himself. All mankind since that time have been born in +the state into which he fell—a state of depravity, guilt, and +condemnation. To vindicate God’s justice in imputing to us the sin of our +first father, many theories have been devised, a part of which must be +regarded as only attempts to evade the problem by denying the facts set +before us in the Scriptures. Among these attempted explanations of the +Scripture statements, we proceed to examine the six theories which seem +most worthy of attention. + + + The first three of the theories which we discuss may be said to be + evasions of the problem of original sin; all, in one form or + another, deny that God imputes to all men Adam’s sin, in such a + sense that all are guilty for it. These theories are the Pelagian, + the Arminian, and the New School. The last three of the theories + which we are about to treat, namely, the Federal theory, the + theory of Mediate Imputation, and the theory of Adam’s Natural + Headship, are all Old School theories, and have for their common + characteristic that they assert the guilt of inborn depravity. All + three, moreover, hold that we are in some way responsible for + Adam’s sin, though they differ as to the precise way in which we + are related to Adam. We must grant that no one, even of these + latter theories, is wholly satisfactory. We hope, however, to show + that the last of them—the Augustinian theory, the theory of Adam’s + natural headship, the theory that Adam and his descendants are + naturally and organically one—explains the largest number of + facts, is least open to objection, and is most accordant with + Scripture. + + +I. Theories of Imputation. + + +1. The Pelagian Theory, or Theory of Man’s natural Innocence. + + +Pelagius, a British monk, propounded his doctrines at Rome, 409. They were +condemned by the Council of Carthage, 418. Pelagianism, however, as +opposed to Augustinianism, designates a complete scheme of doctrine with +regard to sin, of which Pelagius was the most thorough representative, +although every feature of it cannot be ascribed to his authorship. +Socinians and Unitarians are the more modern advocates of this general +scheme. + +According to this theory, every human soul is immediately created by God, +and created as innocent, as free from depraved tendencies, and as +perfectly able to obey God, as Adam was at his creation. The only effect +of Adam’s sin upon his posterity is the effect of evil example; it has in +no way corrupted human nature; the only corruption of human nature is that +habit of sinning which each individual contracts by persistent +transgression of known law. + +Adam’s sin therefore injured only himself; the sin of Adam is imputed only +to Adam,—it is imputed in no sense to his descendants; God imputes to each +of Adam’s descendants only those acts of sin which he has personally and +consciously committed. Men can be saved by the law as well as by the +gospel; and some have actually obeyed God perfectly, and have thus been +saved. Physical death is therefore not the penalty of sin, but an original +law of nature; Adam would have died whether he had sinned or not; in Rom. +5:12, “death passed unto all men, for that all sinned,” signifies: “all +incurred eternal death by sinning after Adam’s example.” + + + Wiggers, Augustinism and Pelagianism, 59, states the seven points + of the Pelagian doctrine as follows: (1) Adam was created mortal, + so that he would have died even if he had not sinned; (2) Adam’s + sin injured, not the human race, but only himself; (3) new-born + infants are in the same condition as Adam before the Fall; (4) the + whole human race neither dies on account of Adam’s sin, nor rises + on account of Christ’s resurrection; (5) infants, even though not + baptized, attain eternal life; (6) the law is as good a means of + salvation as the gospel; (7) even before Christ some men lived who + did not commit sin. + + In Pelagius’ Com. on _Rom. 5:12_, published in Jerome’s Works, + vol. xi, we learn who these sinless men were, namely, Abel, Enoch, + Joseph, Job, and, among the heathen, Socrates, Aristides, Numa. + The virtues of the heathen entitle them to reward. Their worthies + were not indeed without evil thoughts and inclinations; but, on + the view of Pelagius that all sin consists in act, these evil + thoughts and inclinations were not sin. “Non pleni nascimur”: we + are born, not full, but vacant, of character. Holiness, Pelagius + thought, could not be concreated. Adam’s descendants are not + weaker, but stronger, than he; since they have fulfilled many + commands, while he did not fulfil so much as one. In every man + there is a natural conscience; he has an ideal of life; he forms + right resolves; he recognizes the claims of law; he accuses + himself when he sins,—all these things Pelagius regards as + indications of a certain holiness in all men, and + misinterpretation of these facts gives rise to his system; he + ought to have seen in them evidences of a divine influence + opposing man’s bent to evil and leading him to repentance. Grace, + on the Pelagian theory, is simply the grace of _creation_—God’s + originally endowing man with his high powers of reason and will. + While Augustinianism regards human nature as _dead_, and + Semi-Pelagianism regards it as _sick_, Pelagianism proper declares + it to be _well_. + + Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:43 (Syst. Doct., 2:338)—“Neither the + body, man’s surroundings, nor the inward operation of God, have + any determining influence upon the will. God reaches man only + through external means, such as Christ’s doctrine, example, and + promise. This clears God of the charge of evil, but also takes + from him the authorship of good. It is Deism, applied to man’s + nature. God cannot enter man’s being if he would, and he would not + if he could. Free will is everything.” _Ib._, 1:626 (Syst. Doct., + 2:188, 189)—“Pelagianism at one time counts it too great an honor + that man should be directly moved upon by God, and at another, too + great a dishonor that man should not be able to do without God. In + this inconsistent reasoning, it shows its desire to be rid of God + as much as possible. The true conception of God requires a living + relation to man, as well as to the external universe. The true + conception of man requires satisfaction of his longings and powers + by reception of impulses and strength from God. Pelagianism, in + seeking for man a development only like that of nature, shows that + its high estimate of man is only a delusive one; it really + degrades him, by ignoring his true dignity and destiny.” See + _Ib._, 1:124, 125 (Syst. Doct., 1:136, 137); 2:43-45 (Syst. Doct., + 2:338, 339); 2:148 (Syst. Doct., 3:44). Also Schaff, Church + History, 2:783-856; Doctrines of the Early Socinians, in Princeton + Essays, 1:194-211; Wörter, Pelagianismus. For substantially + Pelagian statements, see Sheldon, Sin and Redemption; Ellis, Half + Century of Unitarian Controversy, 76. + + +Of the Pelagian theory of sin, we may say: + +A. It has never been recognized as Scriptural, nor has it been formulated +in confessions, by any branch of the Christian church. Held only +sporadically and by individuals, it has ever been regarded by the church +at large as heresy. This constitutes at least a presumption against its +truth. + + + As slavery was “the sum of all villainy,” so the Pelagian doctrine + may be called the sum of all false doctrine. Pelagianism is a + survival of paganism, in its majestic egoism and self-complacency. + “Cicero, in his Natura Deorum, says that men thank the gods for + external advantages, but no man ever thanks the gods for his + virtues—that he is honest or pure or merciful. Pelagius was first + roused to opposition by hearing a bishop in the public services of + the church quote Augustine’s prayer: ‘Da quod jubes, et jube quod + vis’—‘Give what thou commandest, and command what thou wilt.’ From + this he was led to formulate the gospel according to St. Cicero, + so perfectly does the Pelagian doctrine reproduce the Pagan + teaching.” The impulse of the Christian, on the other hand, is to + refer all gifts and graces to a divine source in Christ and in the + Holy Spirit. _Eph. 2:10_—“_For we are his workmanship, created in + Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we + should walk in them_”; _John 15:16_—“_Ye did not choose me, but I + chose you_”; _1:13_—“_who were born, not of blood, nor of the will + of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God._” H. Auber: “And + every virtue we possess, And every victory won, And every thought + of holiness, Are his alone.” + + Augustine had said that “Man is most free when controlled by God + alone”—“[Deo] solo dominante, liberrimus” (De Mor. Eccl., xxi). + Gore, in Lux Mundi, 320—“In Christ humanity is perfect, because in + him it retains no part of that false independence which, in all + its manifold forms, is the secret of sin.” Pelagianism, on the + contrary, is man’s declaration of independence. Harnack, Hist. + Dogma, 5:200—“The essence of Pelagianism, the key to its whole + mode of thought, lies in this proposition of Julian: ‘Homo libero + arbitrio emancipatus a Deo’—man, created free, is in his whole + being independent of God. He has no longer to do with God, but + with himself alone. God reënters man’s life only at the end, at + the judgment,—a doctrine of the orphanage of humanity.” + + +B. It contradicts Scripture in denying: (_a_) that evil disposition and +state, as well as evil acts, are sin; (_b_) that such evil disposition and +state are inborn in all mankind; (_c_) that men universally are guilty of +overt transgression so soon as they come to moral consciousness; (_d_) +that no man is able without divine help to fulfil the law; (_e_) that all +men, without exception, are dependent for salvation upon God’s atoning, +regenerating, sanctifying grace; (_f_) that man’s present state of +corruption, condemnation, and death, is the direct effect of Adam’s +transgression. + + + The Westminster Confession, ch. vi. § 4, declares that “we are + utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and + wholly inclined to all evil.” To Pelagius, on the contrary, sin is + a mere incident. He knows only of _sins_, not of _sin_. He holds + the atomic, or atomistic, theory of sin, which regards it as + consisting in isolated volitions. Pelegianism, holding, as it + does, that virtue and vice consist only in single decisions, does + not account for _character_ at all. There is no such thing as a + state of sin, or a self-propagating power of sin. And yet upon + these the Scriptures lay greater emphasis than upon mere acts of + transgression. _John 3:6_—“_That which is born of the flesh is + flesh_”—“that which comes of a sinful and guilty stock is itself, + from the very beginning, sinful and guilty” (Dorner). Witness the + tendency to degradation in families and nations. + + Amiel says that the great defect of liberal Christianity is its + superficial conception of sin. The tendency dates far back: + Tertullian spoke of the soul as naturally Christian—“anima + naturaliter Christiana.” The tendency has come down to modern + times: Crane, The Religion of To-morrow, 246—“It is only when + children grow up, and begin to absorb their environment, that they + lose their artless loveliness.” A Rochester Unitarian preacher + publicly declared it to be as much a duty to believe in the + natural purity of man, as to believe in the natural purity of God. + Dr. Lyman Abbott speaks of “the shadow which the Manichæan + theology of Augustine, borrowed by Calvin, cast upon all children, + in declaring them born to an inheritance of wrath as a viper’s + brood.” Dr. Abbott forgets that Augustine was the greatest + opponent of Manichæanism, and that his doctrine of inherited guilt + may be supplemented by a doctrine of inherited divine influences + tending to salvation. + + Prof. G. A. Coe tells us that “all children are within the + household of God”; that “they are already members of his kingdom”; + that “the adolescent change” is “a step not _into_ the Christian + life, but _within_ the Christian life.” We are taught that + salvation is by education. But education is only a way of + presenting truth. It still remains needful that the soul should + accept the truth. Pelagianism ignores or denies the presence in + every child of a congenital selfishness which hinders acceptance + of the truth, and which, without the working of the divine Spirit, + will absolutely counteract the influence of the truth. Augustine + was taught his guilt and helplessness by transgression, while + Pelagius remained ignorant of the evil of his own heart. Pelagius + might have said with Wordsworth, Prelude, 534—“I had approached, + like other youths, the shield Of human nature from the golden + side; And would have fought, even unto the death, to attest The + quality of the metal which I saw.” + + Schaff, on the Pelagian controversy, in Bib. Sac., 5:205-243—The + controversy “resolves itself into the question whether redemption + and sanctification are the work of man or of God. Pelagianism in + its whole mode of thinking starts from man and seeks to work + itself upward gradually, by means of an imaginary good-will, to + holiness and communion with God. Augustinianism pursues the + opposite way, deriving from God’s unconditioned and all-working + grace a new life and all power of working good. The first is led + from freedom into a legal, self-righteous piety; the other rises + from the slavery of sin to the glorious liberty of the children of + God. For the first, revelation is of force only as an outward + help, or the power of a high example; for the last, it is the + inmost life, the very marrow and blood of the new man. The first + involves an Ebionitic view of Christ, as noble man, not + high-priest or king; the second finds in him one in whom dwells + all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. The first makes conversion + a process of gradual moral purification on the ground of original + nature; with the last, it is a total change, in which the old + passes away and all becomes new.... Rationalism is simply the form + in which Pelagianism becomes theoretically complete. The high + opinion which the Pelagian holds of the natural will is + transferred with equal right by the Rationalist to the natural + reason. The one does without grace, as the other does without + revelation. Pelagian divinity is rationalistic. Rationalistic + morality is Pelagian.” See this Compendium, page 89. + + Allen, Religious Progress, 98-100—“Most of the mischief of + religious controversy springs from the desire and determination to + impute to one’s opponent positions which he does not hold, or to + draw inferences from his principles, insisting that he shall be + held responsible for them, even though he declares that he does + not teach them. We say that he ought to accept them; that he is + bound logically to do so; that they are necessary deductions from + his system; that the tendency of his teaching is in these + directions; and then we denounce and condemn him for what he + disowns. It was in this way that Augustine filled out for Pelagius + the gaps in his scheme, which he thought it necessary to do, in + order to make Pelagius’s teaching consistent and complete; and + Pelagius, in his turn, drew inferences from the Augustinian + theology, about which Augustine would have preferred to maintain a + discreet silence. Neither Augustine nor Calvin was anxious to make + prominent the doctrine of the reprobation of the wicked to + damnation, but preferred to dwell on the more attractive, more + rational tenet of the elect to salvation, as subjects of the + divine choice and approbation; substituting for the obnoxious word + reprobation the milder, euphemistic word preterition. It was their + opponents who were bent on forcing them out of their reserve, + pushing them into what seemed the consistent sequence of their + attitude, and then holding it up before the world for execration. + And the same remark would apply to almost every theological + contention that has embittered the church’s experience.” + + +C. It rests upon false philosophical principles; as, for example: (_a_) +that the human will is simply the faculty of volitions; whereas it is +also, and chiefly, the faculty of self-determination to an ultimate end; +(_b_) that the power of a contrary choice is essential to the existence of +will; whereas the will fundamentally determined to self-gratification has +this power only with respect to subordinate choices, and cannot by a +single volition reverse its moral state; (_c_) that ability is the measure +of obligation,—a principle which would diminish the sinner’s +responsibility, just in proportion to his progress in sin; (_d_) that law +consists only in positive enactment; whereas it is the demand of perfect +harmony with God, inwrought into man’s moral nature; (_e_) that each human +soul is immediately created by God, and holds no other relations to moral +law than those which are individual; whereas all human souls are +organically connected with each other, and together have a corporate +relation to God’s law, by virtue of their derivation from one common +stock. + +(_a_) Neander, Church History, 2:564-625, holds one of the fundamental +principles of Pelagianism to be “the ability to choose, equally and at any +moment, between good and evil.” There is no recognition of the law by +which acts produce states; the power which repeated acts of evil possess +to give a definite character and tendency to the will itself.—“Volition is +an everlasting ‘tick,’ ‘tick,’ and swinging of the pendulum, but no moving +forward of the hands of the clock follows.” “There is no continuity of +moral life—no _character_, in man, angel, devil, or God.”—(_b_) See art. +on Power of Contrary Choice, in Princeton Essays, 1:212-233; Pelagianism +holds that no confirmation in holiness is possible. Thornwell, Theology: +“The sinner is as free as the saint; the devil as the angel.” Harris, +Philos. Basis of Theism, 399—“The theory that indifference is essential to +freedom implies that will never acquires character; that voluntary action +is atomistic, every act disintegrated from every other; that character, if +acquired, would be incompatible with freedom.” “By mere volition the soul +now a _plenum_ can become a _vacuum_, or now a _vacuum_ can become a +_plenum_.” On the Pelagian view of freedom, see Julius Müller, Doctrine of +Sin, 37-44. + + + (_c_) _Ps. 79:8_—“_Remember not against us the iniquities of our + forefathers_”; _106:6_—“_We have sinned with our fathers._” Notice + the analogy of individuals who suffer from the effects of parental + mistakes or of national transgression. Julius Müller, Doct. Sin, + 2:316, 317—“Neither the _atomistic_ nor the _organic_ view of + human nature is the complete truth.” Each must be complemented by + the other. For statement of race-responsibility, see Dorner, + Glaubenslehre, 2:30-39, 51-64, 161, 162 (System of Doctrine, + 2:324-334, 345-359; 3:50-54)—“Among the Scripture proofs of the + moral connection of the individual with the race are the visiting + of the sins of the fathers upon the children; the obligation of + the people to punish the sin of the individual, that the whole + land may not incur guilt; the offering of sacrifice for a murder, + the perpetrator of which is unknown. Achan’s crime is charged to + the whole people. The Jewish race is the better for its parentage, + and other nations are the worse for theirs. The Hebrew people + become a legal personality. + + “Is it said that none are punished for the sins of their fathers + unless they are like their fathers? But to be unlike their fathers + requires a new heart. They who are not held accountable for the + sins of their fathers are those who have recognized their + responsibility for them, and have repented for their likeness to + their ancestors. Only the self-isolating spirit says: ‘_Am I my + brother’s keeper?_’ (_Gen. 4:9_), and thinks to construct a + constant equation between individual misfortune and _individual_ + sin. The calamities of the righteous led to an ethical conception + of the relation of the individual to the community. Such + sufferings show that men can love God disinterestedly, that the + good has unselfish friends. These sufferings are substitutionary, + when borne as belonging to the sufferer, not foreign to him, the + guilt of others attaching to him by virtue of his national or + race-relation to them. So Moses in Ex. 34:9, David in Ps. 51:6, + Isaiah in Is. 59:9-16, recognize the connection between personal + sin and race-sin. + + “Christ restores the bond between man and his fellows, turns the + hearts of the fathers to the children. He is the creator of a new + race-consciousness. In him as the head we see ourselves bound to, + and responsible for others. Love finds it morally impossible to + isolate itself. It restores the consciousness of unity and the + recognition of common guilt. Does every man stand for himself in + the N. T.? This would be so, only if each man became a sinner + solely by free and conscious personal decision, either in the + present, or in a past state of existence. But this is not + Scriptural. Something comes before personal transgression: ‘_That + which is born of the flesh is flesh_’ (_John 3:6_). Personality is + the stronger for recognizing the race-sin. We have common joy in + the victories of the good; so in shameful lapses we have sorrow. + These are not our worst moments, but our best,—there is something + great in them. Original sin must be displeasing to God; for it + perverts the reason, destroys likeness to God, excludes from + communion with God, makes redemption necessary, leads to actual + sin, influences future generations. But to complain of God for + permitting its propagation is to complain of his not destroying + the race,—that is, to complain of one’s own existence.” See Shedd, + Hist. Doctrine, 2:93-110; Hagenbach, Hist. Doctrine, 1:287, + 296-310; Martensen, Dogmatics, 354-362; Princeton Essays, 1:74-97; + Dabney, Theology, 296-302, 314, 315. + + +2. The Arminian Theory, or Theory of voluntarily appropriated Depravity. + + +Arminius (1560-1609), professor in the University of Leyden, in South +Holland, while formally accepting the doctrine of the Adamic unity of the +race propounded both by Luther and Calvin, gave a very different +interpretation to it—an interpretation which verged toward +Semi-Pelagianism and the anthropology of the Greek Church. The Methodist +body is the modern representative of this view. + +According to this theory, all men, as a divinely appointed sequence of +Adam’s transgression, are naturally destitute of original righteousness, +and are exposed to misery and death. By virtue of the infirmity propagated +from Adam to all his descendants, mankind are wholly unable without divine +help perfectly to obey God or to attain eternal life. This inability, +however, is physical and intellectual, but not voluntary. As matter of +justice, therefore, God bestows upon each individual from the first dawn +of consciousness a special influence of the Holy Spirit, which is +sufficient to counteract the effect of the inherited depravity and to make +obedience possible, provided the human will coöperates, which it still has +power to do. + +The evil tendency and state may be called sin; but they do not in +themselves involve guilt or punishment; still less are mankind accounted +guilty of Adam’s sin. God imputes to each man his inborn tendencies to +evil, only when he consciously and voluntarily appropriates and ratifies +these in spite of the power to the contrary, which, in justice to man, God +has specially communicated. In Rom. 5:12, “death passed unto all men, for +that all sinned,” signifies that physical and spiritual death is inflicted +upon all men, not as the penalty of a common sin in Adam, but because, by +divine decree, all suffer the consequences of that sin, and because all +personally consent to their inborn sinfulness by acts of transgression. + + + See Arminius, Works, 1:252-254, 317-324, 325-327, 523-531, + 575-583. The description given above is a description of + Arminianism proper. The expressions of Arminius himself are so + guarded that Moses Stuart (Bib. Repos., 1831) found it possible to + construct an argument to prove that Arminius was not an Arminian. + But it is plain that by inherited sin Arminius meant only + inherited evil, and that it was not of a sort to justify God’s + condemnation. He denied any inbeing in Adam, such as made us + justly chargeable with Adam’s sin, except in the sense that we are + obliged to endure certain consequences of it. This Shedd has shown + in his History of Doctrine, 2:178-196. The system of Arminius was + more fully expounded by Limborch and Episcopius. See Limborch, + Theol. Christ., 3:4:6 (p. 189). The sin with which we are born + “does not inhere in the soul, for this [soul] is immediately + created by God, and therefore, if it were infected with sin, that + sin would be from God.” Many so-called Arminians, such as Whitby + and John Taylor, were rather Pelagians. + + John Wesley, however, greatly modified and improved the Arminian + doctrine. Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:329, 330—“Wesleyanism (1) admits + entire moral depravity; (2) denies that men in this state have any + power to coöperate with the grace of God; (3) asserts that the + guilt of all through Adam was removed by the justification of all + through Christ; (4) ability to coöperate is of the Holy Spirit, + through the universal influence of the redemption of Christ. The + order of the decrees is (1) to permit the fall of man; (2) to send + the Son to be a full satisfaction for the sins of the whole world; + (3) on that ground to remit all original sin, and to give such + grace as would enable all to attain eternal life; (4) those who + improve that grace and persevere to the end are ordained to be + saved.” We may add that Wesley made the bestowal upon our depraved + nature of ability to coöperate with God to be a matter of grace, + while Arminius regarded it as a matter of justice, man without it + not being accountable. + + Wesleyanism was systematized by Watson, who, in his Institutes, + 2:53-55, 59, 77, although denying the imputation of Adam’s sin in + any proper sense, yet declares that “Limborch and others + materially departed from the tenets of Arminius in denying inward + lusts and tendencies to be sinful till complied with and augmented + by the will. But men universally choose to ratify these + tendencies; therefore they are corrupt in heart. If there be a + universal depravity of will previous to the actual choice, then it + inevitably follows that though infants do not commit actual sin, + yet that theirs is a sinful nature....As to infants, they are not + indeed born justified and regenerate; so that to say original sin + is taken away, as to infants, by Christ, is not the correct view + of the case, for the reasons before given; but they are all born + under ‘the free gift,’ the effects of the ‘righteousness’ of one, + which is extended to all men; and this free gift is bestowed on + them in order to justification of life, the adjudging of the + condemned to live....Justification in adults is connected with + repentance and faith; in infants, we do not know how. The Holy + Spirit may be given to children. Divine and effectual influence + may be exerted on them, to cure the spiritual death and corrupt + tendency of their nature.” + + It will be observed that Watson’s Wesleyanism is much more near to + Scripture than what we have described, and properly described, as + Arminianism proper. Pope, in his Theology, follows Wesley and + Watson, and (2:70-86) gives a valuable synopsis of the differences + between Arminius and Wesley. Whedon and Raymond, in America, + better represent original Arminianism. They hold that God was + under _obligation_ to restore man’s ability, and yet they + inconsistently speak of this ability as a _gracious_ ability. Two + passages from Raymond’s Theology show the inconsistency of calling + that “grace,” which God is bound in justice to bestow, in order to + make man responsible: 2:84-86—“The race came into existence under + grace. Existence and justification are secured for it only through + Christ; for, apart from Christ, punishment and destruction would + have followed the first sin. So all gifts of the Spirit necessary + to qualify him for the putting forth of free moral choices are + secured for him through Christ. The Spirit of God is not a + bystander, but a quickening power. So man is by grace, not by his + fallen nature, a moral being capable of knowing, loving, obeying, + and enjoying God. Such he ever will be, if he does not frustrate + the grace of God. Not till the Spirit takes his final flight is he + in a condition of total depravity.” + + Compare with this the following passage of the same work in which + this “grace” is called a debt: 2:317—“The relations of the + posterity of Adam to God are substantially those of newly created + beings. Each individual person is obligated to God, and God to + him, precisely the same as if God had created him such as he is. + Ability must equal obligation. God was not obligated to provide a + Redeemer for the first transgressors, but having provided + Redemption for them, and through it having permitted them to + propagate a degenerate race, an adequate compensation is due. The + gracious influences of the Spirit are then a debt due to man—a + compensation for the disabilities of inherited depravity.” + McClintock and Strong (Cyclopædia, art.: Arminius) endorse + Whedon’s art. in the Bib. Sac., 19:241, as an exhibition of + Arminianism, and Whedon himself claims it to be such. See + Hagenbach, Hist. Doct., 2:214-216. + + +With regard to the Arminian theory we remark: + +A. We grant that there is a universal gift of the Holy Spirit, if by the +Holy Spirit is meant the natural light of reason and conscience, and the +manifold impulses to good which struggle against the evil of man’s nature. +But we regard as wholly unscriptural the assumptions: (_a_) that this gift +of the Holy Spirit of itself removes the depravity or condemnation derived +from Adam’s fall; (_b_) that without this gift man would not be +responsible for being morally imperfect; and (_c_) that at the beginning +of moral life men consciously appropriate their inborn tendencies to evil. + + + John Wesley adduced in proof of universal grace the text: _John + 1:9_—“_the light which lighteth every man_”—which refers to the + natural light of reason and conscience which the preincarnate + Logos bestowed on all men, though in different degrees, before his + coming in the flesh. This light can be called the Holy Spirit, + because it was “_the Spirit of Christ_” (_1 Pet. 1:11_). The + Arminian view has a large element of truth in its recognition of + an influence of Christ, the immanent God, which mitigates the + effects of the Fall and strives to prepare men for salvation. But + Arminianism does not fully recognize the evil to be removed, and + it therefore exaggerates the effect of this divine working. + Universal grace does not remove man’s depravity or man’s + condemnation; as is evident from a proper interpretation of _Rom. + 5:12-19_ and of _Eph. 2:3_; it only puts side by side with that + depravity and condemnation influences and impulses which + counteract the evil and urge the sinner to repentance: _John + 1:5_—“_the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness + apprehended it not._” John Wesley also referred to _Rom. + 5:18_—“_through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto + all men to justification of life_”—but here the “all men” is + conterminous with “the many” who are “_made righteous_” in _verse + 19_, and with the “_all_” who are “_made alive_” in _1 Cor. + 15:22_; in other words, the “_all_” in this case is “all + believers”: else the passage teaches, not universal gift of the + Spirit, but universal salvation. + + Arminianism holds to inherited sin, in the sense of infirmity and + evil tendency, but not to inherited guilt. John Wesley, however, + by holding also that the giving of ability is a matter of grace + and not of justice, seems to imply that there is a common guilt as + well as a common sin, before consciousness. American Arminians are + more logical, but less Scriptural. Sheldon, Syst. Christian + Doctrine, 321, tells us that “guilt cannot possibly be a matter of + inheritance, and consequently original sin can be affirmed of the + posterity of Adam only in the sense of hereditary corruption, + which first becomes an occasion of guilt when it is embraced by + the will of the individual.” How little the Arminian means by + “sin,” can be inferred from the saying of Bishop Simpson that + “Christ inherited sin.” He meant of course only physical and + intellectual infirmity, without a tinge of guilt. “A child + inherits its parent’s nature,” it is said, “not as a punishment, + but by natural law.” But we reply that this natural law is itself + an expression of God’s moral nature, and the inheritance of evil + can be justified only upon the ground of a common non-conformity + to God in both the parent and the child, or a participation of + each member in the common guilt of the race. + + In the light of our preceding treatment, we can estimate the + element of good and the element of evil in Pfleiderer, Philos. + Religion, 1:232—“It is an exaggeration when original sin is + considered as personally imputable guilt; and it is going too far + when it is held to be the whole state of the natural man, and yet + the actually present good, the ‘original grace,’ is + overlooked....We may say, with Schleiermacher, that original sin + is the common deed and common guilt of the human race. But the + individual always participates in this collective guilt in the + measure in which he takes part with his personal doing in the + collective act that is directed to the furtherance of the bad.” + Dabney, Theology, 315, 316—“Arminianism is orthodox as to the + legal consequences of Adam’s sin to his posterity; but what it + gives with one hand, it takes back with the other, attributing to + grace the restoration of this natural ability lost by the Fall. If + the effects of Adam’s Fall on his posterity are such that they + would have been unjust if not repaired by a redeeming plan that + was to follow it, then God’s act in providing a Redeemer was not + an act of pure grace. He was under obligation to do some such + thing,—salvation is not grace, but debt.” A. J. Gordon, Ministry + of the Spirit, 187 _sq._, denies the universal gift of the Spirit, + quoting _John 14:17_—“_whom the world cannot receive; for it + beholdeth him not, neither knoweth him_”; _16:7_—“_if I go, I will + send him unto you_”; _i. e._, Christ’s disciples were to be the + recipients and distributers of the Holy Spirit, and his church the + mediator between the Spirit and the world. Therefore _Mark + 16:15_—“_Go ye into all the world, and preach,_” implies that the + Spirit shall go only with them. Conviction of the Spirit does not + go beyond the church’s evangelizing. But we reply that _Gen. 6:3_ + implies a wider striving of the Holy Spirit. + + +B. It contradicts Scripture in maintaining: (_a_) that inherited moral +evil does not involve guilt; (_b_) that the gift of the Spirit, and the +regeneration of infants, are matters of justice; (_c_) that the effect of +grace is simply to restore man’s natural ability, instead of disposing him +to use that ability aright; (_d_) that election is God’s choice of certain +men to be saved upon the ground of their foreseen faith, instead of being +God’s choice to make certain men believers; (_e_) that physical death is +not the just penalty of sin, but is a matter of arbitrary decree. + + + (_a_) See Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:58 (System of Doctrine, + 2:352-359)—“With Arminius, original sin is original _evil_ only, + not _guilt_. He explained the problem of original sin by denying + the fact, and turning the native sinfulness into a morally + indifferent thing. No sin without consent; no consent at the + beginning of human development; therefore, no guilt in evil + desire. This is the same as the Romanist doctrine of + concupiscence, and like that leads to blaming God for an + originally bad constitution of our nature....Original sin is + merely an enticement to evil addressed to the free will. All + internal disorder and vitiosity is morally indifferent, and + becomes sin only through appropriation by free will. But + involuntary, loveless, proud thoughts are recognized in Scripture + as sin; yet they spring from the heart without our conscious + consent. Undeliberate and deliberate sins run into each other, so + that it is impossible to draw a line between them. The doctrine + that there is no sin without consent implies power to withhold + consent. But this contradicts the universal need of redemption and + our observation that none have ever thus entirely withheld consent + from sin.” + + (_b_) H. B. Smith’s Review of Whedon on the Will, in Faith and + Philosophy, 359-399—“A child, upon the old view, needs only growth + to make him guilty of actual sin; whereas, upon this view, he + needs growth and grace too.” See Bib. Sac., 20:327, 328. According + to Whedon, Com. on _Rom. 5:12_, “the condition of an infant apart + from Christ is that of a sinner, _as one sure to sin_, yet never + actually condemned before personal apostasy. This _would_ be its + condition, rather, for in Christ the infant is regenerate and + justified and endowed with the Holy Spirit. Hence all actual + sinners are apostates from a state of grace.” But we ask: 1. Why + then do infants die before they have committed actual sin? Surely + not on account of Adam’s sin, for they are delivered from all the + evils of that, through Christ. It must be because they are still + somehow sinners. 2. How can we account for all infants sinning so + soon as they begin morally to act, if, before they sin, they are + in a state of grace and sanctification? It must be because they + were still somehow sinners. In other words, the universal + regeneration and justification of infants contradict Scripture and + observation. + + (_c_) Notice that this “gracious” ability does not involve saving + grace to the recipient, because it is given equally to all men. + Nor is it more than a restoring to man of his natural ability lost + by Adam’s sin. It is not sufficient to explain why one man who has + the gracious ability chooses God, while another who has the same + gracious ability chooses self. _1 Cor. 4:7_—“_who maketh thee to + differ?_” Not God, but thyself. Over against this doctrine of + Arminians, who hold to universal, resistible grace, restoring + natural ability, Calvinists and Augustinians hold to particular, + irresistible grace, giving moral ability, or, in other words, + bestowing the disposition to use natural ability aright. “Grace” + is a word much used by Arminians. Methodist Doctrine and + Discipline, Articles of Religion, viii—“The condition of man after + the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself, + by his own natural strength and works, to faith, and calling upon + God; wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and + acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing + us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we + have that good will.” It is important to understand that, in + Arminian usage, grace is simply the restoration of man’s natural + ability to act for himself; it never actually saves him, but only + enables him to save himself—if he will. Arminian grace is evenly + bestowed grace of spiritual endowment, as Pelagian grace is evenly + bestowed grace of creation. It regards redemption as a + compensation for innate and consequently irresponsible depravity. + + (_d_) In the Arminian system, the order of salvation is, (1) + faith—by an unrenewed but convicted man; (2) justification; (3) + regeneration, or a holy heart. God decrees not to _originate_ + faith, but to _reward_ it. Hence Wesleyans make faith a work, and + regard election as God’s ordaining those who, he foresees, will of + their own accord believe. The Augustinian order, on the contrary, + is (1) regeneration; (2) faith; (3) justification. Memoir of + Adolph Saphir, 255—“My objection to the Arminian or semi-Arminian + is not that they make the entrance very wide; but that they do not + give you anything definite, safe and real, when you have + entered.... Do not believe the devil’s gospel, which is a _chance_ + of salvation: chance of salvation is chance of damnation.” Grace + is not a _reward_ for good deeds done, but a _power_ enabling us + to do them. Francis Rous of Truro, in the Parliament of 1629, + spoke as a man nearly frantic with horror at the increase of that + “error of Arminianism which makes the grace of God lackey it after + the will of man”; see Masson, Life of Milton, 1:277. Arminian + converts say: “I gave my heart to the Lord”; Augustinian converts + say: “The Holy Spirit convicted me of sin and renewed my heart.” + Arminianism tends to self-sufficiency; Augustinianism promotes + dependence upon God. + + +C. It rests upon false philosophical principles, as for example: (_a_) +That the will is simply the faculty of volitions. (_b_) That the power of +contrary choice, in the sense of power by a single act to reverse one’s +moral state, is essential to will. (_c_) That previous certainty of any +given moral act is incompatible with its freedom. (_d_) That ability is +the measure of obligation. (_e_) That law condemns only volitional +transgression. (_f_) That man has no organic moral connection with the +race. + + + (_b_) Raymond says: “Man is responsible for character, but only so + far as that character is self-imposed. We are not responsible for + character irrespective of its origin. Freedom _from_ an act is as + essential to responsibility as freedom _to_ it. If power to the + contrary is impossible, then freedom does not exist in God or man. + Sin was a necessity, and God was the author of it.” But this is a + denial that there is any such thing as character; that the will + can give itself a bent which no single volition can change; that + the wicked man can become the slave of sin; that Satan, though + without power now in himself to turn to God, is yet responsible + for his sin. The power of contrary choice which Adam had exists no + longer in its entirety; it is narrowed down to a power to the + contrary in temporary and subordinate choices; it no longer is + equal to the work of changing the fundamental determination of the + being to selfishness as an ultimate end. Yet for this very + inability, because originated by will, man is responsible. + + Julius Müller, Doctrine of Sin, 2:28—“Formal freedom leads the way + to real freedom. The starting-point is a freedom which does not + yet involve an inner necessity, but the possibility of something + else; the goal is the freedom which is identical with necessity. + The first is a means to the last. When the will has fully and + truly chosen, the power of acting otherwise may still be said to + exist in a metaphysical sense; but morally, _i. e._, with + reference to the contrast of good and evil, it is entirely done + away. Formal freedom is freedom of choice, in the sense of + volition with the express consciousness of other possibilities.” + Real freedom is freedom to choose the good only, with no remaining + possibility that evil will exert a counter attraction. But as the + will can reach a “moral necessity” of good, so it can through sin + reach a “moral necessity” of evil. + + (_c_) Park: “The great philosophical objection to Arminianism is + its denial of the _certainty_ of human action—the idea that a man + may act either way without certainty how he will act—power of a + contrary choice in the sense of a moral indifference which can + choose without motive, or contrary to the strongest motive. The + New School view is better than this, for that holds to the + certainty of wrong choice, while yet the soul has power to make a + right one.... The Arminians believe that it is objectively + uncertain whether a man shall act in this way or in that, right or + wrong. There is nothing, antecedently to choice, to decide the + choice. It was the whole aim of Edwards to refute the idea that + man would not _certainly_ sin. The old Calvinists believe that + antecedently to the Fall Adam was in this state of objective + uncertainty, but that after the Fall it was certain he would sin, + and his probation therefore was closed. Edwards affirms that no + such objective uncertainty or power to the contrary ever existed, + and that man now has all the liberty he ever had or could have. + The truth in ‘power to the contrary’ is simply the power of the + will to act contrary to the way it does act. President Edwards + believed in this, though he is commonly understood as reasoning to + the contrary. The false ‘power to the contrary’ is _uncertainty_ + how one will act, or a willingness to act otherwise than one does + act. This is the Arminian power to the contrary, and it is this + that Edwards opposes.” + + (_e_) Whedon, On the Will, 338-360, 388-395—“Prior to free + volition, man may be unconformed to law, yet not a subject of + retribution. The law has two offices, one judicatory and critical, + the other retributive and penal. Hereditary evil may not be + visited with retribution, as Adam’s concreated purity was not + meritorious. Passive, prevolitional holiness is moral rectitude, + but not moral desert. Passive, prevolitional impurity needs + concurrence of active will to make it condemnable.” + + +D. It renders uncertain either the universality of sin or man’s +responsibility for it. If man has full power to refuse consent to inborn +depravity, then the universality of sin and the universal need of a Savior +are merely hypothetical. If sin, however, be universal, there must have +been an absence of free consent; and the objective certainty of man’s +sinning, according to the theory, destroys his responsibility. + + + Raymond, Syst. Theol., 2:86-89, holds it “theoretically possible + that a child may be so trained and educated in the nurture and + admonition of the Lord, as that he will never knowingly and + willingly transgress the law of God; in which case he will + certainly grow up into regeneration and final salvation. But it is + grace that preserves him from sin—[common grace?]. We do not know, + either from experience or Scripture, that none have been free from + known and wilful transgressions.” J. J. Murphy, Nat. Selection and + Spir. Freedom, 26-33—“It is possible to walk from the cradle to + the grave, not indeed altogether without sin, but without any + period of alienation from God, and with the heavenly life + developing along with the earthly, as it did in Christ, from the + first.” But, since grace merely restores ability without giving + the disposition to use that ability aright, Arminianism does not + logically provide for the certain salvation of any infant. + Calvinism can provide for the salvation of all dying in infancy, + for it knows of a divine power to renew the will, but Arminianism + knows of no such power, and so is furthest from a solution of the + problem of infant salvation. See Julius Müller, Doct. Sin, + 2:320-326; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 479-494; Bib. Sac. 23:206; + 28:279; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 3:56 _sq._ + + +3. The New School Theory, or Theory of uncondemnable Vitiosity. + + +This theory is called New School, because of its recession from the old +Puritan anthropology of which Edwards and Bellamy in the last century were +the expounders. The New School theory is a general scheme built up by the +successive labors of Hopkins, Emmons, Dwight, Taylor, and Finney. It is +held at present by New School Presbyterians, and by the larger part of the +Congregational body. + +According to this theory, all men are born with a physical and moral +constitution which predisposes them to sin, and all men do actually sin so +soon as they come to moral consciousness. This vitiosity of nature may be +called sinful, because it uniformly leads to sin; but it is not itself +sin, since nothing is to be properly denominated sin but the voluntary act +of transgressing known law. + +God imputes to men only their own acts of personal transgression; he does +not impute to them Adam’s sin; neither original vitiosity nor physical +death are penal inflictions; they are simply consequences which God has in +his sovereignty ordained to mark his displeasure at Adam’s transgression, +and subject to which evils God immediately creates each human soul. In +Rom. 5:12, “death passed unto all men, for that all sinned,” signifies: +“spiritual death passed on all men, because all men have actually and +personally sinned.” + + + Edwards held that God imputes Adam’s sin to his posterity by + arbitrarily identifying them with him,—identity, on the theory of + continuous creation (see pages 415-418), being only what God + appoints. Since this did not furnish sufficient ground for + imputation, Edwards joined the Placean doctrine to the other, and + showed the justice of the condemnation by the fact that man is + depraved. He adds, moreover, the consideration that man ratifies + this depravity by his own act. So Edwards tried to combine three + views. But all were vitiated by his doctrine of continuous + creation, which logically made God the only cause in the universe, + and left no freedom, guilt, or responsibility to man. He held that + preservation is a continuous series of new divine volitions, + personal identity consisting in consciousness or rather memory, + with no necessity for identity of substance. He maintained that + God could give to an absolutely new creation the consciousness of + one just annihilated, and thereby the two would be identical. He + maintained this not only as a possibility, but as the actual fact. + See Lutheran Quarterly, April, 1901:149-169; and H. N. Gardiner, + in Philos. Rev., Nov. 1900:573-596. + + The idealistic philosophy of Edwards enables us to understand his + conception of the relation of the race to Adam. He believed in “a + real union between the root and the branches of the world of + mankind, established by the author of the whole system of the + universe ... the full consent of the hearts of Adam’s posterity to + the first apostasy ... and therefore the sin of the apostasy is + not theirs merely because God imputes it to them, but it is truly + and properly theirs, and _on that ground_ God imputes it to them.” + Hagenbach, Hist. Doct., 2:435-448, esp. 436, quotes from Edwards: + “The guilt a man has upon his soul at his first existence is one + and simple, _viz._: the guilt of the original apostasy, the guilt + of the sin by which the species first rebelled against God.” + Interpret this by other words of Edwards: “The child and the + acorn, which come into existence in the course of nature, are + truly immediately created by God”—_i. e._, continuously created + (quoted by Dodge, Christian Theology, 188). Allen, Jonathan + Edwards, 310—“It required but a step from the principle that each + individual has an identity of consciousness with Adam, to reach + the conclusion that each individual is Adam and repeats his + experience. Of every man it might be said that like Adam he comes + into the world attended by the divine nature, and like him sins + and falls. In this sense the sin of every man becomes original + sin.” Adam becomes not the head of humanity but its generic type. + Hence arises the New School doctrine of exclusively individual sin + and guilt. + + Shedd, Hist. Doctrine, 2:25, claims Edwards as a Traducianist. But + Fisher, Discussions, 240, shows that he was not. As we have seen + (Prolegomena, pages 48, 49), Edwards thought too little of + _nature_. He tended to Berkeleyanism as applied to mind. Hence the + chief good was in happiness—a form of _sensibility_. Virtue is + voluntary _choice_ of this good. Hence union of _acts_ and + _exercises_ with Adam was sufficient. This God’s will might make + identity of _being_ with him. Baird, Elohim Revealed, 250 _sq._, + says well, that “Edwards’s idea that the character of an act was + to be sought somewhere else than in its cause involves the + fallacious assumption that acts have a subsistence and moral + agency of their own apart from that of the actor.” This divergence + from the truth led to the Exercise-system of Hopkins and Emmons, + who not only denied moral character prior to individual choices + (_i. e._, denied sin of nature), but attributed all human acts and + exercises to the direct efficiency of God. Hopkins declared that + Adam’s act, in eating the forbidden fruit, was not the act of his + posterity; therefore they did not sin at the same time that he + did. The sinfulness of that act could not be transferred to them + afterwards; because the sinfulness of an act can no more be + transferred from one person to another than an act itself. + Therefore, though men became sinners by Adam, according to divine + constitution, yet they have, and are accountable for, no sins but + personal. See Woods, History of Andover Theological Seminary, 33. + So the doctrine of continuous creation led to the Exercise-system, + and the Exercise-system led to the theology of acts. On Emmons, + see Works, 4:502-507, and Bib. Sac., 7:479; 20:317; also H. B. + Smith, in Faith and Philosophy, 215-263. + + N. W. Taylor, of New Haven, agreed with Hopkins and Emmons that + there is no imputation of Adam’s sin or of inborn depravity. He + called that depravity physical, not moral. But he repudiated the + doctrine of divine efficiency in the production of man’s acts and + exercises, and made all sin to be personal. He held to the power + of contrary choice. Adam had it, and contrary to the belief of + Augustinians, he never lost it. Man “not only can if he will, but + he can if he won’t.” He can, but, without the Spirit, will not. He + said: “Man can, whatever the Holy Spirit does or does not do”; but + also: “Man will not, unless the Holy Spirit helps”; “If I were as + eloquent as the Holy Ghost, I could convert sinners as fast as + he.” Yet he did not hold to the Arminian liberty of indifference + or contingence. He believed in the certainty of wrong action, yet + in power to the contrary. See Moral Government, 2:132—“The error + of Pelagius was not in asserting that man _can_ obey God without + grace, but in saying that man does _actually_ obey God without + grace.” There is a part of the sinner’s nature to which the + motives of the gospel may appeal—a part of his nature which is + neither holy nor unholy, _viz._, self-love, or innocent desire for + happiness. Greatest happiness is the ground of obligation. Under + the influence of motives appealing to happiness, the sinner can + suspend his choice of the world as his chief good, and can give + his heart to God. He can do this, whatever the Holy Spirit does, + or does not do; but the _moral_ inability can be overcome only by + the Holy Spirit, who moves the soul, without coercing, by means of + the truth. On Dr. Taylor’s system, and its connection with prior + New England theology, see Fisher, Discussions, 285-354. + + This form of New School doctrine suggests the following questions: + 1. Can the sinner suspend his selfishness before he is subdued by + divine grace? 2. Can his choice of God from mere self-love be a + holy choice? 3. Since God demands love in every choice, must it + not be a positively unholy choice? 4. If it is not itself a holy + choice, how can it be a beginning of holiness? 5. If the sinner + can become regenerate by preferring God on the ground of + self-interest, where is the necessity of the Holy Spirit to renew + the heart? 6. Does not this asserted ability of the sinner to turn + to God contradict consciousness and Scripture? For Taylor’s Views, + see his Revealed Theology, 134-309. For criticism of them, see + Hodge, in Princeton Rev., Jan. 1868:63 sq., and 368-398; also, + Tyler, Letters on the New Haven Theology. Neither Hopkins and + Emmons on the one hand, nor Taylor on the other, represent most + fully the general course of New England theology. Smalley, Dwight, + Woods, all held to more conservative views than Taylor, or than + Finney, whose system had much resemblance to Taylor’s. All three + of these denied the power of contrary choice which Dr. Taylor so + strenuously maintained, although all agreed with him in denying + the imputation of Adam’s sin or of our hereditary depravity. These + are not sinful, except in the sense of being occasions of actual + sin. + + Dr. Park, of Andover, was understood to teach that the disordered + state of the sensibilities and faculties with which we are born is + the _immediate_ occasion of sin, while Adam’s transgression is the + _remote_ occasion of sin. The will, though influenced by an evil + tendency, is still free; the evil tendency itself is not free, and + therefore is not sin. The Statement of New School doctrine given + in the text is intended to represent the common New England + doctrine, as taught by Smalley, Dwight, Woods and Park; although + the historical tendency, even among these theologians, has been to + emphasize less and less the depraved tendencies prior to actual + sin, and to maintain that moral character begins only with + individual choice, most of them, however, holding that this + individual choice begins at birth. See Bib. Sac., 7:552, 567; + 8:607-647; 20:462-471, 576-593; Van Oosterzee, Christian + Dogmatics, 407-412; Foster, Hist. N. E. Theology. + + Both Ritschl and Pfleiderer lean toward the New School + interpretation of sin. Ritschl, Unterricht, 25—“Universal death + was the consequence of the sin of the first man, and the death of + his posterity proved that they too had sinned.” Thus death is + universal, not because of natural generation from Adam, but + because of the individual sins of Adam’s posterity. Pfleiderer, + Grundriss, 122—“Sin is a direction of the will which contradicts + the moral Idea. As preceding personal acts of the will, it is not + personal guilt but imperfection or evil. When it persists in spite + of awaking moral consciousness, and by indulgence become habit, it + is guilty abnormity.” + + +To the New School theory we object as follows: + +A. It contradicts Scripture in maintaining or implying: (_a_) That sin +consists solely in acts, and in the dispositions caused in each case by +man’s individual acts, and that the state which predisposes to acts of sin +is not itself sin. (_b_) That the vitiosity which predisposes to sin is a +part of each man’s nature as it proceeds from the creative hand of God. +(_c_) That physical death in the human race is not a penal consequence of +Adam’s transgression. (_d_) That infants, before moral consciousness, do +not need Christ’s sacrifice to save them. Since they are innocent, no +penalty rests upon them, and none needs to be removed. (_e_) That we are +neither condemned upon the ground of actual inbeing in Adam, nor justified +upon the ground of actual inbeing in Christ. + + + If a child may not be unholy before he voluntarily transgresses, + then, by parity of reasoning, Adam could not have been holy before + he obeyed the law, nor can a change of heart precede Christian + action. New School principles would compel us to assert that right + action precedes change of heart, and that obedience in Adam must + have preceded his holiness. Emmons held that, if children die + before they become moral agents, it is most rational to conclude + that they are annihilated. They are mere animals. The common New + School doctrine would regard them as saved either on account of + their innocence, or because the atonement of Christ avails to + remove the _consequences_ as well as the _penalty_ of sin. + + But to say that infants are pure contradicts _Rom. 5:12_—“_all + sinned_”; _1 Cor. 7:14_—“_else were your children unclean_”; _Eph. + 2:3_—“_by nature children of wrath._” That Christ’s atonement + removes natural consequences of sin is nowhere asserted or implied + in Scripture. See, _per contra_, H. B. Smith, System, 271, where, + however, it is only maintained that Christ saves from all the + _just_ consequences of sin. But all _just_ consequences are + penalty, and should be so called. The exigencies of New School + doctrine compel it to put the beginning of sin in the infant at + the very first moment of its separate existence,—in order not to + contradict those Scriptures which speak of sin as being universal, + and of the atonement as being needed by all. Dr. Park held that + infants sin so soon as they are born. He was obliged to hold this, + or else to say that some members of the human race exist who are + not sinners. But by putting sin thus early in human experience, + all meaning is taken out of the New School definition of sin as + the “voluntary transgression of known law.” It is difficult to + say, upon this theory, what sort of a _choice_ the infant makes of + sin, or what sort of a _known law_ it violates. + + The first need in a theory of sin is that of satisfying the + statements of Scripture. The second need is that it should point + out an act of man which will justify the infliction of pain, + suffering, and death upon the whole human race. Our moral sense + refuses to accept the conclusion that all this is a matter of + arbitrary sovereignty. We cannot find the act in each man’s + conscious transgression, nor in sin committed at birth. We do find + such a voluntary transgression of known law in Adam; and we claim + that the New School definition of sin is much more consistent with + this last explanation of sin’s origin than is the theory of a + multitude of individual transgressions. + + The final test of every theory, however, is its conformity to + Scripture. We claim that a false philosophy prevents the advocates + of New School doctrine from understanding the utterances of Paul. + Their philosophy is a modified survival of atomistic Pelagianism. + They ignore nature in both God and man, and resolve character into + transient acts. The unconscious or subconscious state of the will + they take little or no account of, and the possibility of another + and higher life interpenetrating and transforming our own life is + seldom present to their minds. They have no proper idea of the + union of the believer with Christ, and so they have no proper idea + of the union of the race with Adam. They need to learn that, as + all the spiritual life of the race was in Christ, the second Adam, + so all the natural life of the race was in the first Adam; as we + derive righteousness from the former, so we derive corruption from + the latter. Because Christ’s life is in them, Paul can say that + all believers rose in Christ’s resurrection; because Adam’s life + is in them, he can say that in Adam all die. We should prefer to + say with Pfleiderer that Paul teaches this doctrine but that Paul + is no authority for us, rather than to profess acceptance of + Paul’s teaching while we ingeniously evade the force of his + argument. We agree with Stevens, Pauline Theology, 135, 136, that + all men “sinned in the same sense in which believers were + crucified to the world and died unto sin when Christ died upon the + cross.” But we protest that to make Christ’s death the mere + _occasion_ of the death of the believer, and Adam’s sin the mere + _occasion_ of the sins of men, is to ignore the central truths of + Paul’s teaching—the _vital union_ of the believer with Christ, and + the _vital union_ of the race with Adam. + + +B. It rests upon false philosophical principles, as for example: (_a_) +That the soul is immediately created by God. (_b_) That the law of God +consists wholly in outward command. (_c_) That present natural ability to +obey the law is the measure of obligation. (_d_) That man’s relations to +moral law are exclusively individual. (_e_) That the will is merely the +faculty of individual and personal choices. (_f_) That the will, at man’s +birth, has no moral state or character. + + + See Baird, Elohim Revealed, 250 _sq._—“Personality is inseparable + from nature. The one duty is love. Unless any given duty is + performed through the activity of a principle of love springing up + in the nature, it is not performed at all. _The law addresses the + nature._ The efficient cause of moral action is the proper subject + of moral law. It is only in the perversity of unscriptural + theology that we find the absurdity of separating the moral + character from the substance of the soul, and tying it to the + vanishing deeds of life. The idea that responsibility and sin are + predicable of actions merely is only consistent with an utter + denial that man’s nature as such owes anything to God, or has an + office to perform in showing forth his glory. It ignores the fact + that actions are empty phenomena, which in themselves have no + possible value. It is the heart, soul, might, mind, strength, with + which we are to love. Christ conformed to the law, by being ‘_that + holy thing_’ (_Luke 1:35_, marg.).” + + Erroneous philosophical principles lie at the basis of New School + interpretations of Scripture. The solidarity of the race is + ignored, and all moral action is held to be individual. In our + discussion of the Augustinian theory of sin, we shall hope to show + that underlying Paul’s doctrine there is quite another philosophy. + Such a philosophy together with a deeper Christian experience + would have corrected the following statement of Paul’s view of + sin, by Orello Cone, in Am. Jour. Theology, April, 1898:241-267. + On the phrase _Rom. 5:12_—“_for that all sinned,_” he remarks: “If + under the new order men do not become righteous simply because of + the righteousness of Christ and without their choice, neither + under the old order did Paul think them to be subject to death + without their own acts of sin. Each representative head is + conceived only as the occasion of the results of his work, on the + one hand in the tragic order of death, and on the other hand in + the blessed order of life—the occasion indispensable to all that + follows in either order.... It may be questioned whether + Pfleiderer does not state the case too strongly when he says that + the sin of Adam’s posterity is regarded as ‘the necessary + consequence’ of the sin of Adam. It does not follow from the + employment of the aorist ἥμαρτον that the sinning of all is + contained in that of Adam, although this sense must be considered + as grammatically possible. It is not however the only + grammatically defensible sense. In _Rom. 3:23_, ἥμαρτον certainly + does not denote such a definite past act filling only one point of + time.” But we reply that the context determines that in _Rom. + 5:12_, ἥμαρτον does denote such a definite past act; see our + interpretation of the whole passage, under the Augustinian Theory, + pages 625-627. + + +C. It impugns the justice of God: + +(_a_) By regarding him as the direct creator of a vicious nature which +infallibly leads every human being into actual transgression. To maintain +that, in consequence of Adam’s act, God brings it about that all men +become sinners, and this, not by virtue of inherent laws of propagation, +but by the direct creation in each case of a vicious nature, is to make +God indirectly the author of sin. + +(_b_) By representing him as the inflicter of suffering and death upon +millions of human beings who in the present life do not come to moral +consciousness, and who are therefore, according to the theory, perfectly +innocent. This is to make him visit Adam’s sin on his posterity, while at +the same time it denies that moral connection between Adam and his +posterity which alone could make such visitation just. + +(_c_) By holding that the probation which God appoints to men is a +separate probation of each soul, when it first comes to moral +consciousness and is least qualified to decide aright. It is much more +consonant with our ideas of the divine justice that the decision should +have been made by the whole race, in one whose nature was pure and who +perfectly understood God’s law, than that heaven and hell should have been +determined for each of us by a decision made in our own inexperienced +childhood, under the influence of a vitiated nature. + + + On this theory, God determines, in his mere sovereignty, that + because one man sinned, all men should be called into existence + depraved, under a constitution which secures the certainty of + their sinning. But we claim that it is unjust that any should + suffer without ill-desert. To say that God thus marks his sense of + the guilt of Adam’s sin is to contradict the main principle of the + theory, namely, that men are held responsible only for their own + sins. We prefer to justify God by holding that there is a reason + for this infliction, and that this reason is the connection of the + infant with Adam. If mere tendency to sin is innocent, then Christ + might have taken it, when he took our nature. But if he had taken + it, it would not explain the fact of the atonement, for upon this + theory it would not need to be atoned for. To say that the child + inherits a sinful nature, not as penalty, but by natural law, is + to ignore the fact that this natural law is simply the regular + action of God, the expression of his moral nature, and so is + itself penalty. + + “Man kills a snake,” says Raymond, “because it is a snake, and not + because it is to blame for being a snake,”—which seems to us a new + proof that the advocates of innocent depravity regard infants, not + as moral beings, but as mere animals. “We must distinguish + automatic excellence or badness,” says Raymond again, “from moral + desert, whether good or ill.” This seems to us a doctrine of + punishment without guilt. Princeton Essays, 1:138, quote + Coleridge: “It is an outrage on common sense to affirm that it is + no evil for men to be placed on their probation under such + circumstances that not one of ten thousand millions ever escapes + sin and condemnation to eternal death. There is evil inflicted on + us, as a consequence of Adam’s sin, antecedent to our personal + transgressions. It matters not what this evil is, whether temporal + death, corruption of nature, certainty of sin, or death in its + more extended sense; if the ground of the evil’s coming on us is + Adam’s sin, the principle is the same.” Baird, Elohim Revealed, + 488—So, it seems, “if a creature is punished, it implies that some + one has sinned, but does not necessarily intimate the sufferer to + be the sinner! But this is wholly contrary to the argument of the + apostle in _Rom. 5:12-19_, which is based upon the opposite + doctrine, and it is also contrary to the justice of God, who + punishes only those who deserve it.” See Julius Müller, Doct. Sin. + 2:67-74. + + +D. Its limitation of responsibility to the evil choices of the individual +and the dispositions caused thereby is inconsistent with the following +facts: + +(_a_) The first moral choice of each individual is so undeliberate as not +to be remembered. Put forth at birth, as the chief advocates of the New +School theory maintain, it does not answer to their definition of sin as a +voluntary transgression of known law. Responsibility for such choice does +not differ from responsibility for the inborn evil state of the will which +manifests itself in that choice. + +(_b_) The uniformity of sinful action among men cannot be explained by the +existence of a mere faculty of choices. That men should uniformly choose +may be thus explained; but that men should uniformly choose evil requires +us to postulate an evil tendency or state of the will itself, prior to +these separate acts of choice. This evil tendency or inborn determination +to evil, since it is the real cause of actual sins, must itself be sin, +and as such must be guilty and condemnable. + +(_c_) Power in the will to prevent the inborn vitiosity from developing +itself is upon this theory a necessary condition of responsibility for +actual sins. But the absolute uniformity of actual transgression is +evidence that the will is practically impotent. If responsibility +diminishes as the difficulties in the way of free decision increase, the +fact that these difficulties are insuperable shows that there can be no +responsibility at all. To deny the guilt of inborn sin is therefore +virtually to deny the guilt of the actual sin which springs therefrom. + + + The aim of all the theories is to find a decision of the will + which will justify God in condemning men. Where shall we find such + a decision? At the age of fifteen, ten, five? Then all who die + before this age are not sinners, cannot justly be punished with + death, do not need a Savior. Is it at birth? But decision at such + a time is not such a conscious decision against God as, according + to this theory, would make it the proper determiner of our future + destiny. We claim that the theory of Augustine—that of a sin of + the race in Adam—is the only one that shows a conscious + transgression fit to be the cause and ground of man’s guilt and + condemnation. + + Wm. Adams Brown: “Who can tell how far his own acts are caused by + his own will, and how far by the nature he has inherited? Men do + feel guilty for acts which are largely due to their inherited + natures, which inherited corruption is guilt, deserving of + punishment and certain to receive it.” H. B. Smith, System, 350, + note—“It has been said, in the way of a taunt against the older + theology, that men are very willing to speculate about sinning in + Adam, so as to have their attention diverted from the sense of + personal guilt. But the whole history of theology bears witness + that those who have believed most fully in our native and strictly + moral corruption—as Augustine, Calvin, and Edwards—have ever had + the deepest sense of their personal demerit. We know the full evil + of sin only when we know its roots as well as its fruits.” + + “Causa causæ est causa causati.” Inborn depravity is the cause of + the first actual sin. The cause of inborn depravity is the sin of + Adam. If there be no guilt in original sin, then the actual sin + that springs therefrom cannot be guilty. There are subsequent + presumptuous sins in which the personal element overbears the + element of race and heredity. But this cannot be said of the first + acts which make man a sinner. These are so naturally and uniformly + the result of the inborn determination of the will, that they + cannot be guilty, unless that inborn determination is also guilty. + In short, not all sin is personal. There must be a sin of nature—a + race-sin—or the beginnings of actual sin cannot be accounted for + or regarded as objects of God’s condemnation. Julius Müller, + Doctrine of Sin, 2:320-328, 341—“If the deep-rooted depravity + which we bring with us into the world be not our sin, it at once + becomes an excuse for our actual sins.” Princeton Essays, 1:138, + 139—Alternative: 1. May a man by his own power prevent the + development of this hereditary depravity? Then we do not know that + all men are sinners, or that Christ’s salvation is needed by all. + 2. Is actual sin a necessary consequence of hereditary depravity? + Then it is, on this theory, a free act no longer, and is not + guilty, since guilt is predicable only of voluntary transgression + of known law. See Baird, Elohim Revealed, 256 sq.; Hodge, Essays, + 571-638; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 2:61-73; Edwards on the Will, + part iii, sec. 4; Bib. Sac., 20:317-320. + + +4. The Federal Theory, or Theory of Condemnation by Covenant. + + +The Federal theory, or theory of the Covenants, had its origin with +Cocceius (1608-1669), professor at Leyden, but was more fully elaborated +by Turretin (1623-1687). It has become a tenet of the Reformed as +distinguished from the Lutheran church, and in this country it has its +main advocates in the Princeton school of theologians, of whom Dr. Charles +Hodge was the representative. + +According to this view, Adam was constituted by God’s sovereign +appointment the representative of the whole human race. With Adam as their +representative, God entered into covenant, agreeing to bestow upon them +eternal life on condition of his obedience, but making the penalty of his +disobedience to be the corruption and death of all his posterity. In +accordance with the terms of this covenant, since Adam sinned, God +accounts all his descendants as sinners, and condemns them because of +Adam’s transgression. + +In execution of this sentence of condemnation, God immediately creates +each soul of Adam’s posterity with a corrupt and depraved nature, which +infallibly leads to sin, and which is itself sin. The theory is therefore +a theory of the immediate imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity, their +corruption of nature not being the cause of that imputation, but the +effect of it. In Rom. 5:12, “death passed unto all men, for that all +sinned,” signifies: “physical, spiritual, and eternal death came to all, +because all were regarded and treated as sinners.” + + + Fisher, Discussions, 355-409, compares the Augustinian and Federal + theories of Original Sin. His account of the Federal theory and + its origin is substantially as follows: The Federal theory is a + theory of the covenants (_fœdus_, a covenant). 1. The covenant is + a sovereign constitution imposed by God. 2. Federal union is the + legal ground of imputation, though kinship to Adam is the reason + why Adam and not another was selected as our representative. 3. + Our guilt for Adam’s sin is simply a legal responsibility. 4. That + imputed sin is punished by inborn depravity, and that inborn + depravity by eternal death. Augustine could not reconcile inherent + depravity with the justice of God; hence he held that we sinned in + Adam. + + So Anselm says: “Because the whole human nature was in them (Adam + and Eve), and outside of them there was nothing of it, the whole + was weakened and corrupted.” After the first sin “this nature was + propagated just as it had made itself by sinning.” All sin belongs + to the will; but this is a part of our inheritance. The + descendants of Adam were not in him as individuals; yet what he + did as a person, he did not do _sine natura_, and this nature is + ours as well as his. So Peter Lombard. Sins of our immediate + ancestors, because they are qualities which are purely personal, + are not propagated. After Adam’s first sin, the actual qualities + of the first parent or of other later parents do not corrupt the + nature as concerns its qualities, but only as concerns the + qualities of the _person_. + + Calvin maintained two propositions: 1. We are not condemned for + Adam’s sin apart from our own inherent depravity which is derived + from him. The sin for which we are condemned is our own sin. 2. + This sin is ours, for the reason that our nature is vitiated in + Adam, and we receive it in the condition in which it was put by + the first transgression. Melanchthon also held to an imputation of + the first sin conditioned upon our innate depravity. The impulse + to Federalism was given by the difficulty, on the pure Augustinian + theory, of accounting for the non-imputation of Adam’s subsequent + sins, and those of his posterity. + + Cocceius (Dutch, Coch: English, Cook), the author of the + covenant-theory, conceived that he had solved this difficulty by + making Adam’s sin to be imputed to us upon the ground of a + covenant between God and Adam, according to which Adam was to + stand as the representative of his posterity. In Cocceius’s use of + the term, however, the only difference between covenant and + command is found in the promise attached to the keeping of it. + Fisher remarks on the mistake, in modern defenders of imputation, + of ignoring the capital fact of a true and real participation in + Adam’s sin. The great body of Calvinistic theologians in the 17th + century were Augustinians as well as Federalists. So Owen and the + Westminster Confession. Turretin, however, almost merged the + natural relation to Adam in the federal. + + Edwards fell back on the old doctrine of Aquinas and Augustine. He + tried to make out a real participation in the first sin. The first + rising of sinful inclination, by a divinely constituted identity, + _is_ this participation. But Hopkins and Emmons regarded the + sinful inclination, not as a _real_ participation, but only as a + _constructive_ consent to Adam’s first sin. Hence the New School + theology, in which the imputation of Adam’s sin was given up. On + the contrary, Calvinists of the Princeton school planted + themselves on the Federal theory, and taking Turretin as their + text book, waged war on New England views, not wholly sparing + Edwards himself. After this review of the origin of the theory, + for which we are mainly indebted to Fisher, it can be easily seen + how little show of truth there is in the assumption of the + Princeton theologians that the Federal theory is “the immemorial + doctrine of the church of God.” + + Statements of the theory are found in Cocceius, Summa Doctrinæ de + Fœdere, cap. 1, 5; Turretin, Inst., loc. 9, quæs. 9; Princeton + Essays, 1:98-185. esp. 120—“In imputation there is, first, an + ascription of something to those concerned; secondly, a + determination to deal with them accordingly.” The ground for this + imputation is “the union between Adam and his posterity, which is + twofold,—a natural union, as between father and children, and the + union of representation, _which is the main idea here insisted + on_.” 123—“As in Christ we are constituted righteous by the + imputation of righteousness, so in Adam we are made sinners by the + imputation of his sin.... Guilt is liability or exposedness to + punishment; it does not in theological usage imply moral turpitude + or criminality.” 162—Turretin is quoted: “The foundation, + therefore, of imputation is not merely the _natural_ connection + which exists between us and Adam—for, were this the case, all his + sins would be imputed to us, but principally the _moral_ and + _federal_, on the ground of which God entered into covenant with + him as our head. Hence in that sin Adam acted not as a private but + a public person and representative.” The oneness results from + contract; the natural union is frequently not mentioned at all. + Marck: All men sinned in Adam, “_eos representante_.” The acts of + Adam and of Christ are ours “_jure representationis_.” + + G. W. Northrup makes the order of the Federal theory to be: “(1) + imputation of Adam’s guilt; (2) condemnation on the ground of this + imputed guilt; (3) corruption of nature consequent upon treatment + as condemned. So judicial imputation of Adam’s sin is the cause + and ground of innate corruption.... All the acts, with the single + exception of the sin of Adam, are divine acts: the appointment of + Adam, the creation of his descendants, the imputation of his + guilt, the condemnation of his posterity, their consequent + corruption. Here we have guilt without sin, exposure to divine + wrath without ill-desert, God regarding men as being what they are + not, punishing them on the ground of a sin committed before they + existed, and visiting them with gratuitous condemnation and + gratuitous reprobation. Here are arbitrary representation, + fictitious imputation, constructive guilt, limited atonement.” The + Presb. Rev., Jan. 1882:30, claims that Kloppenburg (1642) preceded + Cocceius (1648) in holding to the theory of the Covenants, as did + also the Canons of Dort. For additional statements of Federalism, + see Hodge, Essays, 49-86, and Syst. Theol., 2:192-204; Bib. Sac., + 21:95-107; Cunningham, Historical Theology. + + +To the Federal theory we object: + +A. It is extra-Scriptural, there being no mention of such a covenant with +Adam in the account of man’s trial. The assumed allusion to Adam’s +apostasy in Hosea 6:7, where the word “covenant” is used, is too +precarious and too obviously metaphorical to afford the basis for a scheme +of imputation (see Henderson, Com. on Minor Prophets, _in loco_). In Heb. +8:8—“new covenant”—there is suggested a contrast, not with an Adamic, but +with the Mosaic, covenant (_cf._ verse 9). + + + In _Hosea 6:7_—“_they like Adam_ [marg. “_men_”] _have + transgressed the covenant_” (Rev. Ver.)—the correct translation is + given by Henderson, Minor Prophets: “_But they, like men that + break a covenant, there they proved false to me_.” LXX: αὐτοὶ δέ + εἰσιν ὡς ἄνθρωπος παραβαίνων διαθήκην. De Wette: “Aber sie + übertreten den Bund nach Menschenart; daselbst sind sie mir + treulos.” Here the word _adam_, translated “man,” either means “a + man,” or “man,” _i. e._, generic man. “Israel had as little regard + to their covenants with God as men of unprincipled character have + for ordinary contracts.” “Like a man”—as men do. Compare _Ps. + 82:7_—“_ye shall die like men_”; _Hosea 8:1, 2_—“_they have + transgressed my covenant_”—an allusion to the Abrahamic or Mosaic + covenant. _Heb. 8:9_—“_Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that + I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the + house of Judah; Not according to the covenant that I made with + their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them + forth out of the land of Egypt._” + + +B. It contradicts Scripture, in making the first result of Adam’s sin to +be God’s _regarding and treating_ the race as sinners. The Scripture, on +the contrary, declares that Adam’s offense _constituted_ us sinners (Rom. +5:19). We are not sinners simply because God regards and treats us as +such, but God regards us as sinners because we are sinners. Death is said +to have “passed unto all men,” not because all were regarded and treated +as sinners, but “because all sinned” (Rom. 5:12). + + + For a full exegesis of the passage _Rom. 5:12-19_, see note to the + discussion of the Theory of Adam’s Natural Headship, pages + 625-627. Dr. Park gave great offence by saying that the so-called + “covenants” of law and of grace, referred in the Westminster + Confession as made by God with Adam and Christ respectively, were + really “made in Holland.” The word _fœdus_, in such a connection, + could properly mean nothing more than “ordinance”; see Vergil, + Georgics, 1:60-63—“eterna fœdera.” E. G. Robinson, Christ. Theol., + 185—“God’s ‘covenant’ with men is simply his method of dealing + with them according to their knowledge and opportunities.” + + +C. It impugns the justice of God by implying: + +(_a_) That God holds men responsible for the violation of a covenant which +they had no part in establishing. The assumed covenant is only a sovereign +decree; the assumed justice, only arbitrary will. + + + We not only never authorized Adam to make such a covenant, but + there is no evidence that he ever made one at all. It is not even + certain that Adam knew he should have posterity. In the case of + the imputation of our sins to Christ, Christ covenanted + voluntarily to bear them, and joined himself to our nature that he + might bear them. In the case of the imputation of Christ’s + righteousness to us, we first become one with Christ, and upon the + ground of our union with him are justified. But upon the Federal + theory, we are condemned upon the ground of a covenant which we + neither instituted, nor participated in, nor assented to. + + +(_b_) That upon the basis of this covenant God accounts men as sinners who +are not sinners. But God judges according to truth. His condemnations do +not proceed upon a basis of legal fiction. He can regard as responsible +for Adam’s transgression only those who in some real sense have been +concerned, and have had part, in that transgression. + + + See Baird, Elohim Revealed, 544—“Here is a sin, which is no crime, + but a mere condition of being regarded and treated as sinners; and + a guilt, which is devoid of sinfulness, and which does not imply + moral demerit or turpitude,”—that is, a sin which is no sin, and a + guilt which is no guilt. Why might not God as justly reckon Adam’s + sin to the account of the fallen angels, and punish them for it? + Dorner, System Doct., 2:351; 3:53, 54—“Hollaz held that God treats + men in accordance with what he foresaw all would do, if they were + in Adam’s place” (_scientia media_ and _imputatio metaphysica_). + Birks, Difficulties of Belief, 141—“Immediate imputation is as + unjust as _imputatio metaphysica_, _i. e._, God’s condemning us + for what he knew we would have done in Adam’s place. On such a + theory there is no need of a trial at all. God might condemn half + the race at once to hell without probation, on the ground that + they would ultimately sin and come thither at any rate.” + Justification can be gratuitous, but not condemnation. “Like the + social-compact theory of government, the covenant-theory of sin is + a mere legal fiction. It explains, only to belittle. The theory of + New England theology, which attributes to mere sovereignty God’s + making us sinners in consequence of Adam’s sin, is more reasonable + than the Federal theory” (Fisher). + + Professor Moses Stuart characterized this theory as one of + “fictitious guilt, but veritable damnation.” The divine economy + admits of no fictitious substitutions nor forensic evasions. No + legal quibbles can modify eternal justice. Federalism reverses the + proper order, and puts the effect before the cause, as is the case + with the social-compact theory of government. Ritchie, Darwin and + Hegel, 27—“It is illogical to say that society originated in a + contract; for contract presupposes society.” Unus homo, nullus + homo—without society, no persons. T. H. Green, Prolegomena to + Ethics, 351—“No individual can make a conscience for himself. He + always needs a society to make it for him....” 200—“Only through + society is personality actualized.” Boyce, Spirit of Modern + Philosophy, 209, note—“Organic Interrelationship of individuals is + the condition even of their relatively independent selfhood.” We + are “_members one of another_” (_Rom. 12:15_). Schurman, + Agnosticism, 176—“The individual could never have developed into a + personality but for his training through society and under law.” + Imagine a theory that the family originated in a compact! We must + not define the state by its first crude beginnings, any more than + we define the oak by the acorn. On the theory of a social-compact, + see Lowell, Essays on Government, 136-188. + + +(_c_) That, after accounting men to be sinners who are not sinners, God +makes them sinners by immediately creating each human soul with a corrupt +nature such as will correspond to his decree. This is not only to assume a +false view of the origin of the soul, but also to make God directly the +author of sin. Imputation of sin cannot precede and account for +corruption; on the contrary, corruption must precede and account for +imputation. + + + By God’s act we became depraved, as a penal consequence of Adam’s + act imputed to us solely as _peccatum alienum_. Dabney, Theology, + 342, says the theory regards the soul as originally pure until + imputation. See Hodge on _Rom. 5:13_; Syst. Theol., 2:203, 210; + Thornwell, Theology, 1:343-349; Chalmers, Institutes, 1:485, 487. + The Federal theory “makes sin in us to be the penalty of another’s + sin, instead of being the penalty of our own sin, as on the + Augustinian scheme, which regards depravity in us as the + punishment of our own sin in Adam.... It holds to a sin which does + not bring eternal punishment, but for which we are legally + responsible as truly as Adam.” It only remains to say that Dr. + Hodge always persistently refused to admit the one added element + which might have made his view less arbitrary and mechanical, + namely, the traducian theory of the origin of the soul. He was a + creatianist, and to the end maintained that God immediately + created the soul, and created it depraved. Acceptance of the + traducian theory would have compelled him to exchange his + Federalism for Augustinianism. Creatianism was the one remaining + element of Pelagian atomism in an otherwise Scriptural theory. Yet + Dr. Hodge regarded this as an essential part of Biblical teaching. + His unwavering confidence was like that of Fichte, whom Caroline + Schelling represented as saying: “Zweifle an der Sonne Klarheit, + Zweifle an der Sterne Licht, Leser, nur an meiner Wahrheit Und an + deiner Dummheit, nicht.” + + As a corrective to the atomistic spirit of Federalism we may quote + a view which seems to us far more tenable, though it perhaps goes + to the opposite extreme. Dr. H. H. Bawden writes: “The self is the + product of a social environment. An ascetic self is so far forth + not a self. Selfhood and consciousness are essentially social. We + are members one of another. The biological view of selfhood + regards it as a function, activity, process, inseparable from the + social matrix out of which it has arisen. Consciousness is simply + the name for the functioning of an organism. Not that the soul is + a secretion of the brain, as bile is a secretion of the liver; not + that the mind is a function of the body in any such materialistic + sense. But that mind or consciousness is only the growing of an + organism, while, on the other hand, the organism is just that + which grows. The psychical is not a second, subtle, parallel form + of energy causally interactive with the physical; much less is it + a concomitant series, as the parallelists hold. Consciousness is + not an order of existence or a thing, but rather a function. It is + the organization of reality, the universe coming to a focus, + flowering, so to speak, in a finite centre. Society is an organism + in the same sense as the human body. The separation of the units + of society is no greater than the separation of the unit factors + of the body,—in the microscope the molecules are far apart. + Society is a great sphere with many smaller spheres within it. + + “Each self is not impervious to other selves. Selves are not + water-tight compartments, each one of which might remain complete + in itself, even if all the others were destroyed. But there are + open sluiceways between all the compartments. Society is a vast + plexus of interweaving personalities. We are members one of + another. What affects my neighbor affects me, and what affects me + ultimately affects my neighbor. The individual is not an + impenetrable atomic unit.... The self is simply the social whole + coming to consciousness at some particular point. Every self is + rooted in the social organism of which it is but a local and + individual expression. A self is a mere cipher apart from its + social relations. As the old Greek adage has it: ‘He who lives + quite alone is either a beast or a god.’ ” While we regard this + exposition of Dr. Bawden as throwing light upon the origin of + consciousness and so helping our contention against the Federal + theory of sin, we do not regard it as proving that consciousness, + once developed, may not become relatively independent and + immortal. Back of society, as well as back of the individual, lies + the consciousness and will of God, in whom alone is the guarantee + of persistence. For objections to the Federal theory, see Fisher, + Discussions, 401 _sq._; Bib. Sac., 20:455-462, 577; New Englander, + 1868:551-603; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 305-334, 435-450; Julius + Müller, Doct. Sin, 2:336; Dabney, Theology, 341-351. + + +5. Theory of Mediate Imputation, or Theory of Condemnation for Depravity. + + +This theory was first maintained by Placeus (1606-1655), professor of +Theology at Saumur in France. Placeus originally denied that Adam’s sin +was in any sense imputed to his posterity, but after his doctrine was +condemned by the Synod of the French Reformed Church at Charenton in 1644, +he published the view which now bears his name. + +According to this view, all men are born physically and morally depraved; +this native depravity is the source of all actual sin, and is itself sin; +in strictness of speech, it is this native depravity, and this only, which +God imputes to men. So far as man’s physical nature is concerned, this +inborn sinfulness has descended by natural laws of propagation from Adam +to all his posterity. The soul is immediately created by God, but it +becomes actively corrupt so soon as it is united to the body. Inborn +sinfulness is the consequence, though not the penalty, of Adam’s +transgression. + +There is a sense, therefore, in which Adam’s sin may be said to be imputed +to his descendants,—it is imputed, not immediately, as if they had been in +Adam or were so represented in him that it could be charged directly to +them, corruption not intervening,—but it is imputed mediately, through and +on account of the intervening corruption which resulted from Adam’s sin. +As on the Federal theory imputation is the cause of depravity, so on this +theory depravity is the cause of imputation. In Rom. 5:12, “death passed +unto all men, for that all sinned,” signifies: “death physical, spiritual, +and eternal passed upon all men, because all sinned by possessing a +depraved nature.” + + + See Placeus, De Imputatione Primi Peccati Adami, in Opera, + 1:709—“The sensitive soul is produced from the parent; the + intellectual or rational soul is directly created. The soul, on + entering the corrupted physical nature, is not passively + corrupted, but becomes corrupt actively, accommodating itself to + the other part of human nature in character.” 710—So this soul + “contracts from the vitiosity of the dispositions of the body a + corresponding vitiosity, not so much by the action of the body + upon the soul, as by that essential appetite of the soul by which + it unites itself to the body in a way accommodated to the + dispositions of the body, as liquid put into a bowl accommodates + itself to the figure of a bowl—sicut vinum in vase acetoso. God + was therefore neither the author of Adam’s fall, nor of the + propagation of sin.” + + Herzog, Encyclopædia, art.: Placeus—“In the title of his works we + read ‘Placæus’; he himself, however, wrote ‘Placeus,’ which is the + more correct Latin form [of the French ‘de la Place’]. In Adam’s + first sin, Placeus distinguished between the actual sinning and + the first habitual sin (corrupted disposition). The former was + transient; the latter clung to his person, and was propagated to + all. It is truly sin, and it is imputed to all, since it makes all + condemnable. Placeus believes in the imputation of this corrupted + disposition, but not in the imputation of the first act of Adam, + except mediately, through the imputation of the inherited + depravity.” Fisher, Discussions, 389—“Mere native corruption is + the whole of original sin. Placeus justifies his use of the term + ‘imputation’ by _Rom. 2:26_—‘_If therefore the uncircumcision keep + the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be + reckoned_ [imputed] _for circumcision?_’ Our own depravity is the + necessary condition of the imputation of Adam’s sin, just as our + own faith is the necessary condition of the imputation of Christ’s + righteousness.” + + Advocates of Mediate Imputation are, in Great Britain, G. Payne, + in his book entitled: Original Sin; John Caird, Fund. Ideas of + Christianity, 1:196-332; and James S. Candlish, Biblical Doctrine + of Sin, 111-122; in America, H. B. Smith, in his System of + Christian Doctrine, 169, 284, 285, 314-323; and E. G. Robinson, + Christian Theology. The editor of Dr. Smith’s work says: “On the + whole, he favored the theory of Mediate Imputation. There is a + note which reads thus: ‘Neither Mediate nor Immediate Imputation + is wholly satisfactory.’ Understand by ‘Mediate Imputation’ a full + statement of the facts in the case, and the author accepted it; + understand by it a theory professing to give the final explanation + of the facts, and it was ‘not wholly satisfactory.’ ” Dr. Smith + himself says, 316—“Original sin is a doctrine respecting the moral + conditions of human nature as from Adam—generic: and it is not a + doctrine respecting personal liabilities and desert. For the + latter, we need more and other circumstances. Strictly speaking, + it is not sin, which is ill-deserving, but only the sinner. The + ultimate distinction is here: There is a well-grounded difference + to be made between personal desert, strictly personal character + and liabilities (of each individual under the divine law, as + applied specifically, _e. g._, in the last adjudication), and a + generic moral condition—the antecedent ground of such personal + character. + + “The distinction, however, is not between what has moral quality + and what has not, but between the moral state of each as a member + of the race, and his personal liabilities and desert as an + individual. This original sin would wear to us only the character + of evil, and not of sinfulness, were it not for _the fact_ that we + feel guilty in view of our corruption when it becomes known to us + in our own acts. Then there is involved in it not merely a sense + of evil and misery, but also a sense of guilt; moreover, + redemption is also necessary to remove it, which shows that it is + a moral state. Here is the point of junction between the two + extreme positions, that we sinned in Adam, and that all sin + consists in sinning. The guilt of Adam’s sin is—this exposure, + this liability on account of such native corruption, our having + the same nature in the same moral bias. The guilt of Adam’s sin is + _not to be separated_ from the existence of this evil disposition. + And this guilt is what is imputed to us.” See art. on H. B. Smith, + in Presb. Rev., 1881; “He did not fully acquiesce in Placeus’s + view, which makes the corrupt nature by descent the only ground of + imputation.” + + +The theory of Mediate Imputation is exposed to the following objections: + +A. It gives no explanation of man’s responsibility for his inborn +depravity. No explanation of this is possible, which does not regard man’s +depravity as having had its origin in a free personal act, either of the +individual, or of collective human nature in its first father and head. +But this participation of all men in Adam’s sin the theory expressly +denies. + + + The theory holds that we are responsible for the effect, but not + for the cause—“post Adamum, non propter Adamum.” But, says Julius + Müller, Doct. Sin, 2:209, 331—“If this sinful tendency be in us + solely through the act of others, and not through our own deed, + they, and not we, are responsible for it,—it is not our guilt, but + our misfortune. And even as to actual sins which spring from this + inherent sinful tendency, these are not strictly our own, but the + acts of our first parents through us. Why impute them to us as + actual sins, for which we are to be condemned? Thus, if we deny + the existence of guilt, we destroy the reality of sin, and _vice + versa_.” Thornwell, Theology, 1:348, 349—This theory “does not + explain the sense of guilt, as connected with depravity of + nature,—how the feeling of ill-desert can arise in relation to a + state of mind of which we have been only passive recipients. The + child does not reproach himself for the afflictions which a + father’s follies have brought upon him. But our inward corruption + we do feel to be our own fault,—it is our crime as well as our + shame.” + + +B. Since the origination of this corrupt nature cannot be charged to the +account of man, man’s inheritance of it must be regarded in the light of +an arbitrary divine infliction—a conclusion which reflects upon the +justice of God. Man is not only condemned for a sinfulness of which God is +the author, but is condemned without any real probation, either individual +or collective. + + + Dr. Hovey, Outlines of Theology, objects to the theory of Mediate + Imputation, because: “1. It casts so faint a light on the justice + of God in the imputation of Adam’s sin to adults who do as he did. + 2. It casts no light on the justice of God in bringing into + existence a race inclined to sin by the fall of Adam. The + inherited bias is still unexplained, and the imputation of it is a + riddle, or a wrong, to the natural understanding.” It is unjust to + hold us guilty of the effect, if we be not first guilty of the + cause. + + +C. It contradicts those passages of Scripture which refer the origin of +human condemnation, as well as of human depravity, to the sin of our first +parents, and which represent universal death, not as a matter of divine +sovereignty, but as a judicial infliction of penalty upon all men for the +sin of the race in Adam (Rom. 5:16, 18). It moreover does violence to the +Scripture in its unnatural interpretation of “all sinned,” in Rom. +5:12—words which imply the oneness of the race with Adam, and the +causative relation of Adam’s sin to our guilt. + + + Certain passages which Dr. H. B. Smith, System, 317, quotes from + Edwards, as favoring the theory of Mediate Imputation, seem to us + to favor quite a different view. See Edwards, 2:482 _sq._—“The + first existing of a corrupt disposition in their hearts is not to + be looked upon as sin belonging to them distinct from their + participation in Adam’s first sin; it is, as it were, the extended + pollution of that sin through the whole tree, by virtue of the + constituted union of the branches with the root.... I am humbly of + the opinion that, if any have supposed the children of Adam to + come into the world with a double guilt, one the guilt of Adam’s + sin, another the guilt arising from their having a corrupt heart, + they have not so well considered the matter.” And afterwards: + “Derivation of evil disposition (or rather co-existence) is in + consequence of the union,”—but “not properly a consequence of the + imputation of his sin; nay, rather antecedent to it, as it was in + Adam himself. The first depravity of heart, and the imputation of + that sin, are both the consequences of that established union; but + yet in such order, that the evil disposition is first, and the + charge of guilt consequent, as it was in the case of Adam + himself.” + + Edwards quotes Stapfer: “The Reformed divines do not hold + immediate and mediate imputation _separately_, but always + together.” And still further, 2:493—“And therefore the sin of the + apostasy is not theirs, merely because God imputes it to them; but + it is truly and properly theirs, and on that ground God imputes it + to them.” It seems to us that Dr. Smith mistakes the drift of + these passages from Edwards, and that in making the identification + with Adam primary, and imputation of his sin secondary, they favor + the theory of Adam’s Natural Headship rather than the theory of + Mediate Imputation. Edwards regards the order as (1) apostasy; (2) + depravity; (3) guilt;—but in all three, Adam and we are, by divine + constitution, one. To be guilty of the depravity, therefore, we + must first be guilty of the apostasy. + + For the reasons above mentioned we regard the theory of Mediate + Imputation as a half-way house where there is no permanent + lodgment. The logical mind can find no satisfaction therein, but + is driven either forward, to the Augustinian doctrine which we are + next to consider, or backward, to the New School doctrine with its + atomistic conception of man and its arbitrary sovereignty of God. + On the theory of Mediate Imputation, see Cunningham, Historical + Theology, 1:496-639; Princeton Essays, 1:129, 154, 168; Hodge, + Syst. Theology, 2:205-214; Shedd, History of Doctrine, 2:158; + Baird, Elohim Revealed, 46, 47, 474-479, 504-507. + + +6. The Augustinian Theory, or Theory of Adam’s Natural Headship. + + +This theory was first elaborated by Augustine (354-430), the great +opponent of Pelagius; although its central feature appears in the writings +of Tertullian (died about 220), Hilary (350), and Ambrose (374). It is +frequently designated as the Augustinian view of sin. It was the view held +by the Reformers, Zwingle excepted. Its principal advocates in this +country are Dr. Shedd and Dr. Baird. + +It holds that God imputes the sin of Adam immediately to all his +posterity, in virtue of that organic unity of mankind by which the whole +race at the time of Adam’s transgression existed, not individually, but +seminally, in him as its head. The total life of humanity was then in +Adam; the race as yet had its being only in him. Its essence was not yet +individualized; its forces were not yet distributed; the powers which now +exist in separate men were then unified and localized in Adam; Adam’s will +was yet the will of the species. In Adam’s free act, the will of the race +revolted from God and the nature of the race corrupted itself. The nature +which we now possess is the same nature that corrupted itself in Adam—“not +the same in kind merely, but the same as flowing to us continuously from +him.” + +Adam’s sin is imputed to us immediately, therefore, not as something +foreign to us, but because it is ours—we and all other men having existed +as one moral person or one moral whole, in him, and, as the result of that +transgression, possessing a nature destitute of love to God and prone to +evil. In Rom. 5:12—“death passed unto all men, for that all sinned,” +signifies: “death physical, spiritual, and eternal passed unto all men, +because all sinned in Adam their natural head.” + + + Milton, Par. Lost, 9:414—“Where likeliest he [Satan] might find + The only two of mankind, but in them The whole included race, his + purpos’d prey.” Augustine, De Pec. Mer. et Rem., 3:7—“In Adamo + omnes tune peccaverunt, quando in ejus natura adhuc omnes ille + unus fuerunt”; De Civ. Dei, 13, 14—“Omnes enim fuimus in illo uno, + quando omnes fuimus ille unus.... Nondum erat nobis singillatim + creata et distributa forma in qua singuli viveremus, sed jam + natura erat seminalis ex qua propagaremur.” On Augustine’s view, + see Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2; 43-45 (System Doct., 2:338, 339)—In + opposition to Pelagius who made sin to consist in single acts, + “Augustine emphasized the sinful state. This was a deprivation of + original righteousness + inordinate love. Tertullian, Cyprian, + Hilarius, Ambrose had advocated traducianism, according to which, + without their personal participation, the sinfulness of all is + grounded in Adam’s free act. They incur its consequences as an + evil which is, at the same time, punishment of the inherited + fault. But Irenæus, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, say Adam was not + simply a single individual, but the universal man. We were + comprehended in him, so that in him we sinned. On the first view, + the posterity were passive; on the second, they were active, in + Adam’s sin. Augustine represents both views, desiring to unite the + universal sinfulness involved in traducianism with the universal + will and guilt involved in cooperation with Adam’s sin. Adam, + therefore, to him, is a double conception, and = individual + + race.” + + Mozley on Predestination, 402—“In Augustine, some passages refer + all wickedness to original sin; some account for different degrees + of evil by different degrees of original sin (Op. imp. cont. + Julianum, 4:128—‘Malitia naturalis.... in aliis minor, in aliis + major est’); in some, the individual seems to add to original sin + (De Correp. et Gratia, c. 13—‘Per liberum arbitrium alia insuper + addiderunt, alii majus, alii minus, sed omnes mali.’ De Grat. et + Lib. Arbit., 2:1—‘Added to the sin of their birth sins of their + own commission’; 2:4—‘Neither denies our liberty of will, whether + to choose an evil or a good life, nor attributes to it so much + power that it can avail anything without God’s grace, or that it + can change itself from evil to good’).” These passages seem to + show that, side by side with the race-sin and its development, + Augustine recognized a domain of free personal decision, by which + each man could to some extent modify his character, and make + himself more or less depraved. + + The theory of Augustine was not the mere result of Augustine’s + temperament or of Augustine’s sins. Many men have sinned like + Augustine, but their intellects have only been benumbed and have + been led into all manner of unbelief. It was the Holy Spirit who + took possession of the temperament, and so overruled the sin as to + make it a glass through which Augustine saw the depths of his + nature. Nor was his doctrine one of exclusive divine + transcendence, which left man a helpless worm at enmity with + infinite justice. He was also a passionate believer in the + immanence of God. He writes: “I could not be, O my God, could not + be at all, wert not thou in me; rather, were not I in thee, of + whom are all things, by whom are all things, in whom are are all + things.... O God, thou hast made us for thyself, and our heart is + restless, till it find rest in thee.—The will of God is the very + nature of things—Dei voluntas rerum natura est.” + + Allen, Continuity of Christian Thought, Introduction, very + erroneously declares that “the Augustinian theology rests upon the + transcendence of Deity as its controlling principle, and at every + point appears as an inferior rendering of the earlier + interpretation of the Christian faith.” On the other hand, L. L. + Paine, Evolution of Trinitarianism, 69, 368-397, shows that, while + Athanasius held to a dualistic transcendence, Augustine held to a + theistic immanence: “Thus the Stoic, Neo-Platonic immanence, with + Augustine, supplants the Platonico-Aristotelian and Athanasian + transcendence.” Alexander, Theories of the Will, 90—“The theories + of the early Fathers were indeterministic, and the pronounced + Augustinianism of Augustine was the result of the rise into + prominence of the doctrine of original sin.... The early Fathers + thought of the origin of sin in angels and in Adam as due to free + will. Augustine thought of the origin of sin in Adam’s posterity + as due to inherited evil will.” Harnack, Wesen des Christenthums, + 161—“To this day in Catholicism inward and living piety and the + expression of it is in essence wholly Augustinian.” + + Calvin was essentially Augustinian and realistic; see his + Institutes, book 2, chap. 1-3; Hagenbach, Hist. Doct., 1:505, 506, + with the quotations and references. Zwingle was not an + Augustinian. He held that native vitiosity, although it is the + uniform occasion of sin, is not itself sin: “It is not a crime, + but a condition and a disease.” See Hagenbach, Hist. Doct. 2:256, + with references. Zwingle taught that every new-born child—thanks + to Christ’s making alive of all those who had died in Adam—is as + free from any taint of sin as Adam was before the fall. The + Reformers, however, with the single exception of Zwingle, were + Augustinians, and accounted for the hereditary guilt of mankind, + not by the fact that all men were represented in Adam, but that + all men participated in Adam’s sin. This is still the doctrine of + the Lutheran church. + + The theory of Adam’s Natural Headship regards humanity at large as + the outgrowth of one germ. Though the leaves of a tree appear as + disconnected units when we look down upon them from above, a view + from beneath will discern the common connection with the twigs, + branches, trunk, and will finally trace their life to the root, + and to the seed from which it originally sprang. The race of man + is one because it sprang from one head. Its members are not to be + regarded atomistically, as segregated individuals; the deeper + truth is the truth of organic unity. Yet we are not philosophical + realists; we do not believe in the separate existence of + universals. We hold, not to _universalia ante rem_, which is + extreme realism; nor to _universalia post rem_, which is + nominalism; but to _universalia in re_, which is moderate realism. + Extreme realism cannot see the trees for the wood; nominalism + cannot see the wood for the trees; moderate realism sees the wood + in the trees. We hold to “_universalia in re_, but insist that the + universals must be recognized as _realities_, as truly as the + individuals are” (H. B. Smith, System, 319, note). Three acorns + have a common life, as three spools have not. Moderate realism is + true of organic things; nominalism is true only of proper names. + God has not created any new tree nature since he created the first + tree; nor has he created any new human nature since he created the + first man. I am but a branch and outgrowth of the tree of + humanity. + + Our realism then only asserts the real historical connection of + each member of the race with its first father and head, and such a + derivation of each from him as makes us partakers of the character + which he formed. Adam was once the race; and when he fell, the + race fell. Shedd: “We all existed in Adam in our elementary + invisible substance. The _Seyn_ of all was there, though the + _Daseyn_ was not; the _noumenon_, though not the _phenomenon_, was + in existence.” On realism, see Koehler, Realismus und + Nominalismus; Neander, Ch. Hist., 4:356; Dorner, Person Christ, + 2:377; Hase, Anselm, 2:77; F. E. Abbott, Scientific Theism, + Introd., 1-29, and in Mind, Oct. 1882:476, 477; Raymond, Theology, + 2:30-33; Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:69-74; Bowne, Theory of Thought + and Knowledge, 129-132; Ten Broeke, in Baptist Quar. Rev., Jan. + 1892:1-26; Baldwin, Psychology, 280, 281; D. J. Hill, Genetic + Philosophy, 186; Hours with the Mystics, 1:213; Case, Physical + Realism, 17-19; Fullerton, Sameness and Identity, 88, 89, and + Concept of the Infinite, 95-114. + + The new conceptions of the reign of law and of the principle of + heredity which prevail in modern science are working to the + advantage of Christian theology. The doctrine of Adam’s Natural + Headship is only a doctrine of the hereditary transmission of + character from the first father of the race to his descendants. + Hence we use the word “imputation” in its proper sense—that of a + reckoning or charging to us of that which is truly and properly + ours. See Julius Müller, Doctrine of Sin, 2:259-357, esp. 328—“The + problem is: We must allow that the depravity, which all Adam’s + descendants inherit by natural generation, nevertheless involves + personal guilt; and yet this depravity, so far as it is natural, + wants the very conditions on which guilt depends. The only + satisfactory explanation of this difficulty is the Christian + doctrine of original sin. Here alone, if its inner possibility can + be maintained, can the apparently contradictory principles be + harmonized, viz.: the universal and deep-seated depravity of human + nature, as the source of actual sin, and individual responsibility + and guilt.” These words, though written by one who advocates a + different theory, are nevertheless a valuable argument in + corroboration of the theory of Adam’s Natural Headship. + + Thornwell, Theology, 1:343—“We must contradict every Scripture + text and every Scripture doctrine which makes hereditary impurity + hateful to God and punishable in his sight, or we must maintain + that we sinned in Adam in his first transgression.” Secretan, in + his Work on Liberty, held to a _collective_ life of the race in + Adam. He was answered by Naville, Problem of Evil: “We existed in + Adam, not individually, but seminally. Each of us, as an + individual, is responsible only for his personal acts, or, to + speak more exactly, for the personal part of his acts. But each of + us, as he is man, is jointly and severally (_solidairement_) + responsible for the fall of the human race.” Bersier, The Oneness + of the Race, in its Fall and in its Future: “If we are commanded + to love our neighbor as ourselves, it is because our neighbor is + ourself.” + + See Edwards, Original Sin, part 4, chap. 3; Shedd, on Original + Sin, in Discourses and Essays, 218-271, and references, 261-263, + also Dogm. Theol., 2:181-195; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 410-435, + 451-460, 494; Schaff, in Bib. Sac., 5:220, and in Lange’s Com., on + Rom. 5:12; Auberlen, Div. Revelation, 175-180; Philippi, + Glaubenslehre, 3:28-38, 204-236; Thomasius, Christi Person und + Werk, 1:269-400; Martensen, Dogmatics, 173-183; Murphy, Scientific + Bases, 262 _sq._, _cf._ 101; Birks, Difficulties of Belief, 135; + Bp. Reynolds, Sinfulness of Sin, in Works, 1:102-350; Mozley on + Original Sin, in Lectures, 136-152; Kendall, on Natural Heirship, + or All the World Akin, in Nineteenth Century, Oct. 1885:614-626. + _Per contra_, see Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:157-164, 227-257; Haven, + in Bib. Sac., 20:451-455; Criticism of Baird’s doctrine, in + Princeton Rev., Apr. 1880:335-376; of Schaff’s doctrine, in + Princeton Rev., Apr. 1870:239-262. + + +We regard this theory of the Natural Headship of Adam as the most +satisfactory of the theories mentioned, and as furnishing the most +important help towards the understanding of the great problem of original +sin. In its favor may be urged the following considerations: + +A. It puts the most natural interpretation upon Rom. 5:12-21. In verse 12 +of this passage—“death passed unto all men, for that all sinned”—the great +majority of commentators regard the word “sinned” as describing a common +transgression of the race in Adam. The death spoken of is, as the whole +context shows, mainly though not exclusively physical. It has passed upon +all—even upon those who have committed no conscious and personal +transgression whereby to explain its infliction (verse 14). The legal +phraseology of the passage shows that this infliction is not a matter of +sovereign decree, but of judicial penalty (verses 13, 14, 15, 16, +18—“law,” “transgression,” “trespass,” “judgment ... of one unto +condemnation,” “act of righteousness,” “justification”). As the +explanation of this universal subjection to penalty, we are referred to +Adam’s sin. By that one act (“so,” verse 12)—the “trespass of the one” man +(v. 15, 17), the “one trespass” (v. 18)—death came to all men, because all +[not “have sinned”, but] sinned (πάντες ἥμαρτον—aorist of instantaneous +past action)—that is, all sinned in “the one trespass” of “the one” man. +Compare 1 Cor. 15:22—“As in Adam all die”—where the contrast with physical +resurrection shows that physical death is meant; 2 Cor. 5:14—“one died for +all, therefore all died.” See Commentaries of Meyer, Bengel, Olshausen, +Philippi, Wordsworth, Lange, Godet, Shedd. This is also recognized as the +correct interpretation of Paul’s words by Beyschlag, Ritschl, and +Pfleiderer, although no one of these three accepts Paul’s doctrine as +authoritative. + + + Beyschlag, N. T. Theology, 2:58-60—“To understand the apostle’s + view, we must follow the exposition of Bengel (which is favored + also by Meyer and Pfleiderer): ‘_Because they_—viz., in Adam—_all + have sinned_’; they all, namely, who were included in Adam + according to the O. T. view which sees the whole race to its + founder, acted in his action.” Ritschl: “Certainly Paul treated + the universal destiny of death as due to the sin of Adam. + Nevertheless it is not yet suited for a theological rule just for + the reason that the apostle has formed this idea;” in other words, + Paul’s teaching it does not make it binding upon our faith. + Philippi, Com. on Rom., 168—Interpret _Rom. 5:12_—“_one sinned for + all, therefore all sinned_,” by _2 Cor. 5:15_—“_one died for all, + therefore all died._” Evans, in Presb. Rev., 1883:294—“_by the + trespass of the one the many died_,” “_by the trespass of the one, + death reigned __ through the one_,” “_through the one man’s + disobedience_”—all these phrases, and the phrases with respect to + salvation which correspond to them, indicate that the fallen race + and the redeemed race are each regarded as a multitude, a + totality. So οἱ πάντεσ in 2 Cor. 5:14 indicates a corresponding + conception of the organic unity of the race. + + Prof. George B. Stevens, Pauline Theology, 32-40, 129-139, denies + that Paul taught the sinning of all men in Adam: “They sinned in + the same sense in which believers were crucified to the world and + died unto sin when Christ died upon the cross. The believer’s + renewal is conceived as wrought in advance by those acts and + experiences of Christ in which it has its ground. As the + consequences of his vicarious sufferings are traced back to their + cause, so are the consequences which flowed from the beginning of + sin in Adam traced back to that original fount of evil and + identified with it; but the latter statement should no more be + treated as a rigid logical formula than the former, its + counterpart.... There is a mystical identification of the + procuring cause with its effect,—both in the case of Adam and of + Christ.” + + In our treatment of the New School theory of sin we have pointed + out that the inability to understand the vital union of the + believer with Christ incapacitates the New School theologian from + understanding the organic union of the race with Adam. Paul’s + phrase “_in Christ_” meant more than that Christ is the type and + beginner of salvation, and sinning in Adam meant more to Paul than + following the example or acting in the spirit of our first father. + In _2 Cor. 5:14_ the argument is that since Christ died, all + believers died to sin and death in him. Their resurrection-life is + the same life that died and rose again in his death and + resurrection. So Adam’s sin is ours because the same life which + transgressed and became corrupt in him has come down to us and is + our possession. In _Rom. 5:14_, the individual and conscious sins + to which the New School theory attaches the condemning sentence + are expressly excluded, and in _verses 15-19_ the judgment is + declared to be “_of one trespass_.” Prof. Wm. Arnold Stevens, of + Rochester, says well: “Paul teaches that Adam’s sin is ours, not + potentially, but actually.” Of ἥμαρτον, he says: “This might + conceivably be: (1) the historical aorist proper, used in its + momentary sense; (2) the comprehensive or collective aorist, as in + διῆλθεν in the same verse; (3) the aorist used in the sense of the + English perfect, as in _Rom. 3:23_—πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ + ὑστεροῦνται. In _5:12_, the context determines with great + probability that the aorist is used in the first of these senses.” + We may add that interpreters are not wanting who so take ἥμαρτον + in _3:23_; see also margin of Rev. Version. But since the passage + _Rom. 5:12-19_ is so important, we reserve to the close of this + section a treatment of it in greater detail. + + +B. It permits whatever of truth there may be in the Federal theory and in +the theory of Mediate Imputation to be combined with it, while neither of +these latter theories can be justified to reason unless they are regarded +as corollaries or accessories of the truth of Adam’s Natural Headship. +Only on this supposition of Natural Headship could God justly constitute +Adam our representative, or hold us responsible for the depraved nature we +have received from him. It moreover justifies God’s ways, in postulating a +real and a fair probation of our common nature as preliminary to +imputation of sin—a truth which the theories just mentioned, in common +with that of the New School, virtually deny,—while it rests upon correct +philosophical principles with regard to will, ability, law, and accepts +the Scriptural representations of the nature of sin, the penal character +of death, the origin of the soul, and the oneness of the race in the +transgression. + + + John Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 1:196-232, favors the + view that sin consists simply in an inherited bias of our nature + to evil, and that we are guilty from birth because we are sinful + from birth. But he recognizes in Augustinianism the truth of the + organic unity of the race and the implication of every member in + its past history. He tells us that we must not regard man simply + as an abstract or isolated individual. The atomistic theory + regards society as having no existence other than that of the + individuals who compose it. But it is nearer the truth to say that + it is society which creates the individual, rather than that the + individual creates society. Man does not come into existence a + blank tablet on which external agencies may write whatever record + they will. The individual is steeped in influences which are due + to the past history of his kind. The individualistic theory runs + counter to the most obvious facts of observation and experience. + As a philosophy of life, Augustinianism has a depth and + significance which the individualistic theory cannot claim. + + Alvah Hovey, Manual of Christian Theology, 175 (2d ed.)—“Every + child of Adam is accountable for the degree of sympathy which he + has for the whole system of evil in the world, and with the primal + act of disobedience among men. If that sympathy is full, whether + expressed by deed or thought, if the whole force of his being is + arrayed against heaven and on the side of hell, it is difficult to + limit his responsibility.” Schleiermacher held that the guilt of + original sin attached, not to the individual as an individual, but + as a member of the race, so that the consciousness of race-union + carried with it the consciousness of race-guilt. He held all men + to be equally sinful and to differ only in their different + reception of or attitude toward grace, sin being the universal + _malum metaphysicum_ of Spinoza; see Pfleiderer, Prot. Theol. seit + Kant, 113. + + +C. While its fundamental presupposition—a determination of the will of +each member of the race prior to his individual consciousness—is an +hypothesis difficult in itself, it is an hypothesis which furnishes the +key to many more difficulties than it suggests. Once allow that the race +was one in its first ancestor and fell in him, and light is thrown on a +problem otherwise insoluble—the problem of our accountability for a sinful +nature which we have not personally and consciously originated. Since we +cannot, with the three theories first mentioned, deny either of the terms +of this problem—inborn depravity or accountability for it,—we accept this +solution as the best attainable. + + + Sterrett, Reason and Authority in Religion, 20—“The whole swing of + the pendulum of thought of to-day is away from the individual and + towards the social point of view. Theories of society are + supplementing theories of the individual. The solidarity of man is + the regnant thought in both the scientific and the historical + study of man. It is even running into the extreme of a determinism + that annihilates the individual.” Chapman, Jesus Christ and the + Present Age, 43—“It was never less possible to deny the truth to + which theology gives expression in its doctrine of original sin + than in the present age. It is only one form of the universally + recognized fact of heredity. There is a collective evil, for which + the responsibility rests on the whole race of man. Of this common + evil each man inherits his share; it is organized in his nature; + it is established in his environment.” E. G. Robinson: “The + tendency of modern theology [in the last generation] was to + individualization, to make each man ‘a little Almighty.’ But the + human race is one in kind, and in a sense is numerically one. The + race lay potentially in Adam. The entire developing force of the + race was in him. There is no carrying the race up, except from the + starting-point of a fallen and guilty humanity.” Goethe said that + while humanity ever advances, individual man remains the same. + + The true test of a theory is, not that it can itself be explained, + but that it is capable of explaining. The atomic theory in + chemistry, the theory of the ether in physics, the theory of + gravitation, the theory of evolution, are all in themselves + indemonstrable hypotheses, provisionally accepted simply because, + if granted, they unify great aggregations of facts. Coleridge said + that original sin is the one mystery that makes all other things + clear. In this mystery, however, there is nothing + self-contradictory or arbitrary. Gladden, What is Left? + 131—“Heredity is God working in us, and environment is God working + around us.” Whether we adopt the theory of Augustine or not, the + facts of universal moral obliquity and universal human suffering + confront us. We are compelled to reconcile these facts with our + faith in the righteousness and goodness of God. Augustine gives us + a unifying principle which, better than any other, explains these + facts and justifies them. On the solidarity of the race, see + Bruce, The Providential Order, 280-310, and art. on Sin, by + Bernard, in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary. + + +D. This theory finds support in the conclusions of modern science: with +regard to the moral law, as requiring right states as well as right acts; +with regard to the human will, as including subconscious and unconscious +bent and determination; with regard to heredity, and the transmission of +evil character; with regard to the unity and solidarity of the human race. +The Augustinian theory may therefore be called an ethical or theological +interpretation of certain incontestable and acknowledged biological facts. + + + Ribot, Heredity, 1—“Heredity is that biological law by which all + beings endowed with life tend to repeat themselves in their + descendants; it is for the species what personal identity is for + the individual. By it a groundwork remains unchanged amid + incessant variations. By it nature ever copies and imitates + herself.” Griffith-Jones, Ascent through Christ, 202-218—“In man’s + moral condition we find arrested development; reversion to a + savage type; hypocritical and self-protective mimicry of virtue; + parasitism; physical and moral abnormality; deep-seated perversion + of faculty.” Simon, Reconciliation, 154 sq.—“The organism was + affected before the individuals which are its successive + differentiations and products were affected.... Humanity as an + organism received an injury from sin. It received that injury at + the very beginning.... At the moment when the seed began to + germinate disease entered and it was smitten with death on account + of sin.” + + Bowne, Theory of Thought and Knowledge, 134—“A general notion has + no actual or possible metaphysical existence. All real existence + is necessarily singular and individual. The only way to give the + notion any metaphysical significance is to turn it into a law + inherent in reality, and this attempt will fail unless we finally + conceive this law as a rule according to which a basal + intelligence proceeds in positing individuals.” Sheldon, in the + Methodist Review, March, 1901:214-227, applies this explanation to + the doctrine of original sin. Men have a common nature, he says, + only in the sense that they are resembling personalities. If we + literally died in Adam, we also literally died in Christ. There is + no all-inclusive Christ, any more than there is an all-inclusive + Adam. We regard this argument as proving the precise opposite of + its intended conclusion. There is an all-inclusive Christ, and the + fundamental error of most of those who oppose Augustinianism is + that they misconceive the union of the believer with Christ. “A + basal intelligence” here “posits individuals.” And so with the + relation of men to Adam. Here too there is “a law inherent in + reality”—the regular working of the divine will, according to + which like produces like, and a sinful germ reproduces itself. + + +E. We are to remember, however, that while this theory of the method of +our union with Adam is merely a valuable hypothesis, the problem which it +seeks to explain is, in both its terms, presented to us both by conscience +and by Scripture. In connection with this problem a central fact is +announced in Scripture, which we feel compelled to believe upon divine +testimony, even though every attempted explanation should prove +unsatisfactory. That central fact, which constitutes the substance of the +Scripture doctrine of original sin, is simply this: that the sin of Adam +is the immediate cause and ground of inborn depravity, guilt and +condemnation to the whole human race. + + + Three things must be received on Scripture testimony: (1) inborn + depravity; (2) guilt and condemnation therefor; (3) Adam’s sin the + cause and ground of both. From these three positions of Scripture + it seems not only natural, but inevitable, to draw the inference + that we “_all sinned_” in Adam. The Augustinian theory simply puts + in a link of connection between two sets of facts which otherwise + would be difficult to reconcile. But, in putting in that link of + connection, it claims that it is merely bringing out into clear + light an underlying but implicit assumption of Paul’s reasoning, + and this it seeks to prove by showing that upon no other + assumption can Paul’s reasoning be understood at all. Since the + passage in _Rom. 5:12-19_ is so important, we proceed to examine + it in greater detail. Our treatment is mainly a reproduction of + the substance of Shedd’s Commentary, although we have combined + with it remarks from Meyer, Schaff, Moule, and others. + + _Exposition of Rom. 5:12-19._—_Parallel between the salvation in + Christ and the ruin that has come through Adam_, in each case + through no personal act of our own, neither by our earning + salvation in the case of the life received through Christ, nor by + our individually sinning in the case of the death received through + Adam. The statement of the parallel is begun in + + _Verse 12_: “_as through one man sin entered into the world, and + death through sin, and so death passed unto all men, for that all + sinned,_” so (as we may complete the interrupted sentence) by one + man righteousness entered into the world, and life by + righteousness, and so life passed upon all men, because all became + partakers of this righteousness. Both physical and spiritual death + is meant. That it is physical is shown (1) from _verse 14_; (2) + from the allusion to _Gen. 3:19_; (3) from the universal Jewish + and Christian assumption that physical death was the result of + Adam’s sin. See Wisdom 2:23, 24; Sirach 25:24; 2 Esdras 3:7, 21; + 7:11, 46, 48, 118; 9:19; _John 8:44_; _1 Cor. 15:21_. That it is + spiritual, is evident from _Rom. 5:18, 21_, where ζωή is the + opposite of θάνατος, and from _2 Tim. 1:10_, where the same + contrast occurs. The οὔτος in _verse 12_ shows the mode in which + historically death has come to all, namely, that the _one_ sinned, + and thereby brought death to all; in other words, death is the + effect, of which the sin of the one is the cause. By Adam’s act, + physical and spiritual death passed upon all men, because all + sinned. ἐφ᾽ ᾦ = because, on the ground of the fact that, for the + reason that, all sinned. πάντες = all, without exception, infants + included, as _verse 14_ teaches. + + Ἥμαρτον mentions the particular reason why all men died, _viz._, + because all men sinned. It is the aorist of momentary past + action—sinned when, through the one, sin entered into the world. + It is as much as to say, “because, when Adam sinned, all men + sinned in and with him.” This is proved by the succeeding + explanatory context (_verses 15-19_), in which it is reiterated + five times in succession that one and only one sin is the cause of + the death that befalls all men. Compare _1 Cor. 15:22_. The senses + “all were sinful,” “all became sinful,” are inadmissible, for + ἁμαρτάνειν is not ἁμαρτωλὸν γίγνεσθαι or εἶναι. The sense “death + passed upon all men, because all have consciously and personally + sinned,” is contradicted (1) by _verse 14_, in which it is + asserted that certain persons who are a part of πάντες, the + subject of ἥμαρτον, and who suffer the death which is the penalty + of sin, did not commit sins resembling Adam’s first sin, _i. e._, + individual and conscious transgressions; and (2) by _verses + 15-19_, in which it is asserted repeatedly that only one sin, and + not millions of transgressions, is the cause of the death of all + men. This sense would seem to require ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἁμαρτάνουσιν. + Neither can ἥμαρτον have the sense “were accounted and treated as + sinners”; for (1) there is no other instance in Scripture where + this active verb has a passive signification; and (2) the passive + makes ἥμαρτον to denote God’s action, and not man’s. This would + not furnish the justification of the infliction of death, which + Paul is seeking, + + _Verse 13_ begins a demonstration of the proposition, in _Verse + 12_, that death comes to all, because all men sinned the one sin + of the one man. The argument is as follows: Before the law sin + existed; for there was death, the penalty of sin. But this sin was + not sin committed against the _Mosaic_ law, because that law was + not yet in existence. The death in the world prior to that law + proves that there must have been some other law, against which sin + had been committed. + + _Verse 14_. Nor could it have been personal and conscious + violation of an _unwritten_ law, for which death was inflicted; + for death passed upon multitudes, such as infants and idiots, who + did not sin in their own persons, as Adam did, by violating some + known commandment. Infants are not specifically named here, + because the intention is to include others who, though mature in + years, have not reached moral consciousness. But since death is + everywhere and always the penalty of sin, the death of all must + have been the penalty of the common sin of the race, when πάντες + ἥμαρτον in Adam. The law which they violated was the Eden statute, + _Gen. 2:17_. The relation between their sin and Adam’s is not that + of _resemblance_, but of _identity_. Had the sin by which death + came upon them been one _like_ Adam’s, there would have been as + many sins, to be the cause of death and to account for it, as + there were individuals. Death would have come into the world + through millions of men, and not “_through one man_” (_verse 12_), + and judgment would have come upon all men to condemnation through + millions of trespasses, and not “_through one trespass_” (_v. + 18_). The object, then, of the parenthetical digression in _verses + 13_ and _14_ is to prevent the reader from supposing, from the + statement that “all men sinned,” that the individual + transgressions of all men are meant, and to make it clear that + only the one first sin of the one first man is intended. Those who + died before Moses must have violated some law. The Mosaic law, and + the law of conscience, have been ruled out of the case. These + persons must, therefore, have sinned against the commandment in + Eden, the probationary statute; and their sin was not _similar_ + (ὁμοίος) to Adam’s, but Adam’s _identical_ sin, the very same sin + numerically of the “_one man_.” They did not, in their own persons + and consciously, sin as Adam did; yet in Adam, and in the nature + common to him and them, they sinned and fell (_versus_ Current + Discussions in Theology, 5:277, 278). They did not sin _like_ + Adam, but they “sinned _in_ him, and fell _with_ him, in that + first transgression” (Westminster Larger Catechism, 22). + + _Verses 15-17_ show how the work of grace differs from, and + surpasses, the work of sin. Over against God’s exact justice in + punishing all for the first sin which all committed in Adam, is + set the gratuitous justification of all who are in Christ. Adam’s + sin is the act of Adam and his posterity together; hence the + imputation to the posterity is just, and merited. Christ’s + obedience is the work of Christ alone; hence the imputation of it + to the elect is gracious and unmerited. Here τοὺς πολλούς is not + of equal extent with οἱ πολλοί in the first clause, because other + passages teach that “the many” who die in Adam are not + conterminous with “_the many_” who live in Christ; see _1 Cor. + 15:22_; _Mat. 25:46_; also, see note on _verse 18_, below. Τοὺς + πολλούς here refers to the same persons who, in _verse 17_, are + said to “_receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of + righteousness_.” _Verse 16_ notices a numerical difference between + the condemnation and the justification. Condemnation results from + _one_ offense; justification delivers from _many_ offences. _Verse + 17_ enforces and explains _verse 16_. If the union with Adam in + his sin was certain to bring destruction, the union with Christ in + his righteousness is yet more certain to bring salvation. + + _Verse 18_ resumes the parallel between Adam and Christ which was + commenced in _verse 12_, but was interrupted by the explanatory + parenthesis in _verses 13-17_. “_As through one trespass ... unto + all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness + ... unto all men unto justification of_ [necessary to] _life_.” + Here the “_all men to condemnation_”—the οἱ πολλοί in _verse 15_; + and the “_all men unto justification of life_”—the τοὺς πολλούς in + _verse 15_. There is a totality in each case; but, in the former + case, it is the “_all men_” who derive their physical life from + Adam,—in the latter case, it is the “_all men_” who derive their + spiritual life from Christ (compare _1 Cor. 15:22_—“_For as in + Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive_”—in which + last clause Paul is speaking, as the context shows, not of the + resurrection of all men, both saints and sinners, but only of the + blessed resurrection of the righteous; in other words, of the + resurrection of those who are one with Christ). + + _Verse 19._ “_For as through the one man’s disobedience the many + were constituted sinners, even so through the obedience of the one + shall the many be constituted righteous._” The many were + constituted sinners because, according to _verse 12_, they sinned + in and with Adam in his fall. The verb presupposes the fact of + natural union between those to whom it relates. All men are + declared to be sinners on the ground of that “_one trespass_,” + because, when that one trespass was committed, all men were one + man—that is, were one common nature in the first human pair. Sin + is imputed, because it is committed. All men are punished with + death, because they literally sinned in Adam, and not because they + are metaphorically reputed to have done so, but in fact did not. + Οἱ πολλοί is used in contrast with the one forefather, and the + atonement of Christ is designated as ὑπακοή, in order to contrast + it with the παρακοή of Adam. + + Κατασταθήσονται has the same signification as in the first part of + the verse. Δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται means simply “shall be + justified,” and is used instead of δικαιωθήσονται, in order to + make the antithesis of ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν more perfect. This + being “_constituted righteous_” presupposes the fact of a union + between ὁ εἶς and οἱ πολλοί, _i. e._, between Christ and + believers, just as the being “_constituted sinners_” presupposed + the fact of a union between ὁ εἶς and οἱ πολλοί, _i. e._, between + all men and Adam. The future κατασταθήσονται refers to the + succession of believers; the _justification_ of all was, ideally, + complete already, but actually, it would await the times of + individual believing. “_The many_” who shall be “_constituted + righteous_”—not all mankind, but only “_the many_” to whom, in + _verse 15_, grace abounded, and who are described, in _verse 17_, + as “_they that receive abundance of grace and of the gift of + righteousness_.” + + “But this union differs in several important particulars from that + between Adam and his posterity. It is not natural and substantial, + but moral and spiritual; not generic and universal, but individual + and by election; not caused by the creative act of God, but by his + regenerating act. All men, without exception, are one with Adam; + only believing men are one with Christ. The imputation of Adam’s + sin is not an arbitrary act in the sense that, if God so pleased, + he could reckon it to the account of any beings in the universe, + by a volition. The sin of Adam could not be imputed to the fallen + angels, for example, and punished in them, because they never were + one with Adam by unity of substance and nature. The fact that they + have committed actual transgression of their own will not justify + the imputation of Adam’s sin to them, any more than the fact that + the posterity of Adam have committed actual transgressions of + their own would be a sufficient reason for imputing the first sin + of Adam to them. Nothing but a real union of nature and being can + justify the imputation of Adam’s sin; and, similarly, the + obedience of Christ could no more be imputed to an unbelieving man + than to a lost angel, because neither of these is morally and + spiritually one with Christ” (Shedd). For a different + interpretation (ἡμαρτον—sinned personally and individually), see + Kendrick, in Bap. Rev., 1885:48-72. + + +No Condemnation Inherited. + + Pelagian. Arminian. New School. + +I. Origin of Immediate Immediate Immediate +the soul. Creation. creation. creation. +II. Man’s state Innocent, and Depraved, but Depraved and +at birth. able to obey still able to vicious, but + God. co-operate with this not sin. + the Spirit. +III. Effects of Only upon To corrupt his To communicate +Adam’s sin. himself. posterity visiosity to the + physically and whole race. + intellectually. + No guilt of + Adam’s sin + imputed. +IV. How did all By following By consciously By voluntary +sin? Adam’s example. ratifying Adam’s transgression of + own deed, in known law. + spite of the + Spirit’s aid. +V. What is Only of evil Evil tendencies Uncondemnable, +corruption? habit, in each kept in spite of but evil + case. the Spirit. tendencies. +VI. What is Every man’s own Only man’s own Man’s individual +imputed? sins. sins and acts of + ratifying of transgression. + this nature. +VII. What is Spiritual and Physical and Spiritual and +the death eternal. spiritual death eternal death +incurred? by decree. only. +VIII. How are By following By co-operating By accepting +men saved? Christ’s with the Spirit Christ under + example. given to all. influence of + truth presented + by the Spirit. + +Condemnation Inherited. + + Federal. Placean. Augustinian. + +I. Origin of Immediate Immediate Immediate +the soul. creation. creation. creation. +II. Man’s state Depraved, Depraved, Depraved, +at birth. unable, and unable, and unable, and + condemnable. condemnable. condemnable. +III. Effects of To insure Natural Guilt of Adam’s +Adam’s sin. condemnation of connection of sin, corruption, + his fellows in depravity in all and death. + covenant, and his descendants. + their creation + as depraved. +IV. How did all By being By possessing a By having part +sin? accounted depraved nature. in the sin of + sinners in Adam, as seminal + Adam’s sin. head of the + race. +V. What is Condemnable, Condemnable, Condemnable, +corruption? evil disposition evil disposition evil disposition + and state. and state. and state. +VI. What is Adam’s sin, Only depraved Adam’s sin, our +imputed? man’s own nature and man’s depravity, and + corruption, and own sin. our own sins. + man’s own sins. +VII. What is Physical, Physical, Physical, +the death spiritual, and spiritual, and spiritual, and +incurred? eternal. eternal. eternal. +VIII. How are By being By becoming By Christ’s +men saved? accounted possessors of a work, with whom + righteous new nature in we are one. + through the act Christ. + of Christ. + + +II.—Objections to the Augustinian Doctrine of Imputation. + + +The doctrine of Imputation, to which we have thus arrived, is met by its +opponents with the following objections. In discussing them, we are to +remember that a truth revealed in Scripture may have claims to our belief, +in spite of difficulties to us insoluble. Yet it is hoped that examination +will show the objections in question to rest either upon false +philosophical principles or upon misconception of the doctrine assailed. + +A. That there can be no sin apart from and prior to consciousness. + +This we deny. The larger part of men’s evil dispositions and acts are +imperfectly conscious, and of many such dispositions and acts the evil +quality is not discerned at all. The objection rests upon the assumption +that law is confined to published statutes or to standards formally +recognized by its subjects. A profounder view of law as identical with the +constituent principles of being, as binding the nature to conformity with +the nature of God, as demanding right volitions only because these are +manifestations of a right state, as having claims upon men in their +corporate capacity, deprives this objection of all its force. + + + If our aim is to find a conscious act of transgression upon which + to base God’s charge of guilt and man’s condemnation, we can find + this more easily in Adam’s sin than at the beginning of each man’s + personal history; for no human being can remember his first sin. + The main question at issue is therefore this: Is all sin personal? + We claim that both Scripture and reason answer this question in + the negative. There is such a thing as race-sin and + race-responsibility. + + +B. That man cannot be responsible for a sinful nature which he did not +personally originate. + +We reply that the objection ignores the testimony of conscience and of +Scripture. These assert that we are responsible for what we are. The +sinful nature is not something external to us, but is our inmost selves. +If man’s original righteousness and the new affection implanted in +regeneration have moral character, then the inborn tendency to evil has +moral character; as the former are commendable, so the latter is +condemnable. + + + If it be said that sin is the act of a person, and not of a + nature, we reply that in Adam the whole human nature once + subsisted in the form of a single personality, and the act of the + person could be at the same time the act of the nature. That which + could not be at any subsequent point of time, could be and was, at + that time. Human nature could fall _in Adam_, though that fall + could not be repeated in the case of any one of his descendants. + Hovey, Outlines, 129—“Shall we say that _will_ is the cause of sin + in holy beings, while _wrong desire_ is the cause of sin in unholy + beings? Augustine held this.” Pepper, Outlines, 112—“We do not + fall each one by himself. We were so on probation in Adam, that + his fall was our fall.” + + +C. That Adam’s sin cannot be imputed to us, since we cannot repent of it. + +The objection has plausibility only so long as we fail to distinguish +between Adam’s sin as the inward apostasy of the nature from God, and +Adam’s sin as the outward act of transgression which followed and +manifested that apostasy. We cannot indeed repent of Adam’s sin as our +personal act or as Adam’s personal act, but regarding his sin as the +apostasy of our common nature—an apostasy which manifests itself in our +personal transgressions as it did in his, we can repent of it and do +repent of it. In truth it is this nature, as self-corrupted and averse to +God, for which the Christian most deeply repents. + + + God, we know, has not made our nature as we find it. We are + conscious of our depravity and apostasy from God. We know that God + cannot be responsible for this; we know that our nature is + responsible. But this it could not be, unless its corruption were + self-corruption. For this self-corrupted nature we should repent, + and do repent. Anselm, De Concep. Virg., 23—“Adam sinned in one + point of view as a person, in another as man (_i. e._, as human + nature which at that time existed in him alone). But since Adam + and humanity could not be separated, the sin of the person + necessarily affected the _nature_. This nature is what Adam + transmitted to his posterity, and transmitted it such as his sin + had made it, burdened with a debt which it could not pay, robbed + of the righteousness with which God had originally invested it; + and in every one of his descendants this impaired nature makes the + _persons_ sinners. Yet not in the same degree sinners as Adam was, + for the latter sinned both as human nature and as a person, while + new-born infants sin only as they possess the nature.”—more + briefly, in Adam a person made nature sinful; in his posterity, + nature makes persons sinful. + + +D. That, if we be responsible for Adam’s first sin, we must also be +responsible not only for every other sin of Adam, but for the sins of our +immediate ancestors. + +We reply that the apostasy of human nature could occur but once. It +occurred in Adam before the eating of the forbidden fruit, and revealed +itself in that eating. The subsequent sins of Adam and of our immediate +ancestors are no longer acts which determine or change the nature,—they +only show what the nature is. Here is the truth and the limitation of the +Scripture declaration that “the son shall not bear the iniquity of the +father” (Ez. 18:20; _cf._ Luke 13:2, 3; John 9:2, 3). Man is not +responsible for the specifically evil tendencies communicated to him from +his immediate ancestors, as distinct from the nature he possesses; nor is +he responsible for the sins of those ancestors which originated these +tendencies. But he is responsible for that original apostasy which +constituted the one and final revolt of the race from God, and for the +personal depravity and disobedience which in his own case has resulted +therefrom. + + + Augustine, Encheiridion, 46, 47, leans toward an imputing of the + sins of immediate ancestors, but intimates that, as a matter of + grace, this may be limited to “_the third and fourth generation_” + (_Ex. 20:5_). Aquinas thinks this last is said by God, because + fathers live to see the third and fourth generation of their + descendants, and influence them by their example to become + voluntarily like themselves. Burgesse, Original Sin, 397, adds the + covenant-idea to that of natural generation, in order to prevent + imputation of the sins of immediate ancestors as well as those of + Adam. So also Shedd. But Baird, Elohim Revealed, 508, gives a + better explanation, when he distinguishes between the first sin of + nature when it apostatized, and those subsequent personal actions + which merely manifest the nature but do not change it. Imagine + Adam to have remained innocent, but one of his posterity to have + fallen. Then the descendants of that one would have been guilty + for the change of nature in him, but not guilty for the sins of + ancestors intervening between him and them. + + We add that man may direct the course of a lava-stream, already + flowing downward, into some particular channel, and may even dig a + new channel for it down the mountain. But the stream is constant + in its quantity and quality, and is under the same influence of + gravitation in all stages of its progress. I am responsible for + the downward tendency which my nature gave itself at the + beginning; but I am not responsible for inherited and specifically + evil tendencies as something apart from the nature,—for they are + not apart from it,—they are forms or manifestations of it. These + tendencies run out after a time,—not so with sin of nature. The + declaration of Ezekiel (_18:20_), “_the son shall not bear the + iniquity of the father,_” like Christ’s denial that blindness was + due to the blind man’s individual sins or those of his parents + (_John 9:2, 3_), simply shows that God does not impute to us the + sins of our immediate ancestors; it is not inconsistent with the + doctrine that all the physical and moral evil of the world is the + result of a sin of Adam with which the whole race is chargeable. + + Peculiar tendencies to avarice or sensuality inherited from one’s + immediate ancestry are merely wrinkles in native depravity which + add nothing to its amount or its guilt. Shedd, Dogm. Theol., + 2:88-94—“To inherit a temperament is to inherit a secondary + trait.” H. B. Smith, System, 296—“Ezekiel 18 does not deny that + descendants are involved in the evil results of ancestral sins, + under God’s moral government; but simply shows that there is + opportunity for extrication, in personal repentance and + obedience.” Mozley on Predestination, 179—“Augustine says that + Ezekiel’s declarations that the son shall not bear the iniquity of + the father are not a universal law of the divine dealings, but + only a special prophetical one, as alluding to the divine mercy + under the gospel dispensation and the covenant of grace, under + which the effect of original sin and the punishment of mankind for + the sin of their first parent was removed.” See also Dorner, + Glaubenslehre, 2:31 (Syst. Doct., 2:326, 327), where God’s + visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children (Ex. 20:5) is + explained by the fact that the children repeat the sins of the + parents. German proverb: “The apple does not fall far from the + tree.” + + +E. That if Adam’s sin and condemnation can be ours by propagation, the +righteousness and faith of the believer should be propagable also. + +We reply that no merely personal qualities, whether of sin or +righteousness, are communicated by propagation. Ordinary generation does +not transmit _personal_ guilt, but only that guilt which belongs to the +whole _species_. So personal faith and righteousness are not propagable. +“Original sin is the consequent of man’s _nature_, whereas the parents’ +grace is a _personal_ excellence, and cannot be transmitted” (Burgesse). + + + Thornwell, Selected Writings, 1:543, says the Augustinian doctrine + would imply that Adam, penitent and believing, must have begotten + penitent and believing children, seeing that the nature as it is + in the parent always flows from parent to child. But see Fisher, + Discussions, 370, where Aquinas holds that no quality or guilt + that is _personal_ is propagated (Thomas Aquinas, 2:629). Anselm + (De Concept. Virg. et Origin. Peccato, 98) will not decide the + question. “The original nature of the tree is propagated—not the + nature of the graft”—when seed from the graft is planted. + Burgesse: “Learned parents do not convey learning to their + children, but they are born in ignorance as others.” Augustine: “A + Jew that was circumcised begat children not circumcised, but + uncircumcised; and the seed that was sown without husks, yet + produced corn with husks.” + + The recent modification of Darwinism by Weismann has confirmed the + doctrine of the text. Lamarck’s view was that development of each + race has taken place through the _effort_ of the individuals,—the + giraffe has a long neck because successive giraffes have reached + for food on high trees. Darwin held that development has taken + place not because of effort, but because of _environment_, which + kills the unfit and permits the fit to survive,—the giraffe has a + long neck because among the children of giraffes only the + long-necked ones could reach the fruit, and of successive + generations of giraffes only the long-necked ones lived to + propagate. But Weismann now tells us that even then there would be + no development unless there were a spontaneous _innate tendency_ + in giraffes to become long-necked,—nothing is of avail after the + giraffe is born; all depends upon the germs in the parents. Darwin + held to the transmission of acquired characters, so that + individual men are _affluents_ of the stream of humanity; Weismann + holds, on the contrary, that acquired characters are not + transmitted, and that individual men are only _effluents_ of the + stream of humanity: the stream gives its characteristics to the + individuals, but the individuals do not give their characteristics + to the stream: see Howard Ernest Cushman, in The Outlook, Jan. 10, + 1897. + + Weismann, Heredity, 2:14, 266-270, 482—“Characters only acquired + by the operation of external circumstances, acting during the life + of the individual, cannot be transmitted.... The loss of a finger + is not inherited; increase of an organ by exercise is a purely + personal acquirement and is not transmitted; no child of reading + parents ever read without being taught; children do not even learn + to speak untaught.” Horses with docked tails, Chinese women with + cramped feet, do not transmit their peculiarities. The rupture of + the hymen in women is not transmitted. Weismann cut off the tails + of 66 white mice in five successive generations, but of 901 + offspring none were tailless. G. J. Romanes, Life and Letters, + 300—“Three additional cases of cats which have lost their tails + having tailless kittens afterwards.” In his Weismannism, Romanes + writes: “The truly scientific attitude of mind with regard to the + problem of heredity is to say with Galton: ‘We might almost + reserve our belief that the structural cells can react on the + sexual elements at all, and we may be confident that at most they + do so in a very faint degree; in other words, that acquired + modifications are barely if at all _inherited_, in the correct + sense of that word.’ ” This seems to class both Romanes and Galton + on the side of Weismann in the controversy. Burbank, however, says + that “acquired characters are transmitted, or I know nothing of + plant life.” + + A. H. Bradford, Heredity, 19, 20, illustrates the opposing views: + “Human life is not a clear stream flowing from the mountains, + receiving in its varied course something from a thousand rills and + rivulets on the surface and in the soil, so that it is no longer + pure as at the first. To this view of Darwin and Spencer, Weismann + and Haeckel oppose the view that human life is rather a stream + flowing underground from the mountains to the sea, and rising now + and then in fountains, some of which are saline, some sulphuric, + and some tinctured with iron; and that the differences are due + entirely to the soil passed through in breaking forth to the + surface, the mother-stream down and beneath all the salt, sulphur + and iron, flowing on toward the sea substantially unchanged. If + Darwin is correct, then we must change individuals in order to + change their posterity. If Weismann is correct, then we must + change environment in order that better individuals may be born. + That which is born of the Spirit is spirit; but that which is born + of spirit tainted by corruptions of the flesh is still tainted.” + + The conclusion best warranted by science seems to be that of + Wallace, in the Forum, August, 1890, namely, that there is always + a _tendency_ to transmit acquired characters, but that only those + which affect the blood and nervous system, like drunkenness and + syphilis, overcome the fixed habit of the organism and make + themselves permanent. Applying this principle now to the + connection of Adam with the race, we regard the sin of Adam as a + radical one, comparable only to the act of faith which merges the + soul in Christ. It was a turning away of the whole being from the + light and love of God, and a setting of the face toward darkness + and death. Every subsequent act was an act in the same direction, + but an act which manifested, not altered, the nature. This first + act of sin deprived the nature of all moral sustenance and growth, + except so far as the still immanent God counteracted the inherent + tendencies to evil. Adam’s posterity inherited his corrupt nature, + but they do not inherit any subsequently acquired characters, + either those of their first father or of their immediate + ancestors. + + Bascom, Comparative Psychology, chap. VII—“Modifications, however + great, like artificial disablement, that do not work into + physiological structure, do not transmit themselves. The more + conscious and voluntary our acquisitions are, the less are they + transmitted by inheritance.” Shaler, Interpretation of Nature, + 88—“Heredity and individual action may combine their forces and so + intensify one or more of the inherited motives that the form is + affected by it and the effect may be transmitted to the offspring. + So conflict of inheritances may lead to the institution of + variety. Accumulation of impulses may lead to sudden revolution, + and the species may be changed, not by environment, but by contest + between the host of inheritances.” Visiting the sins of the + fathers upon the children was thought to be outrageous doctrine, + so long as it was taught only in Scripture. It is now vigorously + applauded, since it takes the name of heredity. _Dale, Ephesians, + 189_—“When we were young, we fought with certain sins and killed + them; they trouble us no more; but their ghosts seem to rise from + their graves in the distant years and to clothe themselves in the + flesh and blood of our children.” See A. M. Marshall, Biological + Lectures, 273; Mivart, in Harper’s Magazine, March, 1895:682; + Bixby, Crisis in Morals, 176. + + +F. That, if all moral consequences are properly penalties, sin, considered +as a sinful nature, must be the punishment of sin, considered as the act +of our first parents. + +But we reply that the impropriety of punishing sin with sin vanishes when +we consider that the sin which is punished is our own, equally with the +sin with which we are punished. The objection is valid as against the +Federal theory or the theory of Mediate Imputation, but not as against the +theory of Adam’s Natural Headship. To deny that God, through the operation +of second causes, may punish the act of transgression by the habit and +tendency which result from it, is to ignore the facts of every-day life, +as well as the statements of Scripture in which sin is represented as ever +reproducing itself, and with each reproduction increasing its guilt and +punishment (Rom. 6:19; James 1:15.) + + + _Rom. 6:19_—“_as ye presented your members as servants to + uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity, even so now present + your members as servants to righteousness unto sanctification_”; + _Eph. 4:22_—“_waxeth corrupt after the lusts of deceit_”; _James + 1:15_—“_Then the lust, when it hath conceived, beareth sin: and + the sin, when it is full-grown, bringeth forth death_”; _2 Tim. + 3:13_—“_evil men and impostors shall wax worse and worse, + deceiving and being deceived._” See Meyer on _Rom. + 1:24_—“_Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts + unto uncleanness._” All effects become in their turn causes. + Schiller: “This is the very curse of evil deed, That of new evil + it becomes the seed.” Tennyson, Vision of Sin: “Behold it was a + crime Of sense, avenged by sense that wore with time. Another + said: The crime of sense became The crime of malice, and is equal + blame.” Whiton, Is Eternal Punishment Endless, 52—“The punishment + of sin essentially consists in the wider spread and stronger hold + of the malady of the soul. _Prov. 5:22_—‘_His own iniquities shall + take the wicked._’ The habit of sinning holds the wicked ‘_with + the cords of his sin_.’ Sin is self-perpetuating. The sinner + gravitates from worse to worse, in an ever-deepening fall.” The + least of our sins has in it a power of infinite expansion,—left to + itself it would flood a world with misery and destruction. + + Wisdom, 11:16—“Wherewithal a man sinneth, by the same also he + shall be punished.” Shakespeare, Richard II, 5:5—“I wasted time, + and now doth time waste me”; Richard III, 4:2—“I am in so far in + blood, that sin will pluck on sin”; Pericles, 1:1—“One sin I know + another doth provoke; Murder’s as near to lust as flame to smoke;” + King Lear, 5:3—“The gods are just, and of our pleasant vices Make + instruments to scourge us.” “Marlowe’s Faustus typifies the + continuous degradation of a soul that has renounced its ideal, and + the drawing on of one vice by another, for they go hand in hand + like the Hours” (James Russell Lowell). Mrs. Humphrey Ward, David + Grieve, 410—“After all, there’s not much hope when the craving + returns on a man of his age, especially after some years’ + interval.” + + +G. That the doctrine excludes all separate probation of individuals since +Adam, by making their moral life a mere manifestation of tendencies +received from him. + +We reply that the objection takes into view only our connection with the +race, and ignores the complementary and equally important fact of each +man’s personal will. That personal will does more than simply express the +nature; it may to a certain extent curb the nature, or it may, on the +other hand, add a sinful character and influence of its own. There is, in +other words, a remainder of freedom, which leaves room for personal +probation, in addition to the race-probation in Adam. + + + Kreibig, Versöhnungslehre, objects to the Augustinian view that if + personal sin proceeds from original, the only thing men are guilty + for is Adam’s sin; all subsequent sin is a spontaneous + development; the individual will can only manifest its inborn + character. But we reply that this is a misrepresentation of + Augustine. He does not thus lose sight of the remainders of + freedom in man (see references on page 620, in the statement of + Augustine’s view, and in the section following this, on Ability, + 640-644). He says that the corrupt tree may produce the wild fruit + of morality, though not the divine fruit of grace. It is not true + that the will is absolutely as the character. Though character is + the surest index as to what the decisions of the will may be, it + is not an infallible one. Adam’s first sin, and the sins of men + after regeneration, prove this. Irregular, spontaneous, + exceptional though these decisions are, they are still acts of the + will, and they show that the agent is not _bound_ by motives nor + by character. + + Here is our answer to the question whether it be not a sin to + propagate the race and produce offspring. Each child has a + personal will which may have a probation of its own and a chance + for deliverance. Denney, Studies in Theology, 87-99—“What we + inherit may be said to fix our trial, but not our fate. We belong + to God as well as to the past.” “_All souls are mine_” (_Ez. + 18:4_); “_Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice_” (_John + 18:37_). Thomas Fuller: “1. Roboam begat Abia; that is, a bad + father begat a bad son; 2. Abia begat Asa; that is, a bad father + begat a good son; & Asa begat Josaphat; that is, a good father a + good son; 4. Josaphat begat Joram; that is, a good father a bad + son. I see, Lord, from hence, that my father’s piety cannot be + entailed; that is bad news for me. But I see that actual impiety + is not always hereditary; that is good news for my son.” Butcher, + Aspects of Greek Genius, 121—Among the Greeks, “The popular view + was that guilt is inherited; that is, that the children are + punished for their fathers’ sins. The view of Æschylus, and of + Sophocles also, was that a tendency towards guilt was inherited, + but that this tendency does not annihilate man’s free will. If + therefore the children are punished, they are punished for their + own sins. But Sophocles saw the further truth that innocent + children may suffer for their fathers’ sins.” + + Julius Müller, Doc. Sin, 2:316—“The merely organic theory of sin + leads to naturalism, which endangers not only the doctrine of a + final judgment, but that of personal immortality generally.” In + preaching, therefore, we should begin with the known and + acknowledged sins of men. We should lay the same stress upon our + connection with Adam that the Scripture does, to explain the + problem of universal and inveterate sinful tendencies, to enforce + our need of salvation from this common ruin, and to illustrate our + connection with Christ. Scripture does not, and we need not, make + our responsibility for Adam’s sin the great theme of preaching. + See A. H. Strong, on Christian Individualism, and on The New + Theology, in Philosophy and Religion, 156-163, 164-179. + + +H. That the organic unity of the race in the transgression is a thing so +remote from common experience that the preaching of it neutralizes all +appeals to the conscience. + +But whatever of truth there is in this objection is due to the +self-isolating nature of sin. Men feel the unity of the family, the +profession, the nation to which they belong, and, just in proportion to +the breadth of their sympathies and their experience of divine grace, do +they enter into Christ’s feeling of unity with the race (_cf._ Is. 6:5; +Lam. 3:39-45; Ezra 9:6; Neh. 1:6). The fact that the self-contained and +self-seeking recognize themselves as responsible only for their personal +acts should not prevent our pressing upon men’s attention the more +searching standards of the Scriptures. Only thus can the Christian find a +solution for the dark problem of a corruption which is inborn yet +condemnable; only thus can the unregenerate man be led to a full knowledge +of the depth of his ruin and of his absolute dependence upon God for +salvation. + + + Identification of the individual with the nation or the race: _Is. + 6:5_—“_Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean + lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips_”; + _Lam. 3:42_—“_We have transgressed and have rebelled_”; _Ezra + 9:6_—“_I am ashamed and blush to lift up my face to thee, my God; + for our iniquities are increased over our head_”; _Neh. 1:6_—“_I + confess the sins of the children of Israel.... Yea, I and my + father’s house have sinned._” So God punishes all Israel for + David’s sin of pride; so the sins of Reuben, Canaan, Achan, + Gehazi, are visited on their children or descendants. + + H. B. Smith, System, 296, 297—“Under the moral government of God + one man may justly suffer on account of the sins of another. An + organic relation of men is regarded in the great judgment of God + in history.... There is evil which comes upon individuals, not as + punishment for their personal sins, but still as suffering which + comes under a moral government.... _Jer. 32:18_ reasserts the + declaration of the second commandment, that God visits the + iniquity of the fathers upon their children. It may be said that + all these are merely ‘consequences’ of family or tribal or + national or race relations,—‘Evil becomes cosmical by reason of + fastening on relations which were originally adapted to making + good cosmical:’ but then God’s _plan_ must be in the + consequences—a plan administered by a moral being, over moral + beings, according to moral considerations, and for moral ends; + and, if that be fully taken into view, the dispute as to + ’consequences’ or ’punishment’ becomes a merely verbal one.” + + There is a common conscience over and above the private + conscience, and it controls individuals, as appears in great + crises like those at which the fall of Fort Sumter summoned men to + defend the Union and the Proclamation of Emancipation sounded the + death-knell of slavery. Coleridge said that original sin is the + one mystery that makes all things clear; see Fisher, Nature and + Method of Revelation, 151-157. Bradford, Heredity, 34, quotes from + Elam, A Physician’s Problems, 5—“An acquired and habitual vice + will rarely fail to leave its trace upon one or more of the + offspring, either in its original form, or one closely allied. The + habit of the parent becomes the all but irresistible impulse of + the child; ... the organic tendency is excited to the uttermost, + and the power of will and of conscience is proportionally + weakened.... So the sins of the parents are visited upon the + children.” + + Pascal: “It is astonishing that the mystery which is furthest + removed from our knowledge—I mean the transmission of original + sin—should be that without which we have no true knowledge of + ourselves. It is in this abyss that the clue to our condition + takes its turnings and windings, insomuch that man is more + incomprehensible without the mystery than this mystery is + incomprehensible to man.” Yet Pascal’s perplexity was largely due + to his holding the Augustinian position that inherited sin is + damning and brings eternal death, while not holding to the + coördinate Augustinian position of a primary existence and act of + the species in Adam; see Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:18. Atomism is + egotistic. The purest and noblest feel most strongly that humanity + is not like a heap of sand-grains or a row of bricks set on end, + but that it is an organic unity. So the Christian feels for the + family and for the church. So Christ, in Gethsemane, felt for the + race. If it be said that the tendency of the Augustinian view is + to diminish the sense of guilt for personal sins, we reply that + only those who recognize _sins_ as rooted in _sin_ can properly + recognize the evil of them. To such they are _symptoms_ of an + apostasy from God so deep-seated and universal that nothing but + infinite grace can deliver us from it. + + +I. That a constitution by which the sin of one individual involves in +guilt and condemnation the nature of all men who descend from him is +contrary to God’s justice. + +We acknowledge that no human theory can fully solve the mystery of +imputation. But we prefer to attribute God’s dealings to justice rather +than to sovereignty. The following considerations, though partly +hypothetical, may throw light upon the subject: (_a_) A probation of our +common nature in Adam, sinless as he was and with full knowledge of God’s +law, is more consistent with divine justice than a separate probation of +each individual, with inexperience, inborn depravity, and evil example, +all favoring a decision against God. (_b_) A constitution which made a +common fall possible may have been indispensable to any provision of a +common salvation. (_c_) Our chance for salvation as sinners under grace +may be better than it would have been as sinless Adams under law. (_d_) A +constitution which permitted oneness with the first Adam in the +transgression cannot be unjust, since a like principle of oneness with +Christ, the second Adam, secures our salvation. (_e_) There is also a +_physical_ and _natural_ union with Christ which antedates the fall and +which is incident to man’s creation. The immanence of Christ in humanity +guarantees a continuous divine effort to remedy the disaster caused by +man’s free will, and to restore the _moral_ union with God which the race +has lost by the fall. + +Thus our ruin and our redemption were alike wrought out without personal +act of ours. As all the natural life of humanity was in Adam, so all the +spiritual life of humanity was in Christ. As our old nature was corrupted +in Adam and propagated to us by physical generation, so our new nature was +restored in Christ and communicated to us by the regenerating work of the +Holy Spirit. If then we are justified upon the ground of our inbeing in +Christ, we may in like manner be condemned on the ground of our inbeing in +Adam. + + + Stearns, in N. Eng., Jan. 1882:95—“The silence of Scripture + respecting the precise connection between the first great sin and + the sins of the millions of individuals who have lived since then + is a silence that neither science nor philosophy has been, or is, + able to break with a satisfactory explanation. Separate the + twofold nature of man, corporate and individual. Recognize in the + one the region of necessity; in the other the region of freedom. + The scientific law of heredity has brought into new currency the + doctrine which the old theologians sought to express under the + name of original sin,—a term which had a meaning as it was at + first used by Augustine, but which is an awkward misnomer if we + accept any other theory but his.” + + Dr. Hovey claims that the Augustinian view breaks down when + applied to the connection between the justification of believers + and the righteousness of Christ; for believers were not in Christ, + as to the substance of their souls, when he wrought out redemption + for them. But we reply that the life of Christ which makes us + Christians is the same life which made atonement upon the cross + and which rose from the grave for our justification. The parallel + between Adam and Christ is of the nature of analogy, not of + identity. With Adam, we have a connection of physical life; with + Christ, a connection of spiritual life. + + Stahl, Philosophie des Rechts, quoted in Olshausen’s Com. on _Rom. + 5:12-21_—“Adam is the original _matter_ of humanity; Christ is its + original _idea_ in God; both personally living. Mankind is one in + them. Therefore Adam’s sin became the sin of all; Christ’s + sacrifice the atonement for all. Every leaf of a tree may be green + or wither by itself; but each suffers by the disease of the root, + and recovers only by its healing. The shallower the man, so much + more isolated will everything appear to him; for upon the surface + all lies apart. He will see in mankind, in the nation, nay, even + in the family, mere individuals, where the act of the one has no + connection with that of the other. The profounder the man, the + more do these inward relations of unity, proceeding from the very + centre, force themselves upon him. Yea, the love of our neighbor + is itself nothing but the deep feeling of this unity; for we love + him only, with whom we feel and acknowledge ourselves to be one. + What the Christian love of our neighbor is for the heart, that + unity of race is for the understanding. If sin through one, and + redemption through one, is not possible, the command to love our + neighbor is also unintelligible. Christian ethics and Christian + faith are therefore in truth indissolubly united. Christianity + effects in history an advance like that from the animal kingdom to + man, by its revealing the essential unity of men, the + consciousness of which in the ancient world had vanished when the + nations were separated.” + + If the sins of the parents were not visited upon the children, + neither could their virtues be; the possibility of the one + involves the possibility of the other. If the guilt of our first + father could not be transmitted to all who derive their life from + him, then the justification of Christ could not be transmitted to + all who derive their life from him. We do not, however, see any + Scripture warrant for the theory that all men are justified from + original sin by virtue of their natural connection with Christ. He + who is the life of all men bestows manifold temporal blessings + upon the ground of his atonement. But justification from sin is + conditioned upon conscious surrender of the human will and trust + in the divine mercy. The immanent Christ is ever urging man + individually and collectively toward such decision. But the + acceptance or rejection of the offered grace is left to man’s free + will. This principle enables us properly to estimate the view of + Dr. Henry E. Robins which follows. + + H. E. Robins, Harmony of Ethics with Theology, 51—“All men born of + Adam stand in such a relation to Christ that salvation is their + birthright under promise—a birthright which can only be forfeited + by their intelligent, personal, moral action, as was Esau’s.” Dr. + Robins holds to an inchoate justification of all—a justification + which becomes actual and complete only when the soul closes with + Christ’s offer to the sinner. We prefer to say that humanity in + Christ is ideally justified because Christ himself is justified, + but that individual men are justified only when they consciously + appropriate his offered grace or surrender themselves to his + renewing Spirit. Allen, Jonathan Edwards, 312—“The grace of God is + as organic in its relation to man as is the evil in his nature. + Grace also reigns wherever justice reigns.” William Ashmore, on + the New Trial of the Sinner, in Christian Review, + 26:245-264—“There is a gospel of nature commensurate with the law + of nature; _Rom. 3:22_—‘_unto all, and upon all them that + believe_’; the first ‘_all_’ is unlimited; the second ‘_all_’ is + limited to those who believe.” + + R. W. Dale, Ephesians, 180—“Our fortunes were identified with the + fortunes of Christ; in the divine thought and purpose we were + inseparable from him. Had we been true and loyal to the divine + idea, the energy of Christ’s righteousness would have drawn us + upward to height after height of goodness and joy, until we + ascended from this earthly life to the larger powers and loftier + services and richer delights of other and diviner worlds; and + still, through one golden age of intellectual and ethical and + spiritual growth after another, we should have continued to rise + towards Christ’s transcendent and infinite perfection. But we + sinned; and as the union between Christ and us could not be broken + without the final and irrevocable defeat of the divine purpose, + Christ was drawn down from the serene heavens to the confused and + troubled life of our race, to pain, to temptation, to anguish, to + the cross and to the grave, and so the mystery of his atonement + for our sin was consummated.” + + For replies to the foregoing and other objections, see Schaff, in + Bib. Sac., 5:230; Shedd, Sermons to the Nat. Man, 266-284; Baird, + Elohim Revealed, 507-509, 529-544; Birks, Difficulties of Belief, + 134-188; Edwards, Original Sin, in Works, 2:473-510; Atwater, on + Calvinism in Doctrine and Life, in Princeton Review, 1875:73; + Stearns, Evidence of Christian Experience, 96-100. _Per contra_, + see Moxom, in Bap. Rev., 1881:273-287; Park, Discourses, 210-233; + Bradford, Heredity, 237. + + + +Section VI.—Consequences Of Sin To Adam’s Posterity. + + +As the result of Adam’s transgression, all his posterity are born in the +same state into which he fell. But since law is the all-comprehending +demand of harmony with God, all moral consequences flowing from +transgression are to be regarded as sanctions of law, or expressions of +the divine displeasure through the constitution of things which he has +established. Certain of these consequences, however, are earlier +recognized than others and are of minor scope; it will therefore be useful +to consider them under the three aspects of depravity, guilt, and penalty. + + +I. Depravity. + + +By this we mean, on the one hand, the lack of original righteousness or of +holy affection toward God, and, on the other hand, the corruption of the +moral nature, or bias toward evil. That such depravity exists has been +abundantly shown, both from Scripture and from reason, in our +consideration of the universality of sin. + + + Salvation is twofold: deliverance from the evil—the penalty and + the power of sin; and accomplishment of the good—likeness to God + and realization of the true idea of humanity. It includes all + these for the race as well as for the individual: removal of the + barriers that keep men from each other; and the perfecting of + society in communion with God; or, in other words, the kingdom of + God on earth. It was the nature of man, when he first came from + the hand of God, to fear, love, and trust God above all things. + This tendency toward God has been lost; sin has altered and + corrupted man’s innermost nature. In place of this bent toward God + there is a fearful bent toward evil. Depravity is both + negative—absence of love and of moral likeness to God—and + positive—presence of manifold tendencies to evil. Two questions + only need detain us: + + +1. Depravity partial or total? + + +The Scriptures represent human nature as totally depraved. The phrase +“total depravity,” however, is liable to misinterpretation, and should not +be used without explanation. By the total depravity of universal humanity +we mean: + +A. Negatively,—not that every sinner is: (_a_) Destitute of +conscience,—for the existence of strong impulses to right, and of remorse +for wrong-doing, show that conscience is often keen; (_b_) devoid of all +qualities pleasing to men, and useful when judged by a human standard,—for +the existence of such qualities is recognized by Christ; (_c_) prone to +every form of sin,—for certain forms of sin exclude certain others; (_d_) +intense as he can be in his selfishness and opposition to God,—for he +becomes worse every day. + + + (_a_) _John 8:9_—“_And they, when they heard it, went out one by + one, beginning from the eldest, even unto the last_” (_John + 7:53-8:11_, though not written by John, is a perfectly true + narrative, descended from the apostolic age). The muscles of a + dead frog’s leg will contract when a current of electricity is + sent into them. So the dead soul will thrill at touch of the + divine law. Natural conscience, combined with the principle of + self-love, may even prompt choice of the good, though no love for + God is in the choice. Bengel: “We have lost our likeness to God; + but there remains notwithstanding an indelible nobility which we + ought to revere both in ourselves and in others. We still have + remained men, to be conformed to that likeness, through the divine + blessing to which man’s will should subscribe. This they forget + who speak evil of human nature. Absalom fell out of his father’s + favor; but the people, for all that, recognized in him the son of + the king.” + + (_b_) _Mark 10:21_—“_And Jesus looking upon him loved him._” These + very qualities, however, may show that their possessors are + sinning against great light and are the more guilty; _cf._ _Mal. + 1:6_—“_A son honoreth his father, and a servant his master: if + then I am a father, where is mine honor? and if I am a master, + where is my fear?_” John Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, + 2:75—“The assertor of the total depravity of human nature, of its + absolute blindness and incapacity, presupposes in himself and in + others the presence of a criterion or principle of good, in virtue + of which he discerns himself to be wholly evil; yet the very + proposition that human nature is wholly evil would be + unintelligible unless it were false.... Consciousness of sin is a + negative sign of the possibility of restoration. But it is not in + itself proof that the possibility will become actuality.” A ruined + temple may have beautiful fragments of fluted columns, but it is + no proper habitation for the god for whose worship it was built. + + (_c_) _Mat. 23:23_—“_ye tithe mint and anise and cummin, and have + left undone the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy, + and faith: but these ye ought to have done, and not to have left + the other undone_”; _Rom. 2:14_—“_when Gentiles that have not the + law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, + are the law unto themselves; in that they show the work of the law + written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness + therewith._” The sin of miserliness may exclude the sin of luxury; + the sin of pride may exclude the sin of sensuality. Shakespeare, + Othello, 2:3—“It hath pleased the devil Drunkenness to give place + to the devil Wrath.” Franklin Carter, Life of Mark Hopkins, + 321-323—Dr. Hopkins did not think that the sons of God should + describe themselves as once worms or swine or vipers. Yet he held + that man could sink to a degradation below the brute: “No brute is + any more capable of rebelling against God than of serving him; is + any more capable of sinking below the level of its own nature than + of rising to the level of man. No brute can be either a fool or a + fiend.... In the way that sin and corruption came into the + spiritual realm we find one of those analogies to what takes place + in the lower forms of being that show the unity of the system + throughout. All disintegration and corruption of matter is from + the domination of a lower over a higher law. The body begins to + return to its original elements as the lower chemical and physical + forces begin to gain ascendancy over the higher force of life. In + the same way all sin and corruption in man is from his yielding to + a lower law or principle of action in opposition to the demands of + one that is higher.” + + (_d_) _Gen. 15:16_—“_the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet + full_”; _2 Tim. 3:13_—“_evil men and impostors shall wax worse and + worse._” Depravity is not simply being deprived of good. + Depravation (_de_, and _pravus_, crooked, perverse) is more than + deprivation. Left to himself man tends downward, and his sin + increases day by day. But there is a divine influence within which + quickens conscience and kindles aspiration for better things. The + immanent Christ is “_the light which lighteth every man_” (_John + 1:9_). Prof. Wm. Adams Brown: “In so far as God’s Spirit is at + work among men and they receive ‘_the Light which lighteth every + man_,’ we must qualify our statement of total depravity. Depravity + is not so much a state as a tendency. With growing complexity of + life, sin becomes more complex. Adam’s sin was not the worst. ‘_It + shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of + judgment, than for thee_’ (_Mat. 11:24_).” + + Men are not yet in the condition of demons. Only here and there + have they attained to “a disinterested love of evil.” Such men are + few, and they were not born so. There are degrees in depravity. E. + G. Robinson: “There is a good streak left in the devil yet.” Even + Satan will become worse than he now is. The phrase “total + depravity” has respect only to relations to God, and it means + incapability of doing anything which in the sight of God is a good + act. No act is perfectly good that does not proceed from a true + heart and constitute an expression of that heart. Yet we have no + right to say that every act of an unregenerate man is displeasing + to God. Right acts from right motives are good, whether performed + by a Christian or by one who is unrenewed in heart. Such acts, + however, are always prompted by God, and thanks for them are due + to God and not to him who performed them. + + +B. Positively,—that every sinner is: (_a_) totally destitute of that love +to God which constitutes the fundamental and all-inclusive demand of the +law; (_b_) chargeable with elevating some lower affection or desire above +regard for God and his law; (_c_) supremely determined, in his whole +inward and outward life, by a preference of self to God; (_d_) possessed +of an aversion to God which, though sometimes latent, becomes active +enmity, so soon as God’s will comes into manifest conflict with his own; +(_e_) disordered and corrupted in every faculty, through this substitution +of selfishness for supreme affection toward God; (_f_) credited with no +thought, emotion, or act of which divine holiness can fully approve; (_g_) +subject to a law of constant progress in depravity, which he has no +recuperative energy to enable him successfully to resist. + + + (_a_) _John 5:42_—“_But I know you, that ye have not the love of + God in yourselves._” (_b_) _2 Tim. 3:4_—“_lovers of pleasure + rather than lovers of God_”; _cf._ _Mal 1:6_—“_A son honoreth his + father, and a servant his master: if then I am a father, where is + mine honor? and if I am a master, where is my fear?_” (_c_) _2 + Tim. 3:2_—“_lovers of self_”; (_d_) _Rom. 8:7_—“_the mind of the + flesh is enmity against God._” (_e_) _Eph. 4:18_—“_darkened in + their understanding.... hardening of their heart_”; _Tit. + 1:15_—“_both their mind and their conscience are defiled_”; _2 + Cor. 7:1_—“_defilement of flesh and spirit_”; _Heb. 3:12_—“_an + evil heart of unbelief_”; (_f_) _Rom. 3:9_—“_they are all under + sin_”; _7:18_—“_in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good + thing._” (_g_) _Rom. 7:18_—“_to will is present with me, but to do + that which is good is not_”; _23_—“_law in my members, warring + against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under + the law of sin which is in my members._” + + Every sinner would prefer a milder law and a different + administration. But whoever does not love God’s law does not truly + love God. The sinner seeks to secure his own interests rather than + God’s. Even so-called religious acts he performs with preference + of his own good to God’s glory. He disobeys, and always has + disobeyed, the fundamental law of love. He is like a railway train + on a down grade, and the brakes must be applied by God or + destruction is sure. There are latent passions in every heart + which if let loose would curse the world. Many a man who escaped + from the burning Iroquois Theatre in Chicago, proved himself a + brute and a demon, by trampling down fugitives who cried for + mercy. Denney, Studies in Theology, 83—“The depravity which sin + has produced in human nature extends to the whole of it. There is + no part of man’s nature which is unaffected by it. Man’s nature is + all of a piece, and what affects it at all affects it altogether. + When the conscience is violated by disobedience to the will of + God, the moral understanding is darkened, and the will is + enfeebled. We are not constructed in water-tight compartments, one + of which might be ruined while the others remained intact.” Yet + over against total depravity, we must set total redemption; over + against original sin, original grace. Christ is in every human + heart mitigating the affects of sin, urging to repentance, and + “_able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God + through him_” (_Heb. 7:25_). Even the unregenerate heathen may + “_put away ... the old man_” and “_put on the new man_” (_Eph. + 4:23, 24_), being delivered “_out of the body of this death ... + through Jesus Christ our Lord_” (_Rom. 7:24, 25_). + + H. B. Smith, System, 277—“By total depravity is never meant that + men are as bad as they can be; nor that they have not, in their + natural condition, certain amiable qualities; nor that they may + not have virtues in a limited sense (_justitia civilis_). But it + is meant (1) that depravity, or the sinful condition of man, + infects the whole man: intellect, feeling, heart and will; (2) + that in each unrenewed person some lower affection is supreme; and + (3) that each such is destitute of love to God. On these + positions: as to (1) the power of depravity over the _whole_ man, + we have given proof from Scripture; as to (2) the fact that in + every unrenewed man some lower affection is supreme, experience + may be always appealed to; men know that their supreme affection + is fixed on some lower good—intellect, heart, and will going + together in it; or that some form of selfishness is + predominant—using selfish in a general sense—self seeks its + happiness in some inferior object, giving to that its supreme + affection; as to (3) that every unrenewed person is without + supreme love to God, it is the point which is of greatest force, + and is to be urged with the strongest effect, in setting forth the + depth and ‘totality’ of man’s sinfulness: unrenewed men have not + that supreme love of God which is the substance of the first and + great command.” See also Shedd, Discourses and Essays, 248; Baird, + Elohim Revealed, 510-522; Chalmers, Institutes, 1:519-542; + Cunningham, Hist. Theology, 1:516-531; Princeton Review, 1877:470. + + +2. Ability or inability? + + +In opposition to the plenary ability taught by the Pelagians, the gracious +ability of the Arminians, and the natural ability of the New School +theologians, the Scriptures declare the total inability of the sinner to +turn himself to God or to do that which is truly good in God’s sight (see +Scripture proof below). A proper conception also of the law, as reflecting +the holiness of God and as expressing the ideal of human nature, leads us +to the conclusion that no man whose powers are weakened by either original +or actual sin can of himself come up to that perfect standard. Yet there +is a certain remnant of freedom left to man. The sinner _can_ (_a_) avoid +the sin against the Holy Ghost; (_b_) choose the less sin rather than the +greater; (_c_) refuse altogether to yield to certain temptations; (_d_) do +outwardly good acts, though with imperfect motives; (_e_) seek God from +motives of self-interest. + +But on the other hand the sinner _cannot_ (_a_) by a single volition bring +his character and life into complete conformity to God’s law; (_b_) change +his fundamental preference for self and sin to supreme love for God; nor +(_c_) do any act, however insignificant, which shall meet with God’s +approval or answer fully to the demands of law. + + + So long, then, as there are states of intellect, affection and + will which man cannot, by any power of volition or of contrary + choice remaining to him, bring into subjection to God, it cannot + be said that he possesses any sufficient ability of himself to do + God’s will; and if a basis for man’s responsibility and guilt be + sought, it must be found, if at all, not in his plenary ability, + his gracious ability, or his natural ability, but in his + _original_ ability, when he came, in Adam, from the hands of his + Maker. + + Man’s present inability is natural, in the sense of being + inborn,—it is not acquired by our personal act, but is congenital. + It is not natural, however, as resulting from the original + limitations of human nature, or from the subsequent loss of any + essential faculty of that nature. Human nature, at its first + creation, was endowed with ability perfectly to keep the law of + God. Man has not, even by his sin, lost his essential faculties of + intellect, affection, or will. He has weakened those faculties, + however, so that they are now unable to work up to the normal + measure of their powers. But more especially has man given to + every faculty a bent away from God which renders him morally + unable to render spiritual obedience. The inability to good which + now characterizes human nature is an inability that results from + sin, and is itself sin. + + We hold, therefore, to an inability which is both natural and + moral,—moral, as having its source in the self-corruption of man’s + moral nature and the fundamental aversion of his will to + God;—natural, as being inborn, and as affecting with partial + paralysis all his natural powers of intellect, affection, + conscience, and will. For his inability, in both these aspects of + it, man is responsible. + + The sinner can do one very important thing, _viz._: give attention + to divine truth. _Ps. 119:59_—“_I thought on my ways, And turned + my feet unto thy testimonies._” G. W. Northrup: “The sinner can + seek God from: (_a_) self-love, regard for his own interest; (_b_) + feeling of duty, sense of obligation, awakened conscience; (_c_) + gratitude for blessings already received; (_d_) aspiration after + the infinite and satisfying.” Denney, Studies in Theology, 85—“A + witty French moralist has said that God does not need to grudge to + his enemies even what they call their virtues; and neither do + God’s ministers.... But there is _one_ thing which man cannot do + _alone_,—he cannot bring his state into harmony with his nature. + When a man has been discovered who has been able, without Christ, + to reconcile himself to God and to obtain dominion over the world + and over sin, _then_ the doctrine of inability, or of the bondage + due to sin, may be denied; _then_, but _not till then_.” The Free + Church of Scotland, in the Declaratory Act of 1892, says “that, in + holding and teaching, according to the Confession of Faith, the + corruption of man’s whole nature as fallen, this church also + maintains that there remain tokens of his greatness as created in + the image of God; that he possesses a knowledge of God and of + duty; that he is responsible for compliance with the moral law and + with the gospel; and that, although unable without the aid of the + Holy Spirit to return to God, he is yet capable of affections and + actions which in themselves are virtuous and praiseworthy.” + + +To the use of the term “natural ability” to designate merely the sinner’s +possession of all the constituent faculties of human nature, we object +upon the following grounds: + +A. Quantitative lack.—The phrase “natural ability” is misleading, since it +seems to imply that the existence of the mere powers of intellect, +affection, and will is a sufficient quantitative qualification for +obedience to God’s law, whereas these powers have been weakened by sin, +and are naturally unable, instead of naturally able, to render back to God +with interest the talent first bestowed. Even if the moral direction of +man’s faculties were a normal one, the effect of hereditary and of +personal sin would render naturally impossible that large likeness to God +which the law of absolute perfection demands. Man has not therefore the +natural ability perfectly to obey God. He had it once, but he lost it with +the first sin. + + + When Jean Paul Richter says of himself: “I have made of myself all + that could be made out of the stuff,” he evinces a + self-complacency which is due to self-ignorance and lack of moral + insight. When a man realizes the extent of the law’s demands, he + sees that without divine help obedience is impossible. John B. + Gough represented the confirmed drunkard’s efforts at reformation + as a man’s walking up Mount Etna knee-deep in burning lava, or as + one’s rowing against the rapids of Niagara. + + +B. Qualitative lack.—Since the law of God requires of men not so much +right single volitions as conformity to God in the whole inward state of +the affections and will, the power of contrary choice in single volitions +does not constitute a natural ability to obey God, unless man can by those +single volitions change the underlying state of the affections and will. +But this power man does not possess. Since God judges all moral action in +connection with the general state of the heart and life, natural ability +to good involves not only a full complement of faculties but also a bias +of the affections and will toward God. Without this bias there is no +possibility of right moral action, and where there is no such possibility, +there can be no ability either natural or moral. + + + Wilkinson, Epic of Paul, 21—“Hatred is like love Herein, that it, + by only being, grows. Until at last usurping quite the man, It + overgrows him like a polypus.” John Caird, Fund. Ideas, 1:53—“The + ideal is the revelation in me of a power that is mightier than my + own. The supreme command ‘Thou oughtest’ is the utterance, only + different in form, of the same voice in my spirit which says ‘Thou + canst’; and my highest spiritual attainments are achieved, not by + self-assertion, but by self-renunciation and self-surrender to the + infinite life of truth and righteousness that is living and + reigning within me.” This conscious inability in one’s self, + together with reception of “_the strength which God supplieth_” + (_1 Pet. 4:11_), is the secret of Paul’s courage; _2 Cor. + 12:10_—“_when I am weak, then am I strong_”; _Phil. 2:12, + 13_—“_work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it + is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good + pleasure._” + + +C. No such ability known.—In addition to the psychological argument just +mentioned, we may urge another from experience and observation. These +testify that man is cognizant of no such ability. Since no man has ever +yet, by the exercise of his natural powers, turned himself to God or done +an act truly good in God’s sight, the existence of a natural ability to do +good is a pure assumption. There is no scientific warrant for inferring +the existence of an ability which has never manifested itself in a single +instance since history began. + + + “Solomon could not keep the Proverbs,—so he wrote them.” The book + of Proverbs needs for its complement the New Testament explanation + of helplessness and offer of help: _John 15:5_—“_apart from me ye + can do nothing_”; _6:37_—“_him that cometh to me I will in no wise + cast out._” The palsied man’s inability to walk is very different + from his indisposition to accept a remedy. The paralytic cannot + climb the cliff, but by a rope let down to him he may be lifted + up, provided he will permit himself to be tied to it. Darling, in + Presb. and Ref. Rev., July, 1901:505—“If bidden, we can stretch + out a withered arm; but God does not require this of one born + armless. We may ‘_hear the voice of the Son of God_’ and ‘_live_’ + (_John 5:25_), but we shall not bring out of the tomb faculties + not possessed before death.” + + +D. Practical evil of the belief.—The practical evil attending the +preaching of natural ability furnishes a strong argument against it. The +Scriptures, in their declarations of the sinner’s inability and +helplessness, aim to shut him up to sole dependence upon God for +salvation. The doctrine of natural ability, assuring him that he is able +at once to repent and turn to God, encourages delay by putting salvation +at all times within his reach. If a single volition will secure it, he may +be saved as easily to-morrow as to-day. The doctrine of inability presses +men to immediate acceptance of God’s offers, lest the day of grace for +them pass by. + + + Those who care most for self are those in whom self becomes + thoroughly subjected and enslaved to external influences. _Mat. + 16:25_—“_whosoever would save his life shall lose it._” The + selfish man is a straw on the surface of a rushing stream. He + becomes more and more a victim of circumstance, until at last he + has no more freedom than the brute. _Ps. 49:20_—“_Man that is in + honor, and understandeth not, Is like the beasts that perish_;” + see R. T. Smith, Man’s Knowledge of Man and of God, 121. Robert + Browning, unpublished poem: “ ‘Would a man ’scape the rod?’ Rabbi + Ben Karshook saith, ‘See that he turn to God The day before his + death.’ ‘Aye, could a man inquire When it shall come?’ I say. The + Rabbi’s eye shoots fire—‘Then let him turn to-day.’ ” + + +Let us repeat, however, that the denial to man of all ability, whether +natural or moral, to turn himself to God or to do that which is truly good +in God’s sight, does not imply a denial of man’s power to order his +external life in many particulars conformably to moral rules, or even to +attain the praise of men for virtue. Man has still a range of freedom in +acting out his nature, and he may to a certain limited extent act down +upon that nature, and modify it, by isolated volitions externally +conformed to God’s law. He may choose higher or lower forms of selfish +action, and may pursue these chosen courses with various degrees of +selfish energy. Freedom of choice, within this limit, is by no means +incompatible with complete bondage of the will in spiritual things. + + + _John 1:13_—“_born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, + nor of the will of man, but of God_”; _3:5_—“_Except one be born + of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of + God_”; _6:44_—“_No man can come to me, except the Father that sent + me draw him_”; _8:34_—“_Every one that committeth sin is the + bondservant of sin_”; _15:4, 5_—“_the branch cannot bear fruit of + itself ... apart from me ye can do nothing_”; _Rom. 7:18_—“_in me, + that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing; for to will is + present with me, but to do that which it good is not_”; + _24_—“_Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of the + body of this death?_” _8:7, 8_—“_the mind of the flesh is enmity + against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither + indeed can it be: and they that are is the flesh cannot please + God_”; _1 Cor. 2:14_—“_the natural man receiveth not the things of + the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; __ and he + cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged_”; _2 Cor. + 3:5_—“_not that we are sufficient of ourselves, to account + anything as from ourselves_”; _Eph. 2:1_—“_dead through your + trespasses and sins_”; _8-10_—“_by grace have ye been saved + through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; + not of works, that no man should glory. For we are his + workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works_”; _Heb. + 11:6_—“_without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto + him._” + + Kant’s “I ought, therefore I can” is the relic of man’s original + consciousness of freedom—the freedom with which man was endowed at + his creation—a freedom, now, alas! destroyed by sin. Or it may be + the courage of the soul in which God is working anew by his + Spirit. For Kant’s “Ich soll, also Ich kann,” Julius Müller would + substitute: “Ich sollte freilich können, aber Ich kann nicht”—“I + ought indeed to be able, but I am not able.” Man truly repents + only when he learns that his sin has made him unable to repent + without the renewing grace of God. Emerson, in his poem entitled + “Voluntariness,” says: “So near is grandeur to our dust, So near + is God to man, When duty whispers low, _Thou must_, The youth + replies, _I can_.” But, apart from special grace, all the ability + which man at present possesses comes far short of fulfilling the + spiritual demands of God’s law. Parental and civil law implies a + certain kind of power. Puritan theology called man “_free among + the dead_” (_Ps. 88:5_, A. V.). There was a range of freedom + inside of slavery,—the will was “a drop of water imprisoned in a + solid crystal” (Oliver Wendell Holmes). The man who kills himself + is as dead as if he had been killed by another (Shedd, Dogm. + Theol., 2:106). + + Westminster Confession, 9:3—“Man by his fall into a state of sin + hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good + accompanying salvation; so, as a natural man, being altogether + averse from that good and dead in sin, he is not able by his own + strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.” + Hopkins, Works, 1:233-235—“So long as the sinner’s opposition of + heart and will continues, he cannot come to Christ. It is + impossible, and will continue so, until his unwillingness and + opposition be removed by a change and renovation of his heart by + divine grace, and he be made willing in the day of God’s power.” + Hopkins speaks of “utter inability to obey the law of God, yea, + utter impossibility.” + + Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:257-277—“Inability consists, not in the + loss of any faculty of the soul, nor in the loss of free agency, + for the sinner determines his own acts, nor in mere disinclination + to what is good. It arises from want of spiritual discernment, and + hence want of proper affections. Inability belongs only to the + things of the Spirit. What man cannot do is to repent, believe, + regenerate himself. He cannot put forth any act which merits the + approbation of God. Sin cleaves to all he does, and from its + dominion he cannot free himself. The distinction between natural + and moral ability is of no value. Shall we say that the uneducated + man can understand and appreciate the Iliad, because he has all + the faculties that the scholar has? Shall we say that man can love + God, if he will? This is false, if will means volition. It is a + truism, if will means affection. The Scriptures never thus address + men and tell them that they have power to do all that God + requires. It is dangerous to teach a man this, for until a man + feels that he can do nothing, God never saves him. Inability is + involved in the doctrine of original sin; in the necessity of the + Spirit’s influence in regeneration. Inability is consistent with + obligation, when inability arises from sin and is removed by the + removal of sin.” + + Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:213-257, and in South Church Sermons, + 33-59—“The origin of this helplessness lies, not in creation, but + in sin. God can command the ten talents or the five which he + originally committed to us, together with a diligent and faithful + improvement of them. Because the servant has lost the talents, is + he discharged from obligation to return them with interest? Sin + contains in itself the element of servitude. In the very act of + transgressing the law of God, there is a reflex action of the + human will upon itself, whereby it becomes less able than before + to keep that law. Sin is the suicidal action of the human will. To + do wrong destroys the power to do right. Total depravity carries + with it total impotence. The voluntary faculty may be ruined from + within; may be made impotent to holiness, by its own action; may + surrender itself to appetite and selfishness with such an + intensity and earnestness, that it becomes unable to convert + itself and overcome its wrong inclination.” See Stevenson, Dr. + Jekyll and Mr. Hyde,—noticed in Andover Rev., June, 1886:664. We + can merge ourselves in the life of another—either bad or good; can + almost transform ourselves into Satan or into Christ, so as to say + with Paul, in _Gal 2:20_—“_it is no longer I that live, but Christ + liveth in me_”; or be minions of “_the spirit that now worketh in + the sons of disobedience_” (_Eph. 2:2_). But if we yield ourselves + to the influence of Satan, the recovery of our true personality + becomes increasingly difficult, and at last impossible. + + There is nothing in literature sadder or more significant than the + self-bewailing of Charles Lamb, the gentle Elia, who writes in his + Last Essays, 214—“Could the youth to whom the flavor of the first + wine is delicious as the opening scenes of life or the entering of + some newly discovered paradise, look into my desolation, and be + made to understand what a dreary thing it is when he shall feel + himself going down a precipice with open eyes and a passive will; + to see his destruction, and have no power to stop it; to see all + goodness emptied out of him, and yet not be able to forget a time + when it was otherwise; to bear about the piteous spectacle of his + own ruin,—could he see my fevered eye, fevered with the last + night’s drinking, and feverishly looking for to-night’s repetition + of the folly; could he but feel the body of this death out of + which I cry hourly, with feebler outcry, to be delivered, it were + enough to make him dash the sparkling beverage to the earth, in + all the pride of its mantling temptation.” + + For the Arminian “gracious ability,” see Raymond, Syst. Theol., + 2:130; McClintock & Strong, Cyclopædia, 10:990. _Per contra_, see + Calvin, Institutes, bk. 2, chap. 2 (1:282); Edwards, Works, 2:464 + (Orig. Sin, 3:1); Bennet Tyler, Works, 73; Baird, Elohim Revealed, + 523-528; Cunningham, Hist. Theology, 1:567-639; Turretin, 10:4:19; + A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, 260-269; Thornwell, Theology, + 1:394-399; Alexander, Moral Science, 89-208; Princeton Essays, + 1:224-239; Richards, Lectures on Theology. On real as + distinguished from formal freedom, see Julius Müller, Doct. Sin, + 2:1-225. On Augustine’s _lineamenta extrema_ (of the divine image + in man), see Wiggers, Augustinism and Pelagianism, 119, note. See + also art. by A. H. Strong, on Modified Calvinism, or Remainders of + Freedom in Man, in Bap. Rev., 1883:219-242; and reprinted in the + author’s Philosophy and Religion, 114-128. + + +II. Guilt. + + +1. Nature of guilt. + + +By guilt we mean desert of punishment, or obligation to render +satisfaction to God’s justice for self-determined violation of law. There +is a reaction of holiness against sin, which the Scripture denominates +“the wrath of God” (Rom. 1:18). Sin is in us, either as act or state; +God’s punitive righteousness is over against the sinner, as something to +be feared; guilt is a relation of the sinner to that righteousness, +namely, the sinner’s desert of punishment. + + + Guilt is related to sin as the burnt spot to the blaze. Schiller, + Die Braut von Messina: “Das Leben ist der Güter höchstes nicht; + Der Uebel grösstes aber ist die Schuld”—“Life is not the highest + of possessions; the greatest of ills, however, is guilt.” + Delitzsch: “Die Schamröthe ist die Abendröthe der untergegangenen + Sonne der ursprünglichen Gerechtigkeit”—“The blush of shame is the + evening red after the sun of original righteousness has gone + down.” E. G. Robinson: “Pangs of conscience do not arise from the + fear of penalty,—they are the penalty itself.” See chapter on + Fig-leaves, in McIlvaine, Wisdom of Holy Scripture, + 142-154—“Spiritual shame for sin sought an outward symbol, and + found it in the nakedness of the lower parts of the body.” + + +The following remarks may serve both for proof and for explanation: + +A. Guilt is incurred only through self-determined transgression either on +the part of man’s nature or person. We are guilty only of that sin which +we have originated or have had part in originating. Guilt is not, +therefore, mere liability to punishment, without participation in the +transgression for which the punishment is inflicted,—in other words, there +is no such thing as constructive guilt under the divine government. We are +accounted guilty only for what we have done, either personally or in our +first parents, and for what we are, in consequence of such doing. + + + _Ez. 18:20_—“_the son shall not bear the iniquity of the + father_”—, as Calvin says (Com. _in loco_): “The son shall not + bear the father’s iniquity, since he shall receive the reward due + to himself, and shall bear his own burden.... All are guilty + through their own fault.... Every one perishes through his own + iniquity.” In other words, the whole race fell in Adam, and is + punished for its own sin in him, not for the sins of immediate + ancestors, nor for the sin of Adam as a person foreign to us. + _John 9:3_—“_Neither did this man sin, nor his parents_” (that he + should be born blind)—Do not attribute to any special later sin + what is a consequence of the sin of the race—the first sin which + “brought death into the world, and all our woe.” Shedd, Dogm. + Theol., 2:195-213. + + +B. Guilt is an objective result of sin, and is not to be confounded with +subjective pollution, or depravity. Every sin, whether of nature or +person, is an offense against God (Ps. 51:4-6), an act or state of +opposition to his will, which has for its effect God’s personal wrath (Ps. +7:11; John 3:18, 36), and which must be expiated either by punishment or +by atonement (Heb. 9:22). Not only does sin, as unlikeness to the divine +purity, involve _pollution_,—it also, as antagonism to God’s holy will, +involves _guilt_. This guilt, or obligation to satisfy the outraged +holiness of God, is explained in the New Testament by the terms “debtor” +and “debt” (Mat. 6:12; Luke 13:4; Mat. 5:21; Rom. 3:19; 6:23; Eph. 2:3). +Since guilt, the objective result of sin, is entirely distinct from +depravity, the subjective result, human nature may, as in Christ, have the +guilt without the depravity (2 Cor. 5:21), or may, as in the Christian, +have the depravity without the guilt (1 John 1:7, 8). + + + _Ps. 51:4-6_—“_Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, And done + that which is evil in thy sight; That thou mayest be justified + when thou speakest, And be clear when thou judgest_”; _7:11_—“_God + is a righteous judge, Yea, a God that hath indignation every + day_”; _John 3:18_—“_he that believeth not hath been judged + already_”; _36_—“_he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, + but the wrath of God abideth on him_”; _Heb. 9:22_—“_apart from + shedding of blood there is no remission_”; _Mat. 6:12_—“_debts_”; + _Luke 13:4_—“_offenders_” (marg. “_debtors_”); _Mat. 5:21_—“_shall + be in danger of_ [exposed to] _the judgment_”; _Rom. 3:19_—“_that + ... all the world may be brought under the judgment of God_”; + _6:23_—“_the wages of sin is death_”—death is sin’s desert; _Eph. + 2:3_—“_by nature children of wrath_”; _2 Cor. 5:21_—“_Him who knew + no sin he made to be sin on our behalf_”; _1 John 1:7, 8_—“_the + blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin._ [Yet] _If we + say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is + not in us._” + + Sin brings in its train not only depravity but guilt, not only + _macula_ but _reatus_. Scripture sets forth the _pollution_ of sin + by its similies of “a cage of unclean birds” and of “wounds, + bruises, and putrefying sores”; by leprosy and Levitical + uncleanness, under the old dispensation; by death and the + corruption of the grave, under both the old and the new. But + Scripture sets forth the _guilt_ of sin, with equal vividness, in + the fear of Cain and in the remorse of Judas. The revulsion of + God’s holiness from sin, and its demand for satisfaction, are + reflected in the shame and remorse of every awakened conscience. + There is an instinctive feeling in the sinner’s heart that sin + will be punished, and ought to be punished. But the Holy Spirit + makes this need of reparation so deeply felt that the soul has no + rest until its debt is paid. The offending church member who is + truly penitent loves the law and the church which excludes him, + and would not think it faithful if it did not. So Jesus, when + laden with the guilt of the race, pressed forward to the cross, + saying: “_I have a baptism to be baptised with; and how am I + straitened till it be accomplished!_” (_Luke 12:50; Mark 10:32_). + + All sin involves guilt, and the sinful soul itself demands + penalty, so that all will ultimately go where they most desire to + be. All the great masters in literature have recognized this. The + inextinguishable thirst for reparation constitutes the very + essence of tragedy. The Greek tragedians are full of it, and + Shakespeare is its most impressive teacher: Measure for Measure, + 5:1—“I am sorry that such sorrow I procure, And so deep sticks it + in my penitent heart That I crave death more willingly than mercy; + ’Tis my deserving, and I do entreat it”; Cymbeline, 5:4—“and so, + great Powers, If you will take this audit, take this life, And + cancel these cold bonds!... Desired, more than constrained, to + satisfy, ... take No stricter render of me than my all”; that is, + settle the account with me by taking my life, for nothing less + than that will pay my debt. And later writers follow Shakespeare. + Marguerite, in Goethe’s Faust, fainting in the great cathedral + under the solemn reverberations of the Dies Iræ; Dimmesdale, in + Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter, putting himself side by side with + Hester Prynne, his victim, in her place of obloquy; Bulwer’s + Eugene Aram, coming forward, though unsuspected, to confess the + murder he had committed, all these are illustrations of the inner + impulse that moves even a sinful soul to satisfy the claims of + justice upon it. See A. H. Strong, Philosophy and Religion, 215, + 216. On Hawthorne, see Hutton, Essays, 2:370-416—“In the Scarlet + Letter, the minister gains fresh reverence and popularity as the + very fruit of the passionate anguish with which his heart is + consumed. Frantic with the stings of unacknowledged guilt, he is + yet taught by these very stings to understand the hearts and stir + the consciences of others.” See also Dinsmore, Atonement in + Literature and Life. + + Nor are such scenes confined to the pages of romance. In a recent + trial at Syracuse, Earl, the wife-murderer, thanked the jury that + had convicted him; declared the verdict just; begged that no one + would interfere to stay the course of justice; said that the + greatest blessing that could be conferred on him would be to let + him suffer the penalty of his crime. In Plattsburg, at the close + of another trial in which the accused was a life-convict who had + struck down a fellow-convict with an axe, the jury, after being + out two hours, came in to ask the Judge to explain the difference + between murder in the first and second degree. Suddenly the + prisoner rose and said: “This was not a murder in the second + degree. It was a deliberate and premeditated murder. I know that I + have done wrong, that I ought to confess the truth, and that I + ought to be hanged.” This left the jury nothing to do but render + their verdict, and the Judge sentenced the murderer to be hanged, + as he confessed he deserved to be. In 1891, Lars Ostendahl, the + most famous preacher of Norway, startled his hearers by publicly + confessing that he had been guilty of immorality, and that he + could no longer retain his pastorate. He begged his people for the + sake of Christ to forgive him and not to desert the poor in his + asylums. He was not only preacher, but also head of a great + philanthropic work. + + Such is the movement and demand of the enlightened conscience. The + lack of conviction that crime ought to be punished is one of the + most certain signs of moral decay in either the individual or the + nation (_Ps. 97:10_—“_Ye that love the Lord, hate evil_”; + _149:6_—“_Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, And a + two-edged sword in their hand_”—to execute God’s judgment upon + iniquity). + + This relation of sin to God shows us how Christ is “_made sin on + our behalf_” (_2 Cor. 5:21_). Since Christ is the immanent God, he + is also essential humanity, the universal man, the life of the + race. All the nerves and sensibilities of humanity meet in him. He + is the central brain to which and through which all ideas must + pass. He is the central heart to which and through which all pains + must be communicated. You cannot telephone to your friend across + the town without first ringing up the central office. You cannot + injure your neighbor without first injuring Christ. Each one of us + can say of him: “_Against thee, thee only, have I sinned_” (_Ps. + 51:4_). Because of his central and all-inclusive humanity, Christ + can feel all the pangs of shame and suffering which rightfully + belong to sinners, but which they cannot feel, because their sin + has stupefied and deadened them. The Messiah, if he be truly man, + must be a suffering Messiah. For the very reason of his humanity + he must bear in his own person all the guilt of humanity and must + be “_the Lamb of God who_” takes, and so “_takes away the sin of + the world_” (_John 1:29_). + + Guilt and depravity are not only distinguishable in thought,—they + are also separable in fact. The convicted murderer might repent + and become pure, yet he might still be under obligation to suffer + the punishment of his crime. The Christian is freed from guilt + (_Rom. 8:1_), but he is not yet freed from depravity (_Rom. + 7:23_). Christ, on the other hand, was under obligation to suffer + (_Luke 24:26_; _Acts 3:18_; _26:23_), while yet he was without sin + (_Heb. 7:26_). In the book entitled Modern Religious Thought, + 3-29, R. J. Campbell has an essay on The Atonement, with which, + apart from its view as to the origin of moral evil in God, we are + in substantial agreement. He holds that “to relieve men from their + sense of guilt, objective atonement is necessary,”—we would say: + to relieve men from guilt itself—the obligation to suffer. “If + Christ be the eternal Son of God, that side of the divine nature + which has gone forth in creation, if he contains humanity and is + present in every article and act of human experience, then he is + associated with the existence of the primordial evil.... He and + only he can sever the entail between man and his responsibility + for personal sin. Christ has not _sinned_ in man, but he takes + responsibility for that experience of evil into which humanity is + born, and the yielding to which constitutes sin. He goes forth to + suffer, and actually does suffer, in man. The eternal Son in whom + humanity is contained is therefore a sufferer since creation + began. This mysterious passion of Deity must continue until + redemption is consummated and humanity restored to God. Thus every + consequence of human ill is felt in the experience of Christ. Thus + Christ not only assumes the guilt but bears the punishment of + every human soul.” We claim however that the necessity of this + suffering lies, not in the needs of man, but in the holiness of + God. + + +C. Guilt, moreover, as an objective result of sin, is not to be confounded +with the subjective consciousness of guilt (Lev. 5:17). In the +condemnation of conscience, God’s condemnation partially and prophetically +manifests itself (1 John 3:20). But guilt is primarily a relation to God, +and only secondarily a relation to conscience. Progress in sin is marked +by diminished sensitiveness of moral insight and feeling. As “the greatest +of sins is to be conscious of none,” so guilt may be great, just in +proportion to the absence of consciousness of it (Ps. 19:12; 51:6; Eph. +4:18, 19—ἀπηλγηκότες). There is no evidence, however, that the voice of +conscience can be completely or finally silenced. The time for repentance +may pass, but not the time for remorse. Progress in holiness, on the other +hand, is marked by increasing apprehension of the depth and extent of our +sinfulness, while with this apprehension is combined, in a normal +Christian experience, the assurance that the guilt of our sin has been +taken, and taken away, by Christ (John 1:29). + + + _Lev. 5:17_—“_And if any one sin, and do any of the things which + Jehovah hath commanded not to be done; though he knew it not, yet + is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity_”; _1 John + 3:20_—“_because if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our + heart, and knoweth all things_”; _Ps. 19:12_—“_Who can discern his + errors? Clear thou me from hidden faults_”; _51:6_—“_Behold, thou + desirest truth in the inward parts; And in the hidden part thou + wilt make me to know wisdom_”; _Eph. 4:18, 19_—“_darkened in their + understanding ... being past feeling_”; _John 1:29_—“_Behold, the + Lamb of God, that taketh away_ [marg. “_beareth_”] _the sin of the + world._” + + Plato, Republic, 1:330—“When death approaches, cares and alarms + awake, especially the fear of hell and its punishments.” Cicero, + De Divin., 1:30—“Then comes remorse for evil deeds.” Persius, + Satire 3—“His vice benumbs him; his fibre has become fat; he is + conscious of no fault; he knows not the loss he suffers; he is so + far sunk, that there is not even a bubble on the surface of the + deep.” Shakespeare, Hamlet, 3:1—“Thus conscience doth make cowards + of us all”; 4:5—“To my sick soul, as sin’s true nature is, Each + toy seems prologue to some great amiss; So full of artless + jealousy is guilt, It spills itself in fearing to be spilt”; + Richard III, 5:3—“O coward conscience, how thou dost afflict + me!... My conscience hath a thousand several tongues, and every + tongue brings in a several tale, And every tale condemns me for a + villain”; Tempest, 3:3—“All three of them are desperate; their + great guilt, Like poison given to work a great time after, Now + ’gins to bite the spirits”; Ant. and Cleop., 3:9—“When we in our + viciousness grow hard (O misery on’t!) the wise gods seel our + eyes; In our own filth drop our clear judgments; make us Adore our + errors; laugh at us, while we strut To our confusion.” + + Dr. Shedd said once to a graduating class of young theologians: + “Would that upon the naked, palpitating heart of each one of you + might be laid one redhot coal of God Almighty’s wrath!” Yes, we + add, if only that redhot coal might be quenched by one red drop of + Christ’s atoning blood. Dr. H. E. Robins: “To the convicted sinner + a merely external hell would be a cooling flame, compared with the + agony of his remorse.” John Milton represents Satan as saying: + “Which way I fly is hell; myself am hell.” James Martineau, Life + by Jackson, 190—“It is of the essence of guilty declension to + administer its own anæsthetics.” But this deadening of conscience + cannot last always. Conscience is a mirror of God’s holiness. We + may cover the mirror with the veil of this world’s diversions and + deceits. When the veil is removed, and conscience again reflects + the sunlike purity of God’s demands, we are visited with + self-loathing and self-contempt. John Caird, Fund. Ideas, + 2:25—“Though it may cast off every other vestige of its divine + origin, our nature retains at least this one terrible prerogative + of it, the capacity of preying on itself.” Lyttelton in Lux Mundi, + 277—“The common fallacy that a self-indulgent sinner is no one’s + enemy but his own would, were it true, involve the further + inference that such a sinner would not feel himself guilty.” If + any dislike the doctrine of guilt, let them remember that without + wrath there is no pardon, without guilt no forgiveness. See, on + the nature of guilt, Julius Müller, Doct. Sin, 1:193-267; + Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, 208-209; Thomasius, Christi Person + und Werk, 1:346; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 461-473; Delitzsch, Bib. + Psychologie, 121-148; Thornwell, Theology, 1:400-424. + + +2. Degrees of guilt. + + +The Scriptures recognize different degrees of guilt as attaching to +different kinds of sin. The variety of sacrifices under the Mosaic law, +and the variety of awards in the judgment, are to be explained upon this +principle. + + + _Luke 12:47, 48_—“_shall be beaten with many stripes ... shall be + beaten with few stripes_”; _Rom. 2:6_—“_who will render to every + man according to his works._” See also _John 19:11_—“_he that + delivered me unto thee hath greater sin_”; _Heb. 2:2, 3_—if + “_every transgression ... received a just recompense of reward; + how shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation?_” _10:28, + 29_—“_A man that hath set at nought Moses’ law dieth without + compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: of how much + sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath + trodden under foot the Son of God?_” + + +Casuistry, however, has drawn many distinctions which lack Scriptural +foundation. Such is the distinction between venial sins and mortal sins in +the Roman Catholic Church,—every sin unpardoned being mortal, and all sins +being venial, since Christ has died for all. Nor is the common distinction +between sins of omission and sins of commission more valid, since the very +omission is an act of commission. + + + _Mat. 25:45_—“_Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these + least_”; _James 4:17_—“_To him therefore that knoweth to do good, + and doeth it not, to him it is sin._” John Ruskin: “The + condemnation given from the Judgment Throne—most solemnly + described—is for all the ‘undones’ and not the ‘dones.’ People are + perpetually afraid of doing wrong; but unless they are doing its + reverse energetically, they _do it all day long_, and the degree + does not matter.” The Roman Catholic Church proceeds upon the + supposition that she can determine the precise malignity of every + offence, and assign its proper penance at the confessional. + Thornwell, Theology, 1:424-441, says that “all sins are venial but + one—for there is a sin against the Holy Ghost,” yet “not one is + venial in itself—for the least proceeds from an apostate state and + nature.” We shall see, however, that the hindrance to pardon, in + the case of the sin against the Holy Spirit, is subjective rather + than objective. + + J. Spencer Kennard: “Roman Catholicism in Italy presents the + spectacle of the authoritative representatives and teachers of + morals and religion themselves living in all forms of deceit, + corruption, and tyranny; and, on the other hand, discriminating + between venial and mortal sin, classing as venial sins lying, + fraud, fornication, marital infidelity, and even murder, all of + which may be atoned for and forgiven or even permitted by the mere + payment of money; and at the same time classing as mortal sins + disrespect and disobedience to the church.” + + +The following distinctions are indicated in Scripture as involving +different degrees of guilt: + +A. Sin of nature, and personal transgression. + +Sin of nature involves guilt, yet there is greater guilt when this sin of +nature reasserts itself in personal transgression; for, while this latter +includes in itself the former, it also adds to the former a new element, +namely, the conscious exercise of the individual and personal will, by +virtue of which a new decision is made against God, special evil habit is +induced, and the total condition of the soul is made more depraved. +Although we have emphasized the guilt of inborn sin, because this truth is +most contested, it is to be remembered that men reach a conviction of +their native depravity only through a conviction of their personal +transgressions. For this reason, by far the larger part of our preaching +upon sin should consist in applications of the law of God to the acts and +dispositions of men’s lives. + + + _Mat. 19:14_—“_to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven_”—relative + innocence of childhood; _23:32_—“_Fill ye up then the measure of + your fathers_”—personal transgression added to inherited + depravity. In preaching, we should first treat individual + transgressions, and thence proceed to heart-sin, and race-sin. Man + is not wholly a spontaneous development of inborn tendencies, a + manifestation of original sin. Motives do not _determine_ but they + _persuade_ the will, and every man is guilty of conscious personal + transgressions which may, with the help of the Holy Spirit, be + brought under the condemning judgment of conscience. Birks, + Difficulties of Belief, 169-174—“Original sin does not do away + with the significance of personal transgression. Adam was + pardoned: but some of his descendants are unpardonable. The second + death is referred, in Scripture, to our own personal guilt.” + + This is not to say that original sin does not involve as great sin + as that of Adam in the first transgression, for original sin _is_ + the sin of the first transgression; it is only to say that + personal transgression is original sin _plus_ the conscious + ratification of Adam’s act by the individual. “We are guilty for + what we _are_, as much as for what we _do_. Our _sin_ is not + simply the sum total of all our _sins_. There is a _sinfulness_ + which is the common denominator of all our sins.” It is customary + to speak lightly of original sin, as if personal sins were all for + which man is accountable. But it is only in the light of original + sin that personal sins can be explained. _Prov. 14:9, + marg._—“_Fools make a mock at sin._” Simon, Reconciliation, + 122—“The sinfulness of individual men varies; the sinfulness of + humanity is a constant quantity.” Robert Browning, Ferishtah’s + Fancies: “Man lumps his kind i’ the mass. God singles thence unit + by unit. Thou and God exist—So think! for certain: Think the + mass—mankind—Disparts, disperses, leaves thyself alone! Ask thy + lone soul what laws are plain to thee,—Thou and no other, stand or + fall by them! That is the part for thee.” + + +B. Sins of ignorance, and sins of knowledge. + +Here guilt is measured by the degree of light possessed, or in other +words, by the opportunities of knowledge men have enjoyed, and the powers +with which they have been naturally endowed. Genius and privilege increase +responsibility. The heathen are guilty, but those to whom the oracles of +God have been committed are more guilty than they. + + + _Mat 10:15_—“_more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in + the day of judgment, than for that city_”; _Luke 12:47, 48_—“_that + servant, who knew his Lord’s will ... shall be beaten with many + stripes; but he that knew not ... shall be beaten with few + stripes_”; _23:34_—“_Father, forgive them; for they know not what + they do_”—complete knowledge would put them beyond the reach of + forgiveness. _John 19:11_—“_he that delivered me unto thee hath + greater sin_”; _Acts 17:30_—“_The times of ignorance therefore God + overlooked_”; _Rom. 1:32_—“_who, knowing the ordinance of God, + that they that practise such things are worthy of death, not only + do the same, but also consent with them that practise them_”; + _2:12_—“_For as many as have sinned without the law shall also + perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law + shall be judged by the law_”; _1 Tim. 1:13, 15, 16_—“_I obtained + mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief._” + + _Is. 42:19_—“_Who is blind ... as Jehovah’s servant?_” It was the + Pharisees whom Jesus warned of the sin against the Holy Spirit. + The guilt of the crucifixion rested on Jews rather than on + Gentiles. Apostate Israel was more guilty than the pagans. The + greatest sinners of the present day may be in Christendom, not in + heathendom. Satan was an archangel; Judas was an apostle; + Alexander Borgia was a pope. Jackson, James Martineau, + 362—“Corruptio optimi pessima est, as seen in a drunken Webster, a + treacherous Bacon, a licentious Goethe.” Sir Roger de Coverley + observed that none but men of fine parts deserve to be hanged. + Kaftan, Dogmatik, 317—“The greater sin often involves the lesser + guilt; the lesser sin the greater guilt.” Robert Browning, The + Ring and the Book, 227 (Pope, 1975)—“There’s a new tribunal now + Higher than God’s,—the educated man’s! Nice sense of honor in the + human breast Supersedes here the old coarse oracle!” Dr. H. E. + Robins holds that “palliation of guilt according to light is not + possible under a system of pure law, and is possible only because + the probation of the sinner is a probation of grace.” + + +C. Sins of infirmity, and sins of presumption. + +Here the guilt is measured by the energy of the evil will. Sin may be +known to be sin, yet may be committed in haste or weakness. Though haste +and weakness constitute a palliation of the offence which springs +therefrom, yet they are themselves sins, as revealing an unbelieving and +disordered heart. But of far greater guilt are those presumptuous choices +of evil in which not weakness, but strength of will, is manifest. + + + _Ps. 19:12, 13_—“_Clear thou me from hidden faults. Keep back thy + servant also from presumptuous sins_”; _Is. 5:18_—“_Woe unto them + that draw iniquity with cords of falsehood, and sin as it were + with a cart-rope_”—not led away insensibly by sin, but earnestly, + perseveringly, and wilfully working away at it; _Gal. + 6:1_—“_overtaken in any trespass_”; _1 Tim. 5:24_—“_Some men’s + sins are evident, going before unto judgment; and some men also + they follow after_”—some men’s sins are so open, that they act as + officers to bring to justice those who commit them; whilst others + require after-proof (An. Par. Bible). Luther represents one of the + former class as saying to himself: “Esto peccator, et pecca + fortiter.” On sins of passion and of reflection, see Bittinger, in + Princeton Rev., 1873:219. + + _Micah 7:3_, marg.—“_Both hands are put forth for evil, to do it + diligently._” So we ought to do good. “My art is my life,” said + Grisi, the prima donna of the opera, “I save myself all day for + that one bound upon the stage.” H. Bonar: “Sin worketh,—Let me + work too. Busy as sin, my work I ply, Till I rest in the rest of + eternity.” German criminal law distinguishes between intentional + homicide without deliberation, and intentional homicide with + deliberation. There are three grades of sin: 1. Sins of ignorance, + like Paul’s persecuting; 2. sins of infirmity, like Peter’s + denial; 3. sins of presumption, like David’s murder of Uriah. Sins + of presumption were unpardonable under the Jewish law; they are + not unpardonable under Christ. + + +D. Sin of incomplete, and sin of final, obduracy. + +Here the guilt is measured, not by the objective sufficiency or +insufficiency of divine grace, but by the degree of unreceptiveness into +which sin has brought the soul. As the only sin unto death which is +described in Scripture is the sin against the Holy Spirit, we here +consider the nature of that sin. + + + _Mat 12:31_—“_Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; + but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven_”; + _32_—“_And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it + shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy + Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor + in that which is to come_”; _Mark 3:29_—“_whosoever shall + blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is + guilty of an eternal sin_”; _1 John 5:16, 17_—“_If any man see his + brother sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and God will + give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin + into death: not concerning this do I say that he should make + request. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto + death_”; _Heb. 10:26_—“_if we sin wilfully after that we have + received the knowledge of the truth, then remaineth no more a + sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, + and a fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversaries._” + + Ritschl holds all sin that comes short of definitive rejection of + Christ to be ignorance rather than sin, and to be the object of no + condemning sentence. This is to make the sin against the Holy + Spirit the only real sin. Conscience and Scripture alike + contradict this view. There is much incipient hardening of the + heart that precedes the sin of final obduracy. See Denney, Studies + in Theology, 80. The composure of the criminal is not always a + sign of innocence. S. S. Times, April 12, 1902:200—“Sensitiveness + of conscience and of feeling, and responsiveness of countenance + and bearing, are to be retained by purity of life and freedom from + transgression. On the other hand composure of countenance and + calmness under suspicion and accusation are likely to be a result + of continuance in wrong doing, with consequent hardening of the + whole moral nature.” + + Weismann, Heredity, 2:8—“As soon as any organ falls into disuse, + it degenerates, and finally is lost altogether.... In parasites + the organs of sense degenerate.” Marconi’s wireless telegraphy + requires an attuned “receiver.” The “transmitter” sends out + countless rays into space: only one capable of corresponding + vibrations can understand them. The sinner may so destroy his + receptivity, that the whole universe may be uttering God’s truth, + yet he be unable to hear a word of it. The Outlook: “If a man + should put out his eyes, he could not see—nothing could make him + see. So if a man should by obstinate wickedness destroy his power + to believe in God’s forgiveness, he would be in a hopeless state. + Though God would still be gracious, the man could not see it, and + so could not take God’s forgiveness to himself.” + + +The sin against the Holy Spirit is not to be regarded simply as an +isolated act, but also as the external symptom of a heart so radically and +finally set against God that no power which God can consistently use will +ever save it. This sin, therefore, can be only the culmination of a long +course of self-hardening and self-depraving. He who has committed it must +be either profoundly indifferent to his own condition, or actively and +bitterly hostile to God; so that anxiety or fear on account of one’s +condition is evidence that it has not been committed. The sin against the +Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven, simply because the soul that has committed +it has ceased to be receptive of divine influences, even when those +influences are exerted in the utmost strength which God has seen fit to +employ in his spiritual administration. + + + The commission of this sin is marked by a loss of spiritual sight; + the blind fish of the Mammoth Cave left light for darkness, and so + in time lost their eyes. It is marked by a loss of religious + sensibility; the sensitive-plant loses Its sensitiveness, in + proportion to the frequency with which it is touched. It is marked + by a loss of power to will the good; “the lava hardens after it + has broken from the crater, and in that state cannot return to its + source” (Van Oosterzee). The same writer also remarks (Dogmatics, + 2:438): “Herod Antipas, after earlier doubt and slavishness, + reached such deadness as to be able to mock the Savior, at the + mention of whose name he had not long before trembled.” Julius + Müller, Doctrine of Sin, 2:425—“It is not that divine grace is + absolutely refused to any one who in true penitence asks + forgiveness of this sin; but he who commits it never fulfills the + subjective conditions upon which forgiveness is possible, because + the aggravation of sin to this ultimatum destroys in him all + susceptibility of repentance. The way of return to God is closed + against no one who does not close it against himself.” Drummond, + Natural Law in the Spiritual World, 97-120, illustrates the + downward progress of the sinner by the law of degeneration in the + vegetable and animal world: pigeons, roses, strawberries, all tend + to revert to the primitive and wild type. “_How shall we escape, + if we neglect so great a salvation?_” (_Heb.2:3_). + + Shakespeare, Macbeth, 3:5—“You all know security Is mortals’ + chiefest enemy.” Moulton, Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist, + 90-124—“Richard III is the ideal villain. Villainy has become an + end in itself. Richard is an artist in villainy. He lacks the + emotions naturally attending crime. He regards villainy with the + intellectual enthusiasm of the artist. His villainy is ideal in + its success. There is a fascination of irresistibility in him. He + is imperturbable in his crime. There is no effort, but rather + humor, in it; a recklessness which suggests boundless resources; + an inspiration which excludes calculation. Shakespeare relieves + the representation from the charge of monstrosity by turning all + this villainous history into the unconscious development of + Nemesis.” See also A. H. Strong, Great Poets, 188-193. Robert + Browning’s Guido, in The Ring and the Book, is an example of pure + hatred of the good. Guido hates Pompilia for her goodness, and + declares that, if he catches her in the next world, he will murder + her there, as he murdered her here. + + Alexander VI, the father of Cæsar and Lucrezia Borgia, the pope of + cruelty and lust, wore yet to the day of his death the look of + unfailing joyousness and geniality, yes, of even retiring + sensitiveness and modesty. No fear or reproach of conscience + seemed to throw gloom over his life, as in the cases of Tiberius + and Louis XI. He believed himself under the special protection of + the Virgin, although he had her painted with the features of his + paramour, Julia Farnese. He never scrupled at false witness, + adultery, or murder. See Gregorovius, Lucrezia Borgia, 294, 295. + Jeremy Taylor thus describes the progress of sin in the sinner: + “First it startles him, then it becomes pleasing, then delightful, + then frequent, then habitual, then confirmed; then the man is + impenitent, then obstinate, then resolved never to repent, then + damned.” + + There is a state of utter insensibility to emotions of love or + fear, and man by his sin may reach that state. The act of + blasphemy is only the expression of a hardened or a hateful heart. + B. H. Payne: “The calcium flame will char the steel wire so that + it is no longer affected by the magnet.... As the blazing cinders + and black curling smoke which the volcano spews from its rumbling + throat are the accumulation of months and years, so the sin + against the Holy Spirit is not a thoughtless expression in a + moment of passion or rage, but the giving vent to a state of heart + and mind abounding in the accumulations of weeks and months of + opposition to the gospel.” + + Dr. J. P. Thompson: “The unpardonable sin is the knowing, wilful, + persistent, contemptuous, malignant spurning of divine truth and + grace, as manifested to the soul by the convincing and + illuminating power of the Holy Ghost.” Dorner says that “therefore + this sin does not belong to Old Testament times, or to the mere + revelation of law. It implies the full revelation of the grace in + Christ, and the conscious rejection of it by a soul to which the + Spirit has made it manifest (_Acts 17:30_—‘_The times of + ignorance, therefore, God overlooked_’; _Rom. 3:25_—‘_the passing + over of the sins done aforetime_’).” But was it not under the Old + Testament that God said: “_My Spirit shall not strive with man + forever_” (_Gen. 6:3_), and “_Ephraim is joined to idols; let him + alone_” (_Hosea 4:17_)? The sin against the Holy Ghost is a sin + against grace, but it does not appear to be limited to New + Testament times. + + It is still true that the unpardonable sin is a sin committed + against the Holy Spirit rather than against Christ: _Mat. + 12:32_—“_whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it + shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy + Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor + in that which is to come._” Jesus warns the Jews against it,—he + does not say they had already committed it. They would seem to + have committed it when, after Pentecost, they added to their + rejection of Christ the rejection of the Holy Spirit’s witness to + Christ’s resurrection. See Schaff, Sin against the Holy Ghost; + Lemme, Sünde wider den Heiligen Geist; Davis, in Bap. Rev., + 1862:317-326; Nitzsch, Christian Doctrine, 283-289. On the general + subject of kinds of sin and degrees of guilt, see Kahnis, + Dogmatik, 3:284, 298. + + +III. Penalty. + + +1. Idea of penalty. + + +By penalty, we mean that pain or loss which is directly or indirectly +inflicted by the Lawgiver, in vindication of his justice outraged by the +violation of law. + + + Turretin, 1:213—“Justice necessarily demands that all sin be + punished, but it does not equally demand that it be punished in + the very person that sinned, or in just such time and degree.” So + far as this statement of the great Federal theologian is intended + to explain our guilt in Adam and our justification in Christ, we + can assent to his words; but we must add that the reason, in each + case, why we suffer the penalty of Adam’s sin, and Christ suffers + the penalty of our sins, is not to be found in any + covenant-relation, but rather in the fact that the sinner is one + with Adam, and Christ is one with the believer,—in other words, + not covenant-unity, but life-unity. The word “penalty,” like + “pain,” is derived from pœna, ποινή, and it implies the + correlative notion of desert. As under the divine government there + can be no constructive _guilt_, so there can be no _penalty_ + inflicted by legal fiction. Christ’s sufferings were penalty, not + arbitrarily inflicted, nor yet borne to expiate personal guilt, + but as the just due of the human nature with which he had united + himself, and a part of which he was. Prof. Wm. Adams Brown: “Loss, + not suffering, is the supreme penalty for Christians. The real + penalty is separation from God. If such separation involves + suffering, that is a sign of God’s mercy, for where there is life, + there is hope. Suffering is always to be interpreted as an appeal + from God to man.” + + +In this definition it is implied that: + +A. The natural consequences of transgression, although they constitute a +part of the penalty of sin, do not exhaust that penalty. In all penalty +there is a personal element—the holy wrath of the Lawgiver,—which natural +consequences but partially express. + + + We do not deny, but rather assert, that the natural consequences + of transgression are a part of the penalty of sin. Sensual sins + are punished, in the deterioration and corruption of the body; + mental and spiritual sins, in the deterioration and corruption of + the soul. _Prov. 5:22_—“_His own iniquities shall take the wicked, + And he shall be holden with the cords of his sin_”—as the hunter + is caught in the toils which he has devised for the wild beast. + Sin is self-detecting and self-tormenting. But this is only half + the truth. Those who would confine all penalty to the reaction of + natural laws are in danger of forgetting that God is not simply + immanent in the universe, but is also transcendent, and that “_to + fall into the hands of the living God_” (_Heb. 10:31_) is to fall + into the hands, not simply of the law, but also of the Lawgiver. + Natural law is only the regular expression of God’s mind and will. + We abhor a person who is foul in body and in speech. There is no + penalty of sin more dreadful than its being an object of + abhorrence to God. _Jer. 44:4_—“_Oh, do not this abominable thing + that I hate!_” Add to this the law of continuity which makes sin + reproduce itself, and the law of conscience which makes sin its + own detecter, judge, and tormentor, and we have sufficient + evidence of God’s wrath against it, apart from any external + inflictions. The divine feeling toward sin is seen in Jesus’ + scourging the traffickers in the temple, his denunciation of the + Pharisees, his weeping over Jerusalem, his agony in Gethsemane. + Imagine the feeling of a father toward his daughter’s betrayer, + and God’s feeling toward sin may be faintly understood. + + The deed returns to the doer, and character determines + destiny—this law is a revelation of the righteousness of God. + Penalty will vindicate the divine character in the long run, + though not always in time. This is recognized in all religions. + Buddhist priest in Japan: “The evil doer weaves a web around + himself, as the silkworm weaves its cocoon.” Socrates made Circe’s + turning of men into swine a mere parable of the self-brutalizing + influence of sin. In Dante’s Inferno, the punishments are all of + them the sins themselves; hence men are in hell before they die. + Hegel: “Penalty is the other half of crime.” R. W. Emerson: + “Punishment not follows, but accompanies, crime.” Sagebeer, The + Bible in Court, 59—“Corruption is destruction, and the sinner is a + suicide; penalty corresponds with transgression and is the outcome + of it; sin is death in the making; death is sin in the final + infliction.” J. B. Thomas, Baptist Congress, 1901:110—“What + matters it whether I wait by night for the poacher and + deliberately shoot him, or whether I set the pistol so that he + shall be shot by it when he commits the depredation?” Tennyson, + Sea Dreams: “His gain is loss; for he that wrongs his friend + Wrongs himself more, and ever bears about A silent court of + justice in his breast, Himself the judge and jury, and himself The + prisoner at the bar, ever condemn’d: And that drags down his life: + then comes what comes Hereafter.” + + +B. The object of penalty is not the reformation of the offender or the +ensuring of social or governmental safety. These ends may be incidentally +secured through its infliction, but the great end of penalty is the +vindication of the character of the Lawgiver. Penalty is essentially a +necessary reaction of the divine holiness against sin. Inasmuch, however, +as wrong views of the object of penalty have so important a bearing upon +our future studies of doctrine, we make fuller mention of the two +erroneous theories which have greatest currency. + +(_a_) Penalty is not essentially reformatory.—By this we mean that the +reformation of the offender is not its primary design,—as penalty, it is +not intended to reform. Penalty, in itself, proceeds not from the love and +mercy of the Lawgiver, but from his justice. Whatever reforming influences +may in any given instance be connected with it are not parts of the +penalty, but are mitigations of it, and they are added not in justice but +in grace. If reformation follows the infliction of penalty, it is not the +effect of the penalty, but the effect of certain benevolent agencies which +have been provided to turn into a means of good what naturally would be to +the offender only a source of harm. + +That the object of penalty is not reformation appears from Scripture, +where punishment is often referred to God’s justice, but never to God’s +love; from the intrinsic ill-desert of sin, to which penalty is +correlative; from the fact that punishment must be vindicative, in order +to be disciplinary, and just, in order to be reformatory; from the fact +that upon this theory punishment would not be just when the sinner was +already reformed or could not be reformed, so that the greater the sin the +less the punishment must be. + + + Punishment is essentially different from chastisement. The latter + proceeds from love (_Jer. 10:24_—“_correct me, but in measure; not + in thine anger_”; _Heb. 12:6_—“_Whom the Lord loveth he + chasteneth_”). Punishment proceeds not from love but from + justice—see _Ez. 28:22_—“_I shall have executed judgments in her, + and shall be sanctified in her_”; _36:21, 22_—in judgment, “_I do + not this for your sake, but for my holy name_”; _Heb. 12:29_—“_our + God is a consuming fire_”; _Rev. 15:1, 4_—“_wrath of God ... thou + only art holy ... thy righteous acts have been made manifest_”; + _16:5_—“_Righteous art thou, ... thou Holy One, because thou didst + thus judge_”; _19:2_—“_true and righteous are his judgments; for + he hath judged the great harlot._” So untrue is the saying of Sir + Thomas More’s Utopia: “The end of all punishment is the + destruction of vice, and the saving of men.” Luther: “God has two + rods: one of mercy and goodness; another of anger and fury.” + Chastisement is the former; penalty the latter. + + If the reform-theory of penalty is correct, then to punish crime, + without asking about reformation, makes the state the + transgressor; its punishments should be proportioned, not to the + greatness of the crime, but to the sinner’s state; the + death-penalty should be abolished, upon the ground that it will + preclude all hope of reformation. But the same theory would + abolish any final judgment, or eternal punishment; for, when the + soul becomes so wicked that there is no more hope of reform, there + is no longer any justice in punishing it. The greater the sin, the + less the punishment; and Satan, the greatest sinner, should have + no punishment at all. + + Modern denunciations of capital punishment are often based upon + wrong conceptions of the object of penalty. Opposition to the + doctrine of future punishment would give way, if the opposers + realized what penalty is ordained to secure. Harris, God the + Creator, 2:447, 451—“Punishment is not primarily reformatory; it + educates conscience and vindicates the authority of law.” R. W. + Dale: “It is not necessary to prove that hanging is beneficial to + the person hanged. The theory that society has no right to send a + man to jail, to feed him on bread and water, to make him pick hemp + or work a treadmill, except to reform him, is utterly rotten. He + must deserve to be punished, or else the law has no right to + punish him.” A House of Refuge or a State Industrial School is + primarily a penal institution, for it deprives persons of their + liberty and compels them against their will to labor. This loss + and deprivation on their part cannot be justified except upon the + ground that it is the desert of their wrong doing. Whatever + gracious and philanthropic influences may accompany this + confinement and compulsion, they cannot of themselves explain the + penal element in the institution. If they could, a _habeas corpus_ + decree could be sought, and obtained, from any competent court. + + God’s treatment of men in this world also combines the elements of + penalty and of chastisement. Suffering is first of all deserved, + and this justifies its infliction. But it is at the beginning + accompanied with all manner of alleviating influences which tend + to draw men back to God. As these gracious influences are + resisted, the punitive element becomes preponderating, and penalty + reflects God’s holiness rather than his love. Moberly, Atonement + and Personality, 1-25—“Pain is not the immediate object of + punishment. It must be a means to an end, a moral end, namely, + penitence. But where the depraved man becomes a human tiger, there + punishment must reach its culmination. There is a punishment which + is not restorative. According to the spirit in which punishment is + received, it may be internal or external. All punishment begins as + discipline. It tends to repentance. Its triumph would be the + triumph within. It becomes retributive only as the sinner refuses + to repent. Punishment is only the development of sin. The ideal + penitent condemns himself, identifies himself with righteousness + by accepting penalty. In proportion as penalty fails in its + purpose to produce penitence, it acquires more and more a + retributive character, whose climax is not Calvary but Hell.” + + Alexander, Moral Order and Progress, 327-333 (quoted in Ritchie, + Darwin, and Hegel, 67)—“Punishment has three characters: It is + retributive, in so far as it falls under the general law that + resistance to the dominant type recoils on the guilty or resistant + creature; it is preventive, in so far as, being a statutory + enactment, it aims at securing the maintenance of the law + irrespective of the individual’s character. But this latter + characteristic is secondary, and the former is comprehended in the + third idea, that of reformation, which is the superior form in + which retribution appears when the type is a mental ideal and is + affected by conscious persons.” Hyslop on Freedom, Responsibility, + and Punishment, in Mind, April, 1894:167-189—“In the Elmira + Reformatory, out of 2295 persons paroled between 1876 and 1889, + 1907 or 83 per cent. represent a probably complete reformation. + Determinists say that this class of persons cannot do otherwise. + Something is wrong with their theory. We conclude that 1. Causal + responsibility justifies preventive punishment; 2. Potential moral + responsibility justifies corrective punishment; 3. Actual moral + responsibility justifies retributive punishment.” Here we need + only to point out the incorrect use of the word “punishment,” + which belongs only to the last class. In the two former cases the + word “chastisement” should have been used. See Julius Müller, + Lehre von der Sünde, 1:334; Thornton, Old Fashioned Ethics, 70-73; + Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:238, 239 (Syst. Doct., 3:134,135); + Robertson’s Sermons, 4th Series, no. 18 (Harper’s ed., 752); see + also this Compendium, references on Holiness, A. (_d_), page 273. + + +(_b_) Penalty is not essentially deterrent and preventive.—By this we mean +that its primary design is not to protect society, by deterring men from +the commission of like offences. We grant that this end is often secured +in connection with punishment, both in family and civil government and +under the government of God. But we claim that this is a merely incidental +result, which God’s wisdom and goodness have connected with the infliction +of penalty,—it cannot be the reason and ground for penalty itself. Some of +the objections to the preceding theory apply also to this. But in addition +to what has been said, we urge: + +Penalty cannot be primarily designed to secure social and governmental +safety, for the reason that it is never right to punish the individual +simply for the good of society. No punishment, moreover, will or can do +good to others that is not just and right in itself. Punishment does good, +only when the person punished deserves punishment; and that _desert_ of +punishment, and not the good effects that will follow it, must be the +ground and reason why it is inflicted. The contrary theory would imply +that the criminal might go free but for the effect of his punishment on +others, and that man might rightly commit crime if only he were willing to +bear the penalty. + + + Kant, Praktische Vernunft, 151 (ed. Rosenkranz)—“The notion of + ill-desert and punishableness is necessarily implied in the idea + of voluntary transgression; and the idea of punishment excludes + that of happiness in all its forms. For though he who inflicts + punishment may, it is true, also have a benevolent purpose to + produce by the punishment some good effect upon the criminal, yet + the punishment must be justified first of all as pure and simple + requital and retribution.... In every punishment as such, justice + is the very first thing and constitutes the essence of it. A + benevolent purpose, it is true, may be conjoined with punishment; + but the criminal cannot claim this as his due, and he has no right + to reckon on it.” These utterances of Kant apply to the deterrent + theory as well as to the reformatory theory of penalty. The + element of desert or retribution is the basis of the other + elements in punishment. See James Seth, Ethical Principles, + 333-338; Shedd, Dogm. Theology, 2:717; Hodge, Essays, 133. + + A certain English judge, in sentencing a criminal, said that he + punished him, not for stealing sheep, but that sheep might not be + stolen. But it is the greatest injustice to punish a man for the + mere sake of example. Society cannot be benefited by such + injustice. The theory can give no reason why one should be + punished rather than another, nor why a second offence should be + punished more heavily than the first. On this theory, moreover, if + there were but one creature in the universe, and none existed + beside himself to be affected by his suffering, he could not + justly be punished, however great might be his sin. The only + principle that can explain punishment is the principle of + _desert_. See Martineau, Types of Ethical Theory, 2:348. + + “Crime is most prevented by the conviction that crime deserves + punishment; the greatest deterrent agency is conscience.” So in + the government of God “there is no hint that future punishment + works good to the lost or to the universe. The integrity of the + redeemed is not to be maintained by subjecting the lost to a + punishment they do not deserve. The wrong merits punishment, and + God is bound to punish it, whether good comes of it or not. Sin is + intrinsically ill-deserving. Impurity must be banished from God. + God must vindicate himself, or cease to be holy” (see art. on the + Philosophy of Punishment, by F. L. Patton, in Brit. and For. + Evang. Rev., Jan. 1878:126-139). + + Bowne, Principles of Ethics, 186, 274—Those who maintain + punishment to be essentially deterrent and preventive “ignore the + metaphysics of responsibility and treat the problem ‘positively + and objectively’ on the basis of physiology, sociology, etc., and + in the interests of public safety. The question of guilt or + innocence is as irrelevant as the question concerning the guilt or + innocence of wasps and hornets. An ancient holder of this view set + forth the opinion that ‘_it was expedient that one man should die + for the people_’ (_John 18:14_), and so Jesus was put to death.... + A mob in eastern Europe might be persuaded that a Jew had + slaughtered a Christian child as a sacrifice. The authorities + might be perfectly sure of the man’s innocence, and yet proceed to + punish him because of the mob’s clamor, and the danger of an + outbreak.” Men high up in the French government thought it was + better that Dreyfus should suffer for the sake of France, than + that a scandal affecting the honor of the French army should be + made public. In perfect consistency with this principle, McKim, + Heredity and Human Progress, 192, advocates infliction of painless + death upon idiots, imbeciles, epileptics, habitual drunkards, + insane criminals, murderers, nocturnal house breakers, and all + dangerous and incorrigible persons. He would change the place of + slaughter from our streets and homes to our penal institutions; in + other words, he would abandon punishment, but protect society. + + Failure to recognize holiness as the fundamental attribute of God, + and the affirmation of that holiness as conditioning the exercise + of love, vitiates the discussion of penalty by A. H. Bradford, Age + of Faith, 243-250—“What is penal suffering designed to accomplish? + Is it to manifest the holiness of God? Is it to express the + sanctity of the moral law? Is it simply a natural consequence? + Does it manifest the divine Fatherhood? God does not inflict + penalty simply to satisfy himself or to manifest his holiness, any + more than an earthly father inflicts suffering on his child to + show his wrath against the wrongdoer or to manifest his own + goodness. The idea of punishment is essentially barbaric and + foreign to all that is known of the Deity. Penalty that is not + reformatory or protective is barbarism. In the home, punishment is + always discipline. Its object is the welfare of the child and the + family. Punishment as an expression of wrath or enmity, with no + remedial purpose beyond, is a relic of barbarism. It carries with + it the content of vengeance. It is the expression of anger, of + passion, or at best of cold justice. Penal suffering is + undoubtedly the divine holiness expressing its hatred of sin. But, + if it stops with such expression, it is not holiness, but + selfishness. If on the other hand that expression of holiness is + used or permitted in order that the sinner may be made to hate his + sin, then it is no more punishment, but chastisement. On any other + hypothesis, penal suffering has no justification except the + arbitrary will of the Almighty, and such a hypothesis is an + impeachment both of his justice and his love.” This view seems to + us to ignore the necessary reaction of divine holiness against + sin; to make holiness a mere form of love; a means to an end and + that end utilitarian; and so to deny to holiness any independent, + or even real, existence in the divine nature. + + The wrath of God is calm and judicial, devoid of all passion or + caprice, but it is the expression of eternal and unchangeable + righteousness. It is vindicative but not vindictive. Without it + there could be no government, and God would not be God. F. W. + Robertson: “Does not the element of vengeance exist in all + punishment, and does not the feeling exist, not as a sinful, but + as an essential, part of human nature? If so, there must be wrath + in God.” Lord Bacon: “Revenge is a wild sort of justice.” Stephen: + “Criminal law provides legitimate satisfaction of the passions of + revenge.” Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 1:287. _Per contra_, see Bib. + Sac., Apr. 1881:286-302; H. B. Smith, System of Theology, 46, 47; + Chitty’s ed. of Blackstone’s Commentaries, 4:7; Wharton, Criminal + Law, vol. 1, bk. 1, chap. 1. + + +2. The actual penalty of sin. + + +The one word in Scripture which designates the total penalty of sin is +“death.” Death, however, is twofold: + +A. Physical death,—or the separation of the soul from the body, including +all those temporal evils and sufferings which result from disturbance of +the original harmony between body and soul, and which are the working of +death in us. That physical death is a part of the penalty of sin, appears: + +(_a_) From Scripture. + +This is the most obvious import of the threatening in Gen. 2:17—“thou +shalt surely die”; _cf._ 3:19—“unto dust shalt thou return.” Allusions to +this threat in the O. T. confirm this interpretation: Num. 16:29—“visited +after the visitation of all men,” where פקד = judicial visitation, or +punishment; 27:3 (LXX.—δι᾽ ἁμαρτίαν αὐτοῦ). The prayer of Moses in Ps. 90: +7-9, 11, and the prayer of Hezekiah in Is. 38:17, 18, recognize plainly +the penal nature of death. The same doctrine is taught in the N. T., as +for example, John 8:44; Rom. 5:12, 14, 16, 17, where the judicial +phraseology is to be noted (_cf._ 1:32); see 6:23 also. In 1 Pet. 4:6, +physical death is spoken of as God’s judgment against sin. In 1 Cor. +15:21, 22, the bodily resurrection of all believers, in Christ, is +contrasted with the bodily death of all men, in Adam. Rom. 4:24, 25; 6:9, +10; 8:3, 10, 11; Gal. 3:13, show that Christ submitted to physical death +as the penalty of sin, and by his resurrection from the grave gave proof +that the penalty of sin was exhausted and that humanity in him was +justified. “As the resurrection of the body is a part of the redemption, +so the death of the body is a part of the penalty.” + + + _Ps. 90:7, 9_—“_we are consumed in thine anger ... all our days + are passed away in thy wrath_”; _Is. 38:17, 18_—“_thou hast in + love to my soul delivered it from the pit ... thou hast cast all + my sins behind thy back. For Sheol cannot praise thee_”; _John + 8:44_—“_He_ [Satan] _was a murderer from the beginning_”; + _11:33_—Jesus “_groaned in the spirit_” = was moved with + indignation at what sin had wrought; _Rom. 5:12, 14, 16, + 17_—“_death through sin ... death passed unto all men, for that + all sinned ... death reigned ... even over them that had not + sinned after the likeness of Adam’s transgression ... the judgment + came of one_ [trespass] _unto condemnation ... by the trespass of + the one, death reigned through the one_”; _cf._ the legal + phraseology in _1:32_—“_who, knowing the ordinance of God, that + they that practise such things are worthy of death._” _Rom. + 6:23_—“_the wages of sin is death_” = death is sin’s just due. _1 + Pet. 4:6_—“_that they might be judged indeed according to men in + the flesh_” = that they might suffer physical death, which to men + in general is the penalty of sin. _1 Cor. 15:21, 22_—“_as in Adam + all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive_”; _Rom. 4:24, + 25_—“_raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up + for our trespasses, and was raised for our justification_”; _6:9, + 10_—“_Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death no + more hath dominion over him. For the death that he died, he died + unto sin once: but the life that he liveth, he liveth unto God_”; + _8:3, 10, 11_—“_God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful + flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh ... the body is dead + because of sin_” (= a corpse, on account of sin—Meyer; so Julius + Müller, Doct. Sin, 2:291) ... “_he that raised up Christ Jesus + from the dead shall give life also to your mortal bodies_”; _Gal. + 3:13_—“_Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having + become a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that + hangeth on a tree._” + + On the relation between death and sin, see Griffith-Jones, Ascent + through Christ, 169-185—“They are not antagonistic, but + complementary to each other—the one spiritual and the other + biological. The natural fact is fitted to a moral use.” Savage, + Life after Death, 33—“Men did not at first believe in natural + death. If a man died, it was because some one had killed him. No + ethical reason was desired or needed. At last however they sought + some moral explanation, and came to look upon death as a + punishment for human sin.” If this has been the course of human + evolution, we should conclude that the later belief represents the + truth rather than the earlier. Scripture certainly affirms the + doctrine that death itself, and not the mere accompaniments of + death, is the consequence and penalty of sin. For this reason we + cannot accept the very attractive and plausible theory which we + have now to mention: + + Newman Smyth, Place of Death in Evolution, holds that as the bow + in the cloud was appointed for a moral use, so death, which before + had been simply the natural law of the creation, was on occasion + of man’s sin appointed for a moral use. It is this _acquired_ + moral character of death with which Biblical Genesis has to do. + Death becomes a curse, by being a fear and a torment. Animals have + not this fear. But in man death stirs up conscience. Redemption + takes away the fear, and death drops back into its natural aspect, + or even becomes a gateway to life. Death is a curse to no animal + but man. The retributive element to death is the effect of sin. + When man has become perfected, death will cease to be of use, and + will, as the last enemy, be destroyed. Death here is Nature’s + method of securing always fresh, young, thrifty life, and the + greatest possible exuberance and joy of it. It is God’s way of + securing the greatest possible number and variety of immortal + beings. There are many schoolrooms for eternity in God’s universe, + and a ceaseless succession of scholars through them. There are + many folds, but one flock. The reaper Death keeps making room. + Four or five generations are as many as we can individually love, + and get moral stimulus from. + + Methuselahs too many would hold back the new generations. Bagehot + says that civilization needs first to form a cake of custom, and + secondly to break it up. Death, says Martineau, Study, 1:372-374, + is the provision for taking us abroad, before we have stayed too + long at home to lose our receptivity. Death is the liberator of + souls. The death of successive generations gives variety to + heaven. Death perfects love, reveals it to itself, unites as life + could not. As for Christ, so for us, it is expedient that we + should go away. + + While we welcome this reasoning as showing how God has overruled + evil for good, we regard the explanation as unscriptural and + unsatisfactory, for the reason that it takes no account of the + ethics of natural law. The law of death is an expression of the + nature of God, and specially of his holy wrath against sin. Other + methods of propagating the race and reinforcing its life could + have been adopted than that which involves pain and suffering and + death. These do not exist in the future life,—they would not exist + here, if it were not for the fact of sin. Dr. Smyth shows how the + evil of death has been overruled,—he has not shown the reason for + the original existence of the evil. The Scriptures explain this as + the penalty and stigma which God has attached to sin: _Psalm 90:7, + 8_ makes this plain: “_For we are consumed in thine anger, And in + thy wrath are we troubled. Thou hast set our iniquities before + thee, Our secret sins in the light of thy countenance._” The whole + psalm has for its theme: Death as the wages of sin. And this is + the teaching of Paul, in _Rom. 5:12_—“_through one man sin entered + into the world, and death through sin._” + + +(_b_) From reason. + +The universal prevalence of suffering and death among rational creatures +cannot be reconciled with the divine justice, except upon the supposition +that it is a judicial infliction on account of a common sinfulness of +nature belonging even to those who have not reached moral consciousness. + +The objection that death existed in the animal creation before the Fall +may be answered by saying that, but for the fact of man’s sin, it would +not have existed. We may believe that God arranged even the geologic +history to correspond with the foreseen fact of human apostasy (_cf._ Rom. +8:20-23—where the creation is said to have been made subject to vanity by +reason of man’s sin). + + + On _Rom. 8:20-23_—“_the creation was subjected to vanity, not of + its own will_”—see Meyer’s Com., and Bap. Quar., 1:143; also _Gen. + 3:17-19_—“_cursed is the ground for thy sake._” See also note on + the Relation of Creation to the Holiness and Benevolence of God, + and references, pages 402, 403. As the vertebral structure of the + first fish was an “anticipative consequence” of man, so the + suffering and death of fish pursued and devoured by other fish + were an “anticipative consequence” of man’s foreseen war with God + and with himself. + + +The translation of Enoch and Elijah, and of the saints that remain at +Christ’s second coming, seems intended to teach us that death is not a +necessary law of organized being, and to show what would have happened to +Adam if he had been obedient. He was created a “natural,” “earthly” body, +but might have attained a higher being, the “spiritual,” “heavenly” body, +without the intervention of death. Sin, however, has turned the normal +condition of things into the rare exception (_cf._ 1 Cor. 15:42-50). Since +Christ endured death as the penalty of sin, death to the Christian becomes +the gateway through which he enters into full communion with his Lord (see +references below). + + + Through physical death all Christians will pass, except those few + who like Enoch and Elijah were translated, and those many who + shall be alive at Christ’s second coming. Enoch and Elijah were + possible types of those surviving saints. On _1 Cor. 15:51_—“_We + shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,_” see Edward + Irving, Works, 5:135. The apocryphal Assumption of Moses, verse 9, + tells us that Joshua, being carried in vision to the spot at the + moment of Moses’ decease, beheld a double Moses, one dropped into + the grave as belonging to the earth, the other mingling with the + angels. The belief in Moses’ immortality was not conditioned upon + any resuscitation of the earthly corpse; see Martineau, Seat of + Authority, 364. When Paul was caught up to the third heaven, it + may have been a temporary translation of the disembodied spirit. + Set free for a brief space from the prison house which confined + it, it may have passed within the veil and have seen and heard + what mortal tongue could not describe; see Luckock, Intermediate + State, 4. So Lazarus probably could not tell what he saw: “He told + it not; or something sealed The lips of that Evangelist”; see + Tennyson, In Memoriam, xxxi. + + Nicoll, Life of Christ: “We have every one of us to face the last + enemy, death. Ever since the world began, all who have entered it + sooner or later have had this struggle, and the battle has always + ended in one way. Two indeed escaped, but they did not escape by + meeting and mastering their foe; they escaped by being taken away + from the battle.” But this physical death, for the Christian, has + been turned by Christ into a blessing. A pardoned prisoner may be + still kept in prison, as the best possible benefit to an exhausted + body; so the external fact of physical death may remain, although + it has ceased to be penalty. Macaulay: “The aged prisoner’s chains + are needed to support him; the darkness that has weakened his + sight is necessary to preserve it.” So spiritual death is not + wholly removed from the Christian; a part of it, namely, + depravity, still remains; yet it has ceased to be punishment,—it + is only chastisement. When the finger unties the ligature that + bound it, the body which previously had only chastised begins to + cure the trouble. There is still pain, but the pain is no longer + punitive,—it is now remedial. In the midst of the whipping, when + the boy repents, his punishment is changed to chastisement. + + _John 14:3_—“_And if I go and prepare a place for you, I come + again, and will receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye + may be also_”; _1 Cor. 15:54-57_—“_Death is swallowed up in + victory ... O death, where is thy sting? The sting of death is + sin; and the power of sin is the law_”—_i. e._, the law’s + condemnation, its penal infliction; _2 Cor. 5:1-9_—“_For we know + that if the earthly house of our tabernacle be dissolved we have a + building from God ... we are of good courage, I say, and are + willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be at home with + the Lord_”; _Phil. 1:21, 23_—“_to die is gain ... having the + desire to depart and be with Christ; for it is very far better._” + In Christ and his bearing the penalty of sin, the Christian has + broken through the circle of natural race-connection, and is saved + from corporate evil so far as it is punishment. The Christian may + be chastised, but he is never punished: _Rom. 8:1_—“_There is + therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus._” + At the house of Jairus Jesus said: “_Why make ye a tumult, and + weep?_” and having reproved the doleful clamorists, “_he put them + all forth_” (_Mark 5:39, 40_). The wakes and requiems and masses + and vigils of the churches of Rome and of Russia are all heathen + relics, entirely foreign to Christianity. + + Palmer, Theological Definition, 57—“Death feared and fought + against is terrible; but a welcome to death is the death of death + and the way to life.” The idea that punishment yet remains for the + Christian is “the bridge to the papal doctrine of purgatorial + fires.” Browning’s words, in The Ring and the Book, 2:60—“In His + face is light, but in his shadow healing too,” are applicable to + God’s fatherly chastenings, but not to his penal retributions. On + _Acts 7:60_—“_he fell asleep_”—Arnot remarks: “When death becomes + the property of the believer, it receives a new name, and is + called sleep.” Another has said: “Christ did not send, but came + himself to save; The ransom-price he did not lend, but gave; + Christ _died_, the shepherd for the sheep; We only _fall asleep_.” + _Per contra_, see Kreibig, Versöhnungslehre, 375, and + Hengstenberg, Ev. K.-Z., 1864:1065—“All suffering is punishment.” + + +B. Spiritual death,—or the separation of the soul from God, including all +that pain of conscience, loss of peace, and sorrow of spirit, which result +from disturbance of the normal relation between the soul and God. + +(_a_) Although physical death is a part of the penalty of sin, it is by no +means the chief part. The term “death” is frequently used in Scripture in +a moral and spiritual sense, as denoting the absence of that which +constitutes the true life of the soul, namely, the presence and favor of +God. + + + _Mat. 8:22_—“_Follow me; and leave the_ [spiritually] _dead to + bury their own_ [physically] _dead_”; _Luke 15:32_—“_this thy + brother was dead, and is alive again_”; _John 5:24_—“_He that + heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal + life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death + into life_”; _8:51_—“_If a man keep my word, he shall never see + death_”; _Rom. 8:13_—“_if ye live after the flesh, ye must die; + but if by the Spirit ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye + shall live_”; _Eph. 2:1_—“_when ye were dead through your + trespasses and sins_”; _5:14_—“_Awake, thou that sleepest, and + arise from the dead_”; _1 Tim. 5:6_—“_she that giveth herself to + pleasure is dead while __ she liveth_”; _James 5:20_—“_he who + converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul + from death_”; _1 John 3:14_—“_He that loveth not abideth in + death_”; _Rev. 3:1_—“_thou hast a name that thou livest, and thou + art dead._” + + +(_b_) It cannot be doubted that the penalty denounced in the garden and +fallen upon the race is primarily and mainly that death of the soul which +consists in its separation from God. In this sense only, death was fully +visited upon Adam in the day on which he ate the forbidden fruit (Gen. +2:17). In this sense only, death is escaped by the Christian (John 11:26). +For this reason, in the parallel between Adam and Christ (Rom. 5:12-21), +the apostle passes from the thought of mere physical death in the early +part of the passage to that of both physical and spiritual death at its +close (verse 21—“as sin reigned in death, even so might grace reign +through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our +Lord”—where “eternal life” is more than endless physical existence, and +“death” is more than death of the body). + + + _Gen. 2:17_—“_in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt + surely die_”; _John 11:26_—“_whosoever liveth and believeth on me + shall never die_”; _Rom. 5:14, 18, 21_—“_justification of life ... + eternal life_”; contrast these with “_death reigned ... sin + reigned in death._” + + +(_c_) Eternal death may be regarded as the culmination and completion of +spiritual death, and as essentially consisting in the correspondence of +the outward condition with the inward state of the evil soul (Acts 1:25). +It would seem to be inaugurated by some peculiar repellent energy of the +divine holiness (Mat. 25:41; 2 Thess. 1:9), and to involve positive +retribution visited by a personal God upon both the body and the soul of +the evil-doer (Mat. 10:28; Heb. 10:31; Rev. 14:11). + + + _Acts 1:25_—“_Judas fell away, that he might go to his own + place_”; _Mat. 25:41_—“_Depart from me, ye cursed, into the + eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels_”; _2 + Thess. 1:9_—“_who shall suffer punishment, even eternal + destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his + might_”; _Mat. 10:28_—“_fear him who is able to destroy both soul + and body in hell_”; _Heb. 10:31_—“_It is a fearful thing to fall + into the hands of the living God_”; _Rev. 14:11_—“_the smoke of + their torment goeth up for ever and ever._” + + Kurtz, Religionslehre, 67—“So long as God is holy, he must + maintain the order of the world, and where this is destroyed, + restore it. This however can happen in no other way than this: the + injury by which the sinner has destroyed the order of the world + falls back upon himself,—and this is penalty. Sin is the negation + of the law. Penalty is the negation of that negation, that is, the + reëstablishment of the law. Sin is a thrust of the sinner against + the law. Penalty is the adverse thrust of the elastic because + living law, which encounters the sinner.” + + Plato, Gorgias, 472 E; 509 B; 511 A; 515 B—“Impunity is a more + dreadful curse than any punishment, and nothing so good can befall + the criminal as his retribution, the failure of which would make a + double disorder in the universe. The offender himself may spend + his arts in devices of escape and think himself happy if he is not + found out. But all this plotting is but part of the delusion of + his sin; and when he comes to himself and sees his transgression + as it really is, he will yield himself up the prisoner of eternal + justice and know that it is good for him to be afflicted, and so + for the first time to be set at one with truth.” + + On the general subject of the penalty of sin, see Julius Müller, + Doct. Sin, 1:245 _sq._; 2:286-397; Baird, Elohim Revealed, + 263-279; Bushnell, Nature and the Supernatural, 194-219; Krabbe, + Lehre von der Sünde und vom Tode; Weisse, in Studien und Kritiken, + 1836:371; S. R. Mason, Truth Unfolded, 369-384; Bartlett, in New + Englander, Oct. 1871:677, 678. + + + +Section VII.—The Salvation Of Infants. + + +The views which have been presented with regard to inborn depravity and +the reaction of divine holiness against it suggest the question whether +infants dying before arriving at moral consciousness are saved, and if so, +in what way. To this question we reply as follows: + +(_a_) Infants are in a state of sin, need to be regenerated, and can be +saved only through Christ. + + + _Job 14:4_—“_Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not + one_”; _Ps. 51:5_—“_Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And + in sin did my mother conceive me_”; _John 3:6_—“_That which is + born of the flesh is flesh_”; _Rom. 5:14_—“_Nevertheless death + reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned + after the likeness of Adam’s transgression_”; _Eph. 2:3_—“_by + nature children of wrath_”; _1 Cor. 7:14_—“_else were your + children unclean_”—clearly intimate the naturally impure state of + infants; and _Mat. 19:14_—“_Suffer the little children, and forbid + them not, to come unto me_”—is not only consistent with this + doctrine, but strongly confirms it; for the meaning is: “_forbid + them not to come unto me_”—whom they need as a Savior. “Coming to + Christ” is always the coming of a sinner, to him who is the + sacrifice for sin; _cf._ _Mat. 11:28_—“_Come unto me, all ye that + labor._” + + +(_b_) Yet as compared with those who have personally transgressed, they +are recognized as possessed of a relative innocence, and of a +submissiveness and trustfulness, which may serve to illustrate the graces +of Christian character. + + + _Deut 1:39_—“_your little ones ... and your children, that this + day have no knowledge of good or evil_”; _Jonah 4:11_—“_sixscore + thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and + their left hand_”; _Rom. 9:11_—“_for the children being not yet + born, neither having done anything good or bad_”; _Mat. 18:3, + 4_—“_Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no + wise enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall + humble himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in + the kingdom of heaven._” See Julius Müller, Doct. Sin, 2:265. + Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 2:50—“Unpretentious receptivity, ... not + the reception of the kingdom of God at a childlike _age_, but in a + childlike _character_ ... is the condition of entering; ... not + blamelessness, but receptivity itself, on the part of those who do + not regard themselves as too good or too bad for the offered gift, + but receive it with hearty desire. Children have this + unpretentious receptivity for the kingdom of God which is + characteristic of them generally, since they have not yet other + possessions on which they pride themselves.” + + +(_c_) For this reason, they are the objects of special divine compassion +and care, and through the grace of Christ are certain of salvation. + + + _Mat. 18:5, 6, 10, 14_—“_whoso shall receive one such little child + in my name receiveth me: but whoso shall cause one of these little + ones that believe on me to stumble, it is profitable for him that + a great millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he + should be sunk in the depth of the sea.... See that ye despise not + one of these little ones: for I say unto you, that in heaven their + angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.... + Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven, that + one of these little ones should perish_”; _19:14_—“_Suffer the + little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for to such + belongeth the kingdom of heaven_”—not God’s kingdom of nature, but + his kingdom of grace, the kingdom of saved sinners. “Such” means, + not children as children, but childlike believers. Meyer, on _Mat. + 19:14_, refers the passage to spiritual infants only: “Not little + children,” he says, “but men of a childlike disposition.” Geikie: + “Let the little children come unto me, and do not forbid them, for + the kingdom of heaven is given only to such as have a childlike + spirit and nature like theirs.” The Savior’s words do not intimate + that little children are either (1) sinless creatures, or (2) + subjects for baptism; but only that their (1) humble + teachableness, (2) intense eagerness, and (3) artless trust, + illustrate the traits necessary for admission into the divine + kingdom. On the passages in Matthew, see Commentaries of Bengel, + De Wette, Lange; also Neander, Planting and Training (ed. + Robinson), 407. + + We therefore substantially agree with Dr. A. C. Kendrick, in his + article in the Sunday School Times: “To infants and children, as + such, the language cannot apply. It must be taken figuratively, + and must refer to those qualities in childhood, its dependence, + its trustfulness, its tender affection, its loving obedience, + which are typical of the essential Christian graces.... If asked + after the _logic_ of our Savior’s words—how he could assign, as a + reason for allowing _literal_ little children to be brought to + him, that _spiritual_ little children have a claim to the kingdom + of heaven—I reply: the persons that thus, as a class, typify the + subjects of God’s spiritual kingdom cannot be in themselves + objects of indifference to him, or be regarded otherwise than with + intense interest.... The class that in its very nature thus + shadows forth the brightest features of Christian excellence must + be subjects of God’s special concern and care.” + + To these remarks of Dr. Kendrick we would add, that Jesus’ words + seem to us to intimate more than special concern and care. While + these words seem intended to exclude all idea that infants are + saved by their natural holiness, or without application to them of + the blessings of his atonement, they also seem to us to include + infants among the number of those who have the right to these + blessings; in other words, Christ’s concern and care go so far as + to choose infants to eternal life, and to make them subjects of + the kingdom of heaven. _Cf._ _Mat. 18:14_—“_it is not the will of + your Father who is in heaven, that one of those little ones should + perish_”—those whom Christ has received here, he will not reject + hereafter. Of course this to said to infants, as infants. To + those, therefore, who die before coming to moral consciousness, + Christ’s words assure salvation. Personal transgression, however, + involves the necessity, before death, of a personal repentance and + faith, in order to achieve salvation. + + +(_d_) The descriptions of God’s merciful provision as coëxtensive with the +ruin of the Fall also lead us to believe that those who die in infancy +receive salvation through Christ as certainly as they inherit sin from +Adam. + + + _John 3:16_—“_For God so loved the world_”—includes infants. _Rom. + 5:14_—“_death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that + had not sinned after the likeness of Adam’s transgression, who is + a figure of him that was to come_”—there is an application to + infants of the life in Christ, as there was an application to them + of the death in Adam; _19-21_—“_For as through the one man’s + disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the + obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous. And the law + came in besides, that the trespass might abound; but when sin + abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly: that, as sin reigned + in death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto + eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord_”—as without personal + act of theirs infants inherited corruption from Adam, so without + personal act of theirs salvation is provided for them in Christ. + + Hovey, Bib. Eschatology, 170, 171—“Though the sacred writers say + nothing in respect to the future condition of those who die in + infancy, one can scarcely err in deriving from this silence a + favorable conclusion. That no prophet or apostle, that no devout + father or mother, should have expressed any solicitude as to those + who die before they are able to discern good from evil is + surprising, unless such solicitude was prevented by the Spirit of + God. There are no instances of prayer for children taken away in + infancy. The Savior nowhere teaches that they are in danger of + being lost. We therefore heartily and confidently believe that + they are redeemed by the blood of Christ and sanctified by his + Spirit, so that when they enter the unseen world they will be + found with the saints.” David ceased to fast and weep when his + child died, for he said: “_I shall go to him, but he will not + return to me_” (_2 Sam. 12:23_). + + +(_e_) The condition of salvation for adults is personal faith. Infants are +incapable of fulfilling this condition. Since Christ has died for all, we +have reason to believe that provision is made for their reception of +Christ in some other way. + + + _2 Cor. 5:15_—“_he died for all_”; _Mark 16:16_—“_He that + believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth + shall be condemned_” (_verses 9-20_ are of canonical authority, + though probably not written by Mark). Dr. G. W. Northrop held + that, as death to the Christian has ceased to be penalty, so death + to all infants is no longer penalty, Christ having atoned for and + removed the guilt of original sin for all men, infants included. + But we reply that there is no evidence that there is any guilt + taken away except for those who come into vital union with Christ. + E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 166—“The curse falls alike on + every one by birth, but may be alleviated or intensified by every + one who comes to years of responsibility, according as his nature + which brings the curse rules, or is ruled by, his reason and + conscience. So the blessings of salvation are procured for all + alike, but may be lost or secured according to the attitude of + everyone toward Christ who alone procures them. To infants, as the + curse comes without their election, so in like manner comes its + removal.” + + +(_f_) At the final judgment, personal conduct is made the test of +character. But infants are incapable of personal transgression. We have +reason, therefore, to believe that they will be among the saved, since +this rule of decision will not apply to them. + + + _Mat. 25:45, 46_—“_Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these + least, ye did it not unto me. And these shall go away into eternal + punishment_”; _Rom. 2:5, 6_—“_the day of wrath and revelation of + the righteous judgment of God; who __ will render to every man + according to his works._” Norman Fox, The Unfolding of Baptist + Doctrine, 24—“Not only the Roman Catholics believed in the + damnation of infants. The Lutherans, in the Augsburg Confession, + condemn the Baptists for affirming that children are saved without + baptism—‘damnant Anabaptistas qui ... affirmant pueros sine + baptismo salvos fieri’—and the favorite poet of Presbyterian + Scotland, in his Tam O’Shanter, names among objects from hell ‘Twa + span-lang, wee, unchristened bairns.’ The Westminster Confession, + in declaring that ‘elect infants dying in infancy’ are saved, + implies that non-elect infants dying in infancy are lost. This was + certainly taught by some of the framers of that creed.” + + Yet John Calvin did not believe in the damnation of infants, as he + has been charged with believing. In the Amsterdam edition of his + works, 8:522, we read: “I do not doubt that the infants whom the + Lord gathers together from this life are regenerated by a secret + operation of the Holy Spirit.” In his Institutes, book 4, chap. + 16, p. 335, he speaks of the exemption of infants from the grace + of salvation “as an idea not free from execrable blasphemy.” The + Presb. and Ref. Rev., Oct. 1890:634-651, quotes Calvin as follows: + “I everywhere teach that no one can be justly condemned and perish + except on account of actual sin; and to say that the countless + mortals taken from life while yet infants are precipitated from + their mothers’ arms into eternal death is a blasphemy to be + universally detested.” So also John Owen, Works, 8:522—“There are + two ways by which God saveth infants. First, by interesting them + in the covenant, if their immediate or remote parents have been + believers; ... Secondly, by his grace of election, which is most + free and not tied to any conditions; by which I make no doubt but + God taketh unto him in Christ many whose parents never knew, or + were despisers of, the gospel.” + + +(_g_) Since there is no evidence that children dying in infancy are +regenerated prior to death, either with or without the use of external +means, it seems most probable that the work of regeneration may be +performed by the Spirit in connection with the infant soul’s first view of +Christ in the other world. As the remains of natural depravity in the +Christian are eradicated, not by death, but at death, through the sight of +Christ and union with him, so the first moment of consciousness for the +infant may be coincident with a view of Christ the Savior which +accomplishes the entire sanctification of its nature. + + + _2 Cor. 3:18_—“_But we all, beholding as in a mirror the glory of + the Lord, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, + even as from the Lord the Spirit_”; _1 John 3:2_—“_We know that, + if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him; for we shall see + him as he is._” If asked why more is not said upon the subject in + Scripture, we reply: It is according to the analogy of God’s + general method to hide things that are not of immediate practical + value. In some past ages, moreover, knowledge of the fact that all + children dying in infancy are saved might have seemed to make + infanticide a virtue. + + While we agree with the following writers as to the salvation of + all infants who die before the age of conscious and wilful + transgression, we dissent from the seemingly Arminian tendency of + the explanation which they suggest. H. E. Robins, Harmony of + Ethics with Theology: “The judicial declaration of acquittal on + the ground of the death of Christ which comes upon all men, into + the benefits of which they are introduced by natural birth, is + inchoate justification, and will become perfected justification + through the new birth of the Holy Spirit, unless the working of + this divine agent is resisted by the personal moral action of + those who are lost.” So William Ashmore, in Christian Review, + 26:245-264. F. O. Dickey: “As infants are members of the race, and + as they are justified from the penalty against inherited sin by + the mediatorial work of Christ, so the race itself is justified + from the same penalty and to the same extent as are they, and were + the race to die in infancy it would be saved.” The truth in the + above utterances seems to us to be that Christ’s union with the + race secures the objective reconciliation of the race to God. But + subjective and personal reconciliation depends upon a moral union + with Christ which can be accomplished for the infant only by his + own appropriation of Christ at death. + + +While, in the nature of things and by the express declarations of +Scripture, we are precluded from extending this doctrine of regeneration +at death to any who have committed personal sins, we are nevertheless +warranted in the conclusion that, certain and great as is the guilt of +original sin, no human soul is eternally condemned solely for this sin of +nature, but that, on the other hand, all who have not consciously and +wilfully transgressed are made partakers of Christ’s salvation. + + + The advocates of a second probation, on the other hand, should + logically hold that infants in the next world are in a state of + sin, and that at death they only enter upon a period of probation + in which they may, or may not, accept Christ,—a doctrine much less + comforting than that propounded above. See Prentiss, in Presb. + Rev., July, 1883: 548-580—“Lyman Beecher and Charles Hodge first + made current in this country the doctrine of the salvation of all + who die in infancy. If this doctrine be accepted, then it follows: + (1) that these partakers of original sin must be saved wholly + through divine grace and power; (2) that in the child unborn there + is the promise and potency of complete spiritual manhood; (3) that + salvation is possible entirely apart from the visible church and + the means of grace; (4) that to a full half of the race this life + is not in any way a period of probation; (5) that heathen may be + saved who have never even heard of the gospel; (6) that the + providence of God includes in its scope both infants and heathen.” + + “Children exert a redeeming and reclaiming influence upon us, + their casual acts and words and simple trust recalling our + world-hardened and wayward hearts again to the feet of God. Silas + Marner, the old weaver of Raveloe, so pathetically and vividly + described in George Eliot’s novel, was a hard, desolate, godless + old miser, but after little Eppie strayed into his miserable + cottage that memorable winter night, he began again to believe. ‘I + think now,’ he said at last, ‘I can trusten God until I die.’ An + incident in a Southern hospital illustrates the power of children + to call men to repentance. A little girl was to undergo a + dangerous operation. When she mounted the table, and the doctor + was about to etherize her, he said: ‘Before we can make you well, + we must put you to sleep.’ ‘Oh then, if you are going to put me to + sleep,’ she sweetly said, ‘I must say my prayers first.’ Then, + getting down on her knees, and folding her hands, she repeated + that lovely prayer learned at every true mother’s feet: ‘Now I lay + me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep.’ Just for a + moment there were moist eyes in that group, for deep chords were + touched, and the surgeon afterwards said: ‘I prayed that night for + the first time in thirty years.’ ” The child that is old enough to + sin against God is old enough to trust in Christ as the Savior of + sinners. See Van Dyke, Christ and Little Children; Whitsitt and + Warfield, Infant Baptism and Infant Salvation; Hodge, Syst. + Theol., 1:26, 27; Ridgeley, Body of Div., 1:422-425; Calvin, + Institutes, II, i, 8; Westminster Larger Catechism, x, 3; Krauth, + Infant Salvation in the Calvinistic System; Candlish on Atonement, + part ii, chap. 1; Geo. P. Fisher, in New Englander, Apr. 1868:338; + J. F. Clarke, Truths and Errors of Orthodoxy, 360. + + + + + +PART VI. SOTERIOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION THROUGH THE WORK OF +CHRIST AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. + + + + +Chapter I. Christology, Or The Redemption Wrought By Christ. + + + +Section I.—Historical Preparation For Redemption. + + +Since God had from eternity determined to redeem mankind, the history of +the race from the time of the Fall to the coming of Christ was +providentially arranged to prepare the way for this redemption. The +preparation was two-fold: + + +I. Negative Preparation,—in the history of the heathen world. + + +This showed (1) the true nature of sin, and the depth of spiritual +ignorance and of moral depravity to which the race, left to itself, must +fall; and (2) the powerlessness of human nature to preserve or regain an +adequate knowledge of God, or to deliver itself from sin by philosophy or +art. + + + Why could not Eve have been the mother of the chosen seed, as she + doubtless at the first supposed that she was? (_Gen. 4:1_—“_and + she conceived, and bare Cain_ [_i. e._, “gotten”, or “acquired”], + _and said, I have gotten a man, even Jehovah_”). Why was not the + cross set up at the gates of Eden? Scripture intimates that a + preparation was needful (_Gal 4:4_—“_but when the fulness of the + time came, God hath sent forth his Son_”). Of the two agencies + made use of, we have called heathenism the negative preparation. + But it was not wholly negative; it was partly positive also. + Justin Martyr spoke of a Λόγος σπερματικός among the heathen. + Clement of Alexandria called Plato a Μωσῆς ἀττικίζων—a + Greek-speaking Moses. Notice the priestly attitude of Pythagoras, + Socrates, Plato, Pindar, Sophocles. The Bible recognizes Job, + Balaam, Melchisedek, as instances of priesthood, or divine + communication, outside the bounds of the chosen people. Heathen + religions either were not religions, or God had a part in them. + Confucius, Buddha, Zoroaster, were at least reformers, raised up + in God’s providence. _Gal 4:3_ classes Judaism with the + “_rudiments of the world_,” and _Rom. 5:20_ tells us that “_the + law came in beside_,” as a force coöperating with other human + factors, primitive revelation, sin, _etc._ + + The positive preparation in heathenism receives greater attention + when we conceive of Christ as the immanent God, revealing himself + in conscience and in history. This was the real meaning of Justin + Martyr, Apol. 1:46; 2:10, 13—“The whole race of men partook of the + Logos, and those who lived according to reason (λόγου), were + Christians, even though they were accounted atheists. Such among + the Greeks were Socrates and Heracleitus, and those who resembled + them.... Christ was known in part even to Socrates.... The + teachings of Plato are not alien to those of Christ, though not in + all respects similar. For all the writers of antiquity were able + to have a dim vision of realities by means of the indwelling seed + of the implanted Word (λόγου).” Justin Martyr claimed inspiration + for Socrates. Tertullian spoke of Socrates as “pæne + noster”—“almost one of us.” Paul speaks of the Cretans as having: + “_a prophet of their own_” (_Tit. 1:12_)—probably Epimenides (596 + B. C.) whom Plato calls a θεῖος ἀνήρ—“a man of God,” and whom + Cicero couples with Bacis and the Erythræan Sibyl. Clement of + Alexandria, Stromata, 1:19; 6:5—“The same God who furnished both + the covenants was the giver of the Greek philosophy to the Greeks, + by which the Almighty is glorified among the Greeks.” Augustine: + “Plato made me know the true God; Jesus Christ showed me the way + to him.” + + Bruce, Apologetics, 207—“God gave to the Gentiles at least the + starlight of religious knowledge. The Jews were elected for the + sake of the Gentiles. There was some light even for pagans, though + heathenism on the whole was a failure. But its very failure was a + preparation for receiving the true religion.” Hatch, Hibbert + Lectures, 133, 238—“Neo-Platonism, that splendid vision of + incomparable and irrecoverable cloudland in which the sun of Greek + philosophy set.... On its ethical side Christianity had large + elements in common with reformed Stoicism; on its theological side + it moved in harmony with the new movements of Platonism.” E. G. + Robinson: “The idea that all religions but the Christian are the + direct work of the devil is a Jewish idea, and is now abandoned. + On the contrary, God has revealed himself to the race just so far + as they have been capable of knowing him.... Any religion is + better than none, for all religion implies restraint.” + + _John 1:9_—“_There was the true light, even the light which + lighteth every man, coming into the world_”—has its Old Testament + equivalent in _Ps. 94:10_—“_He that chastiseth the nations, shall + not he correct, Even he that teacheth man knowledge?_” Christ is + the great educator of the race. The preincarnate Word exerted an + influence upon the consciences of the heathen. He alone makes it + true that “anima naturaliter Christiana est.” Sabatier, Philos. + Religion, 138-140—“Religion is union between God and the soul. + That experience was first perfectly realized in Christ. Here are + the ideal fact and the historical fact united and blended. + Origen’s and Tertullian’s rationalism and orthodoxy each has its + truth. The religious consciousness of Christ is the fountain head + from which Christianity has flowed. He was a beginning of life to + men. He had the spirit of sonship—God in man, and man in God. + ‘Quid interius Deo?’ He showed us insistence on the moral ideal, + yet the preaching of mercy to the sinner. The gospel was the + acorn, and Christianity is the oak that has sprung from it. In the + acorn, as in the tree, are some Hebraic elements that are + temporary. Paganism is the materializing of religion; Judaism is + the legalizing of religion. ‘In me,’ says Charles Secretan, ‘lives + some one greater than I.’ ” + + But the positive element in heathenism was slight. Her altars and + sacrifices, her philosophy and art, roused cravings which she was + powerless to satisfy. Her religious systems became sources of + deeper corruption. There was no hope, and no progress. “The + Sphynx’s moveless calm symbolizes the monotony of Egyptian + civilization.” Classical nations became more despairing, as they + became more cultivated. To the best minds, truth seemed impossible + of attainment, and all hope of general well-being seemed a dream. + The Jews were the only forward-looking people; and all our modern + confidence in destiny and development comes from them. They, in + their turn, drew their hopefulness solely from prophecy. Not their + “genius for religion,” but special revelation from God, made them + what they were. + + Although God was in heathen history, yet so exceptional were the + advantages of the Jews, that we can almost assent to the doctrine + of the New Englander, Sept. 1883:576—“The Bible does not recognize + other revelations. It speaks of the ‘_face of the covering that + covereth all peoples, and the veil that is spread over all + nations_’ (_Is. 25:7_); _Acts 14:16, 17_—‘_who in the generations + gone by suffered all the nations to walk in their own ways. And + yet he left not himself without witness_’ = not an internal + revelation in the hearts of sages, but an external revelation in + nature, ‘_in that he did good and gave you from heaven rains and + fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness._’ + The convictions of heathen reformers with regard to divine + inspiration were dim and intangible, compared with the + consciousness of prophets and apostles that God was speaking + through them to his people.” + + On heathenism as a preparation for Christ, see Tholuck, Nature and + Moral Influence of Heathenism, in Bib. Repos., 1832:80, 246, 441; + Döllinger, Gentile and Jew; Pressensé, Religions before Christ; + Max Müller, Science of Religion, 1-128; Cocker, Christianity and + Greek Philosophy; Ackerman, Christian Element in Plato; Farrar, + Seekers after God; Renan, on Rome and Christianity, in Hibbert + Lectures for 1880. + + +II. Positive Preparation,—in the history of Israel. + + +A single people was separated from all others, from the time of Abraham, +and was educated in three great truths: (1) the majesty of God, in his +unity, omnipotence, and holiness; (2) the sinfulness of man, and his moral +helplessness; (3) the certainty of a coming salvation. This education from +the time of Moses was conducted by the use of three principal agencies: + +A. Law.—The Mosaic legislation, (_a_) by its theophanies and miracles, +cultivated faith in a personal and almighty God and Judge; (_b_) by its +commands and threatenings, wakened the sense of sin; (_c_) by its priestly +and sacrificial system, inspired hope of some way of pardon and access to +God. + + + The education of the Jews was first of all an education by Law. In + the history of the world, as in the history of the individual, law + must precede gospel, John the Baptist must go before Christ, + knowledge of sin must prepare a welcome entrance for knowledge of + a Savior. While the heathen were studying God’s works, the chosen + people were studying God. Men teach by words as well as by + works,—so does God. And words reveal heart to heart, as works + never can. “The Jews were made to know, on behalf of all mankind, + the guilt and shame of sin. Yet just when the disease was at its + height, the physicians were beneath contempt.” Wrightnour: “As if + to teach all subsequent ages that no outward cleansing would + furnish a remedy, the great deluge, which washed away the whole + sinful antediluvian world with the exception of one comparatively + pure family, had not cleansed the world from sin.” + + With this gradual growth in the sense of sin there was also a + widening and deepening faith. Kuyper, Work of the Holy Spirit, + 67—“Abel, Abraham, Moses = the individual, the family, the nation. + By faith Abel obtained witness; by faith Abraham received the son + of the promise; and by faith Moses led Israel through the Red + Sea.” Kurtz, Religionslehre, speaks of the relation between law + and gospel as “Ein fliessender Gegensatz”—“a flowing + antithesis”—like that between flower and fruit. A. B. Davidson, + Expositor, 6:163—“The course of revelation is like a river, which + cannot be cut up into sections.” E. G. Robinson: “The two + fundamental ideas of Judaism were: 1. theological—the unity of + God; 2. philosophical—the distinctness of God from the material + world. Judaism went to seed. Jesus, with the sledge-hammer of + truth, broke up the dead forms, and the Jews thought he was + destroying the Law.” On methods pursued with humanity by God, see + Simon, Reconciliation, 232-251. + + +B. Prophecy.—This was of two kinds: (_a_) verbal,—beginning with the +protevangelium in the garden, and extending to within four hundred years +of the coming of Christ; (_b_) typical,—in persons, as Adam, Melchisedek, +Joseph, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Jonah; and in acts, as Isaac’s +sacrifice, and Moses’ lifting up the serpent in the wilderness. + + + The relation of law to gospel was like that of a sketch to the + finished picture, or of David’s plan for the temple to Solomon’s + execution of it. When all other nations were sunk in pessimism and + despair, the light of hope burned brightly among the Hebrews. The + nation was forward-bound. Faith was its very life. The O. T. + saints saw all the troubles of the present “sub specie + eternitatis,” and believed that “_Light is sown for the righteous, + And gladness for the upright in heart_” (_Ps. 97:11_). The hope of + Job was the hope of the chosen people: “_I know that my Redeemer + liveth, And at last he will stand up upon the earth_” (_Job + 19:25_). Hutton, Essays, 2:237—“Hebrew supernaturalism has + transmuted forever the pure naturalism of Greek poetry. And now no + modern poet can ever become really great who does not feel and + reproduce in his writings the difference between the natural and + the supernatural.” + + Christ was the reality, to which the types and ceremonies of + Judaism pointed; and these latter disappeared when Christ had + come, just as the petals of the blossom drop away when the fruit + appears. Many promises to the O. T. saints which seemed to them + promises of temporal blessing, were fulfilled in a better, because + a more spiritual, way than they expected. Thus God cultivated in + them a boundless trust—a trust which was essentially the same + thing with the faith of the new dispensation, because it was the + absolute reliance of a consciously helpless sinner upon God’s + method of salvation, and so was implicitly, though not explicitly, + a faith in Christ. + + The protevangelium (_Gen. 3:15_) said “_it_ [this promised seed] + _shall bruise thy head_.” The “_it_” was rendered in some Latin + manuscripts “_ipsa_.” Hence Roman Catholic divines attributed the + victory to the Virgin. Notice that Satan was cursed, but not Adam + and Eve; for they were candidates for restoration. The promise of + the Messiah narrowed itself down as the race grew older, from + Abraham to Judah, David, Bethlehem, and the Virgin. Prophecy spoke + of “_the sceptre_” and of “_the seventy weeks_.” Haggai and + Malachi foretold that the Lord should suddenly come to the second + temple. Christ was to be true man and true God; prophet, priest, + and king; humbled and exalted. When prophecy had become complete, + a brief interval elapsed, and then he, of whom Moses in the law, + and the prophets, did write, actually came. + + All these preparations for Christ’s coming, however, through the + perversity of man became most formidable obstacles to the progress + of the gospel. The Roman Empire put Christ to death. Philosophy + rejected Christ as foolishness. Jewish ritualism, the mere shadow, + usurped the place of worship and faith, the substance of religion. + God’s last method of preparation in the case of Israel was that of + + +C. Judgment—Repeated divine chastisements for idolatry culminated in the +overthrow of the kingdom, and the captivity of the Jews. The exile had two +principal effects: (_a_) religious,—in giving monotheism firm root in the +heart of the people, and in leading to the establishment of the +synagogue-system, by which monotheism was thereafter preserved and +propagated; (_b_) civil,—in converting the Jews from an agricultural to a +trading people, scattering them among all nations, and finally imbuing +them with the spirit of Roman law and organization. + +Thus a people was made ready to receive the gospel and to propagate it +throughout the world, at the very time when the world had become conscious +of its needs, and, through its greatest philosophers and poets, was +expressing its longings for deliverance. + + + At the junction of Europe, Asia, and Africa, there lay a little + land through which passed all the caravan-routes from the East to + the West. Palestine was “the eye of the world.” The Hebrews + throughout the Roman world were “the greater Palestine of the + Dispersion.” The scattering of the Jews through all lands had + prepared a monotheistic starting point for the gospel in every + heathen city. Jewish synagogues had prepared places of assembly + for the hearing of the gospel. The Greek language—the universal + literary language of the world—had prepared a medium in which that + gospel could be spoken. “Cæsar had unified the Latin West, as + Alexander the Greek East”; and universal peace, together with + Roman roads and Roman law, made it possible for that gospel, when + once it had got a foothold, to spread itself to the ends of the + earth. The first dawn of missionary enterprise appears among the + proselyting Jews before Christ’s time. Christianity laid hold of + this proselyting spirit, and sanctified it, to conquer the world + to the faith of Christ. + + Beyschlag, N. T. Theology, 2:9, 10—“In his great expedition across + the Hellespont, Paul reversed the course which Alexander took, and + carried the gospel into Europe to the centres of the old Greek + culture.” In all these preparations we see many lines converging + to one result, in a manner inexplicable, unless we take them as + proofs of the wisdom and power of God preparing the way for the + kingdom of his Son; and all this in spite of the fact that “_a + hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fulness of the + Gentiles be come in_” (_Rom. 11:25_). James Robertson, Early + Religion of Israel, 15—“Israel now instructs the world in the + Worship of Mammon, after having once taught it the knowledge of + God.” + + On Judaism, as a preparation for Christ, see Döllinger, Gentile + and Jew, 2:291-419; Martensen, Dogmatics, 224-236; Hengstenberg, + Christology of the O. T.; Smith, Prophecy a Preparation for + Christ; Van Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 458-485; Fairbairn, Typology; + MacWhorter, Jahveh Christ; Kurtz, Christliche Religionslehre, 114; + Edwards’ History of Redemption, in Works, 1:297-395; Walker, + Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation; Conybeare and Howson, Life + and Epistles of St. Paul, 1:1-37; Luthardt, Fundamental Truths, + 257-281; Schaff, Hist. Christian Ch., 1:32-49; Butler’s Analogy, + Bohn’s ed., 228-238; Bushnell, Vicarious Sac., 63-66; Max Müller, + Science of Language, 2:443; Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, + 1:463-485; Fisher, Beginnings of Christianity, 47-73. + + + +Section II.—The Person Of Christ. + + +The redemption of mankind from sin was to be effected through a Mediator +who should unite in himself both the human nature and the divine, in order +that he might reconcile God to man and man to God. To facilitate an +understanding of the Scriptural doctrine under consideration, it will be +desirable at the outset to present a brief historical survey of views +respecting the Person of Christ. + + + In the history of doctrine, as we have seen, beliefs held in + solution at the beginning are only gradually precipitated and + crystallized into definite formulas. The first question which + Christians naturally asked themselves was “_What think ye of the + Christ_” (_Mat 22:42_); then his relation to the Father; then, in + due succession, the nature of sin, of atonement, of justification, + of regeneration. Connecting these questions with the names of the + great leaders who sought respectively to answer them, we have: 1. + the Person of Christ, treated by Gregory Nazianzen (328); 2. the + Trinity, by Athanasius (325-373); 3. Sin, by Augustine (353-430); + 4. Atonement, by Anselm (1033-1109); 5. Justification by faith, by + Luther (1485-1560); 6. Regeneration, by John Wesley + (1703-1791);—six weekdays of theology, leaving only a seventh, for + the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, which may be the work of our age. + _John 10:36_—“_him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the + world_”—hints at some mysterious process by which the Son was + prepared for his mission. Athanasius: “If the Word of God is in + the _world_, as in a body, what is there strange in affirming that + he has also entered into _humanity_?” This is the natural end of + evolution from lower to higher. See Medd, Bampton Lectures for + 1882, on The One Mediator: The Operation of the Son of God in + Nature and in Grace; Orr, God’s Image in Man. + + +I. Historical Survey of Views Respecting the Person of Christ. + + +1. _The Ebionites_ (אביון = “poor”; A. D. 107?) denied the reality of +Christ’s divine nature, and held him to be merely man, whether naturally +or supernaturally conceived. This man, however, held a peculiar relation +to God, in that, from the time of his baptism, an unmeasured fulness of +the divine Spirit rested upon him. Ebionism was simply Judaism within the +pale of the Christian church, and its denial of Christ’s godhood was +occasioned by the apparent incompatibility of this doctrine with +monotheism. + + + Fürst (Heb. Lexicon) derives the name “Ebionite” from the word + signifying “poor”; see _Is. 25:4_—“_thou hast been a stronghold to + the poor_”; _Mat 5:3_—“_Blessed are the poor in spirit._” It means + “oppressed, pious souls.” Epiphanius traces them back to the + Christians who took refuge, A. D. 66, at Pella, just before the + destruction of Jerusalem. They lasted down to the fourth century. + Dorner can assign no age for the formation of the sect, nor any + historically ascertained person as its head. It was not Judaic + Christianity, but only a fraction of this. There were two + divisions of the Ebionites: + + (_a_) The Nazarenes, who held to the supernatural birth of Christ, + while they would not go to the length of admitting the preëxisting + hypostasis of the Son. They are said to have had the gospel of + Matthew, in Hebrew. + + (_b_) The Cerinthian Ebionites, who put the baptism of Christ in + place of his supernatural birth, and made the ethical sonship the + cause of the physical. It seemed to them a heathenish fable that + the Son of God should be born of the Virgin. There was no personal + union between the divine and human in Christ. Christ, as distinct + from Jesus, was not a merely impersonal power descending upon + Jesus, but a preëxisting hypostasis above the world-creating + powers. The Cerinthian Ebionites, who on the whole best represent + the spirit of Ebionism, approximated to Pharisaic Judaism, and + were hostile to the writings of Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews, + in fact, is intended to counteract an Ebionitic tendency to + overstrain law and to underrate Christ. In a complete view, + however, should also be mentioned: + + (_c_) The Gnostic Ebionism of the pseudo-Clementines, which in + order to destroy the deity of Christ and save the pure monotheism, + so-called, of primitive religion, gave up even the best part of + the Old Testament. In all its forms, Ebionism conceives of God and + man as external to each other. God could not become man. Christ + was no more than a prophet or teacher, who, as the reward of his + virtue, was from the time of his baptism specially endowed with + the Spirit. After his death he was exalted to kingship. But that + would not justify the worship which the church paid him. A merely + creaturely mediator would separate us from God, instead of uniting + us to him. See Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:305-307 (Syst. Doct., + 3:201-204), and Hist. Doct. Person Christ, A.1:187-217; Reuss, + Hist. Christ. Theol., 1:100-107; Schaff, Ch. Hist., 1:213-215. + + +2. _The Docetæ_ (δοκέω—“to seem,” “to appear”; A. D. 70-170), like most of +the Gnostics in the second century and the Manichees in the third, denied +the reality of Christ’s human body. This view was the logical sequence of +their assumption of the inherent evil of matter. If matter is evil and +Christ was pure, then Christ’s human body must have been merely +phantasmal. Docetism was simply pagan philosophy introduced into the +church. + + + The Gnostic Basilides held to a real human Christ, with whom the + divine νοῦς became united at the baptism; but the followers of + Basilides became Docetæ. To them, the body of Christ was merely a + seeming one. There was no real life or death. Valentinus made the + Æon, Christ, with a body purely pneumatic and worthy of himself, + pass through the body of the Virgin, as water through a reed, + taking up into himself nothing of the human nature through which + he passed; or as a ray of light through colored glass which only + imparts to the light a portion of its own darkness. Christ’s life + was simply a theophany. The Patripassians and Sabellians, who are + only sects of the Docetæ, denied all real humanity to Christ. + Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 141—“He treads the thorns of death and + shame ‘like a triumphal path,’ of which he never felt the + sharpness. There was development only externally and in + appearance. No ignorance can be ascribed to him amidst the + omniscience of the Godhead.” Shelley: “A mortal shape to him Was + as the vapor dim Which the orient planet animates with light.” The + strong argument against Docetism was found in _Heb. 2:14_—“_Since + then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself + in like manner partook of the same._” + + That Docetism appeared so early, shows that the impression Christ + made was that of a superhuman being. Among many of the Gnostics, + the philosophy which lay at the basis of their Docetism was a + pantheistic apotheosis of the world. God did not need to become + man, for man was essentially divine. This view, and the opposite + error of Judaism, already mentioned, both showed their + insufficiency by attempts to combine with each other, as in the + Alexandrian philosophy. See Dorner, Hist. Doct. Person Christ, + A.1:218-253, and Glaubenslehre, 2:307-310 (Syst. Doct., + 3:204-206); Neander, Ch. Hist, 1:387. + + +3. _The Arians_ (Arius, condemned at Nice, 325) denied the integrity of +the divine nature in Christ. They regarded the Logos who united himself to +humanity in Jesus Christ, not as possessed of absolute godhood, but as the +first and highest of created beings. This view originated in a +misinterpretation of the Scriptural accounts of Christ’s state of +humiliation, and in mistaking temporary subordination for original and +permanent inequality. + + + Arianism is called by Dorner a reaction from Sabellianism. + Sabellius had reduced the incarnation of Christ to a temporary + phenomenon. Arius thought to lay stress on the hypostasis of the + Son, and to give it fixity and substance. But, to his mind, the + reality of Sonship seemed to require subordination to the Father. + Origen had taught the subordination of the Son to the Father, in + connection with his doctrine of eternal generation. Arius held to + the subordination, and also to the generation, but this last, he + declared, could not be eternal, but must be in time. See Dorner, + Person Christ, A.2:227-244, and Glaubenslehre, 2:307, 312, 313 + (Syst. Doct., 3:203, 207-210); Herzog, Encyclopädie, art.: + Arianismus. See also this Compendium, Vol. I:328-330. + + +4. _The Apollinarians_ (Apollinaris, condemned at Constantinople, 381) +denied the integrity of Christ’s human nature. According to this view, +Christ had no human νοῦς or πνεῦμα, other than that which was furnished by +the divine nature. Christ had only the human σῶμα and ψυχή; the place of +the human νοῦς or πνεῦμα was filled by the divine Logos. Apollinarism is +an attempt to construe the doctrine of Christ’s person in the forms of the +Platonic trichotomy. + + + Lest divinity should seem a foreign element, when added to this + curtailed manhood, Apollinaris said that there was an eternal + tendency to the human in the Logos himself; that in God was the + true manhood; that the Logos is the eternal, archetypal man. But + here is no _becoming_ man—only a manifestation in flesh of what + the Logos already _was_. So we have a Christ of great head and + dwarfed body. Justin Martyr preceded Apollinaris in this view. In + opposing it, the church Fathers said that “what the Son of God has + not taken to himself, he has not sanctified”—τὸ ἀπρόσληπτον καὶ + ἀθεράπευτον. See Dorner, Jahrbuch f. d. Theol., 1:397-408—“The + impossibility, on the Arian theory, of making two finite souls + into one, finally led to the [Apollinarian] denial of any human + soul in Christ”; see also, Dorner, Person Christ, A.2:352-399, and + Glaubenslehre, 2:310 (Syst. Doct., 3:206, 207); Shedd, Hist. + Doctrine, 1:394. + + Apollinaris taught that the eternal Word took into union with + himself, not a complete human nature, but an irrational human + animal. Simon, Reconciliation, 329, comes near to being an + Apollinarian, when he maintains that the incarnate Logos was + human, but was not a man. He is the constituter of man, + self-limited, in order that he may save that to which he has given + life. Gore, Incarnation, 93—“Apollinaris suggested that the + archetype of manhood exists in God, who made man in his own image, + so that man’s nature in some sense preëxisted in God. The Son of + God was eternally human, and he could fill the place of the human + mind in Christ without his ceasing to be in some sense divine.... + This the church negatived,—man is not God, nor God man. The first + principle of theism is that manhood at the bottom is not the same + thing as Godhead. This is a principle intimately bound up with + man’s responsibility and the reality of sin. The interests of + theism were at stake.” + + +5. _The Nestorians_ (Nestorius, removed from the Patriarchate of +Constantinople, 431) denied the real union between the divine and the +human natures in Christ, making it rather a moral than an organic one. +They refused therefore to attribute to the resultant unity the attributes +of each nature, and regarded Christ as a man in very near relation to God. +Thus they virtually held to two natures and two persons, instead of two +natures in one person. + + + Nestorius disliked the phrase: “Mary, mother of God.” The + Chalcedon statement asserted its truth, with the significant + addition: “as to his humanity.” Nestorius made Christ a peculiar + temple of God. He believed in συνάφεια, not ἕνωσις,—junction and + indwelling, but not absolute union. He made too much of the + analogy of the union of the believer with Christ, and separated as + much as possible the divine and the human. The two natures were, + in his view, ἄλλος καὶ ἄλλος, instead of being ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο, + which together constitute εἶς—one personality. The union which he + accepted was a moral union, which makes Christ simply God and man, + instead of the God-man. + + John of Damascus compared the passion of Christ to the felling of + a tree on which the sun shines. The axe fells the tree, but does + no harm to the sunbeams. So the blows which struck Christ’s + humanity caused no harm to his deity; while the flesh suffered, + the deity remained impassible. This leaves, however, no divine + efficacy of the human sufferings, and no personal union of the + human with the divine. The error of Nestorius arose from a + philosophic nominalism, which refused to conceive of nature + without personality. He believed in nothing more than a local or + moral union, like the marriage union, in which two become one; or + like the state, which is sometimes called a moral person, because + having a unity composed of many persons. See Dorner, Person + Christ, B.1:53-79, and Glaubenslehre, 2:315, 316 (Syst. Doct., + 3:211-213); Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 4:210; Wilberforce, + Incarnation, 152-154. + + “There was no need here of the virgin-birth,—to secure a sinless + father as well as mother would have been enough. Nestorianism + holds to no real incarnation—only to an alliance between God and + man. After the fashion of the Siamese twins, Chang and Eng, man + and God are joined together. But the incarnation is not merely a + higher degree of the mystical union.” Gore, Incarnation, + 94—“Nestorius adopted and popularized the doctrine of the famous + commentator, Theodore of Mopsuestia. But the Christ of Nestorius + was simply a deified man, not God incarnate,—he was from below, + not from above. If he was exalted to union with the divine + essence, his exaltation was only that of one individual man.” + + +6. _The Eutychians_ (condemned at Chalcedon, 451) denied the distinction +and coëxistence of the two natures, and held to a mingling of both into +one, which constituted a _tertium quid_, or third nature. Since in this +case the divine must overpower the human, it follows that the human was +really absorbed into or transmuted into the divine, although the divine +was not in all respects the same, after the union, that it was before. +Hence the Eutychians were often called Monophysites, because they +virtually reduced the two natures to one. + + + They were an Alexandrian school, which included monks of + Constantinople and Egypt. They used the words σύγχυσις, + μεταβολή—confounding, transformation—to describe the union of the + two natures in Christ. Humanity joined to deity was as a drop of + honey mingled with the ocean. There was a change in either + element, but as when a stone attracts the earth, or a meteorite + the sun, or when a small boat pulls a ship, all the movement was + virtually on the part of the smaller object. Humanity was so + absorbed in deity, as to be altogether lost. The union was + illustrated by electron, a metal compounded of silver and gold. A + more modern illustration would be that of the chemical union of an + acid and an alkali, to form a salt unlike either of the + constituents. + + In effect this theory denied the human element, and, with this, + the possibility of atonement, on the part of human nature, as well + as of real union of man with God. Such a magical union of the two + natures as Eutyches described is inconsistent with any real + _becoming man_ on the part of the Logos,—the manhood is well-nigh + as illusory as upon the theory of the Docetæ. Mason, Faith of the + Gospel, 140—“This turns not the Godhead only but the manhood also + into something foreign—into some nameless nature, betwixt and + between—the fabulous nature of a semi-human demigod,” like the + Centaur. + + The author of “The German Theology” says that “Christ’s human + nature was utterly bereft of self, and was nothing else but a + house and habitation of God.” The Mystics would have human + personality so completely the organ of the divine that “we may be + to God what man’s hand is to a man,” and that “I” and “mine” may + cease to have any meaning. Both these views savor of Eutychianism. + On the other hand, the Unitarian says that Christ was “a mere + man.” But there cannot be such a thing as a mere man, exclusive of + aught above and beyond him, self-centered and self-moved. The + Trinitarian sometimes declares himself as believing that Christ is + God and man, thus implying the existence of two substances. Better + say that Christ is the God-man, who manifests all the divine + powers and qualities of which all men and all nature are partial + embodiments. See Dorner, Person of Christ, B.1:83-93, and + Glaubenslehre, 2:318, 319 (Syst. Doct., 3:214-216); Guericke, Ch. + History, 1:356-360. + + +The foregoing survey would seem to show that history had exhausted the +possibilities of heresy, and that the future denials of the doctrine of +Christ’s person must be, in essence, forms of the views already mentioned. +All controversies with regard to the person of Christ must, of necessity, +hinge upon one of three points: first, the reality of the two natures; +secondly, the integrity of the two natures; thirdly, the union of the two +natures in one person. Of these points, Ebionism and Docetism deny the +reality of the natures; Arianism and Apollinarianism deny their integrity; +while Nestorianism and Eutychianism deny their proper union. In opposition +to all these errors, the orthodox doctrine held its ground and maintains +it to this day. + + + We may apply to this subject what Dr. A. P. Peabody said in a + different connection: “The canon of infidelity was closed almost + as soon as that of the Scriptures”—modern unbelievers having, for + the most part, repeated the objections of their ancient + predecessors. Brooks, Foundations of Zoölogy, 126—“As a shell + which has failed to burst is picked up on some old battle-field, + by some one on whom experience is thrown away, and is exploded by + him in the bosom of his approving family, with disastrous results, + so one of these abandoned beliefs may be dug up by the head of + some intellectual family, to the confusion of those who follow him + as their leader.” + + +7. _The Orthodox doctrine_ (promulgated at Chalcedon, 451) holds that in +the one person Jesus Christ there are two natures, a human nature and a +divine nature, each in its completeness and integrity, and that these two +natures are organically and indissolubly united, yet so that no third +nature is formed thereby. In brief, to use the antiquated dictum, orthodox +doctrine forbids us either to divide the person or to confound the +natures. + +That this doctrine is Scriptural and rational, we have yet to show. We may +most easily arrange our proofs by reducing the three points mentioned to +two, namely: first, the reality and integrity of the two natures; +secondly, the union of the two natures in one person. + + + The formula of Chalcedon is negative, with the exception of its + assertion of a ἕνωσις ὑποστατική. It proceeds from the natures, + and regards the result of the union to be the person. Each of the + two natures is regarded as in movement toward the other. The + symbol says nothing of an ἀνυποστασία of the human nature, nor + does it say that the Logos furnishes the ego in the personality. + John of Damascus, however, pushed forward to these conclusions, + and his work, translated into Latin, was used by Peter Lombard, + and determined the views of the Western church of the Middle Ages. + Dorner regards this as having given rise to the Mariolatry, + saint-invocation, and transubstantiation of the Roman Catholic + Church. See Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 4:189 _sq._; Dorner, Person + Christ, B.1:93-119, and Glaubenslehre, 2:320-328 (Syst. Doct., + 3:216-223), in which last passage may be found valuable matter + with regard to the changing uses of the words πρόσωπον, ὑπόστασις, + οὐσία, _etc._ + + Gore, Incarnation, 96, 101—“These decisions simply express in a + new form, without substantial addition, the apostolic teaching as + it is represented in the New Testament. They express it in a new + form for protective purposes, as a legal enactment protects a + moral principle. They are developments only in the sense that they + represent the apostolic teaching worked out into formulas by the + aid of a terminology which was supplied by Greek dialectics.... + What the church borrowed from Greek thought was her terminology, + not the substance of her creed. Even in regard to her terminology + we must make one important reservation; for Christianity laid all + stress on the personality of God and man, of which Hellenism had + thought but little.” + + +II. The two Natures of Christ,—their Reality and Integrity. + + +1. The Humanity of Christ. + + +A. Its Reality.—This may be shown as follows: + +(_a_) He expressly called himself, and was called, “man.” + + + _John 8:40_—“_ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the + truth_”; _Acts 2:22_—“_Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God + unto you_”; _Rom. 5:15_—“_the one man, Jesus Christ_”; _1 Cor. + 15:21_—“_by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of + the dead_”; _1 Tim. 2:5_—“_one mediator also between God and man, + himself man, Christ Jesus._” Compare the genealogies in _Mat. + 1:1-17_ and _Luke 3:23-38_, the former of which proves Jesus to be + in the royal line, and the latter of which proves him to be in the + natural line, of succession from David; the former tracing back + his lineage to Abraham, and the latter to Adam. Christ is + therefore the son of David, and of the stock of Israel. Compare + also the phrase “_Son of man_,” _e. g._, in _Mat. 20:28_, which, + however much it may mean in addition, certainly indicates the + veritable humanity of Jesus. Compare, finally, the term “_flesh_” + (= human nature), applied to him in _John 1:14_—“_And the Word + became flesh_” and in _1 John 4:2_—“_every spirit that confesseth + that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God._” + + “Jesus is the true Son of man whom he proclaimed himself to be. + This implies that he is the representative of all humanity. + Consider for a moment what is implied in your being a man. How + many parents had you? You answer, Two. How many grandparents? You + answer, Four. How many great-grandparents? Eight. How many + great-great-grandparents? Sixteen. So the number of your ancestors + increases as you go further back, and if you take in only twenty + generations, you will have to reckon yourself as the outcome of + more than a million progenitors. The name Smith, or Jones, which + you bear, represents only one strain of all those million; you + might almost as well bear any other name; your existence is more + an expression of the race at large than of any particular family + or line. What is true of you, was true, on the human side, of the + Lord Jesus. In him all the lines of our common humanity converged. + He was the Son of man, far more than he was Son of Mary”; see A. + H. Strong, Sermon before the London Baptist Congress. + + +(_b_) He possessed the essential elements of human nature as at present +constituted—a material body and a rational soul. + + + _Mat. 26:38_—“_My soul is exceeding sorrowful_”; _John 11:33_—“_he + groaned in the spirit_”; _Mat. 26:26_—“_this is my body_”; + _28_—“_this is my blood_”; _Luke 24:39_—“_a spirit hath not flesh + and bones, as ye behold me having_”; _Heb. 2:14_—“_Since then the + children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself in like + manner partook of the same_”; _1 John 1:1_—“_that which we have + heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we + beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life_”; + _4:2_—“_every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in + the flesh is of God._” + + Yet Christ was not all men in one, and he did not illustrate the + development of all human powers. Laughter, painting, literature, + marriage—these provinces he did not invade. Yet we do not regard + these as absent from the ideal man. The perfection of Jesus was + the perfection of self-limiting love. For our sakes he sanctified + himself (_John 17:19_), or separated himself from much that in an + ordinary man would have been excellence and delight. He became an + example to us, by doing God’s will and reflecting God’s character + in his particular environment and in his particular mission—that + of the world’s Redeemer; see H. E. Robins, Ethics of the Christian + Life, 259-303. + + Moberly, Atonement and Personality, 86-105—“Christ was not a man + only amongst men. His relation to the human race is not that he + was another specimen, differing, by being another, from every one + but himself. His relation to the race was not a differentiating + but a consummating relation. He was not generically but + inclusively man.... The only relation that can at all directly + compare with it is that of Adam, who in a real sense was + humanity.... That complete indwelling and possessing of even one + other, which the yearnings of man toward man imperfectly approach, + is only possible, in any fulness of the words, to that spirit of + man which is the Spirit of God: to the Spirit of God become, + through incarnation, the spirit of man.... If Christ’s humanity + were not the humanity of Deity, it could not stand in the wide, + inclusive, consummating relation, in which it stands, in fact, to + the humanity of all other men.... Yet the centre of Christ’s being + as man was not in himself but in God. He was the expression, by + willing reflection, of Another.” + + +(_c_) He was moved by the instinctive principles, and he exercised the +active powers, which belong to a normal and developed humanity (hunger, +thirst, weariness, sleep, love, compassion, anger, anxiety, fear, +groaning, weeping, prayer). + + + _Mat 4:2_—“_he afterward hungered_”; _John 19:28_—“_I thirst_”; + _4:6_—“_Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus + by the well_”; _Mat 8:24_—“_the boat was covered with the waves: + but he was asleep_”; _Mark 10:21_—“_Jesus looking upon him loved + him_”; _Mat. 9:36_—“_when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with + compassion for them_”; _Mark 3:5_—“_looked round about on them + with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart_”; _Heb. + 5:7_—“_supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that + was able to save him from death_”; _John 12:27_—“_Now is my soul + troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour_”; + _11:33_—“_he groaned in the spirit_”; _35_—“_Jesus wept_”; _Mat + 14:23_—“_he went up into the mountain apart to pray._” _Heb. + 2:16_—“_For it is not doubtless angels whom he rescueth, but he + rescueth the seed of Abraham_” (Kendrick). + + Prof. J. P. Silvernail, on The Elocution of Jesus, finds the + following intimations as to his delivery. It was characterized by + 1. Naturalness (sitting, as at Capernaum); 2. Deliberation + (cultivates responsiveness in his hearers); 3. Circumspection (he + looked at Peter); 4. Dramatic action (woman taken in adultery); 5. + Self-control (authority, poise, no vociferation, denunciation of + Scribes and Pharisees). All these are manifestations of truly + human qualities and virtues. The epistle of James, the brother of + our Lord, with its exaltation of a meek, quiet and holy life, may + be an unconscious reflection of the character of Jesus, as it had + appeared to James during the early days at Nazareth. So John the + Baptist’s exclamation, “_I have need to be baptized of thee_” + (_Mat 3:14_), may be an inference from his intercourse with Jesus + in childhood and youth. + + +(_d_) He was subject to the ordinary laws of human development, both in +body and soul (grew and waxed strong in spirit; asked questions; grew in +wisdom and stature; learned obedience; suffered being tempted; was made +perfect through sufferings). + + + _Luke 2:40_—“_the child grew, and waxed strong, filled with + wisdom_”; _46_—“_sitting in the midst of the teachers, both + hearing them, and asking them questions_” (here, at his twelfth + year, he appears first to become fully conscious that he is the + Sent of God, the Son of God); _49_—“_know ye not that I must be in + my Father’s house?_” (lit. “in the things of my Father”); + _52_—“_advanced in wisdom and stature_”; _Heb. 5:8_—“_learned + obedience by the things which he suffered_”; _2:18_—“_in that he + himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them + that are tempted_”; _10_—“_it became him ... to make the author of + their salvation perfect through sufferings._” + + Keble: “Was not our Lord a little child, Taught by degrees to + pray; By father dear and mother mild Instructed day by day?” + Adamson, The Mind in Christ: “To Henry Drummond Christianity was + the crown of the evolution of the whole universe. Jesus’ growth in + stature and in favor with God and men is a picture in miniature of + the age-long evolutionary process.” Forrest, Christ of History and + of Experience, 185—“The incarnation of the Son was not his one + revelation of God, but the interpretation to sinful humanity of + all his other revelations of God in nature and history and moral + experience, which had been darkened by sin.... The Logos, + incarnate or not, is the τέλος as well as the ἀρχή of creation.” + + Andrew Murray, Spirit of Christ, 26, 27—“Though now baptized + himself, he cannot yet baptize others. He must first, in the power + of his baptism, meet temptation and overcome it; must learn + obedience and suffer; yea, through the eternal Spirit, offer + himself a sacrifice to God and his Will; then only could he afresh + receive the Holy Spirit as the reward of obedience, with the power + to baptize all who belong to him”; see _Acts 2:33_—“_Being + therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of + the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth + this, which ye see and hear._” + + +(_e_) He suffered and died (bloody sweat; gave up his spirit; his side +pierced, and straightway there came out blood and water). + + + _Luke 22:44_—“_being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his + sweat became as it were great drops of blood falling down upon the + ground_”; _John 19:30_—“_he bowed his head, and gave up his + spirit_”; _34_—“_one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his + side, and straightway there came out blood and water_”—held by + Stroud, Physical Cause of our Lord’s Death, to be proof that Jesus + died of a broken heart. + + Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, 1:9-19—“The Lord is said to have grown in + wisdom and favor with God, not because it was so, but because he + acted as if it were so. So he was exalted after death, as if this + exaltation were on account of death.” But we may reply: Resolve + all signs of humanity into mere appearance, and you lose the + divine nature as well as the human; for God is truth and cannot + act a lie. The babe, the child, even the man, in certain respects, + was ignorant. Jesus, the boy, was not making crosses, as in + Overbeck’s picture, but rather yokes and plows, as Justin Martyr + relates—serving a real apprenticeship in Joseph’s workshop: _Mark + 6:3_—“_Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?_” + + See Holman Hunt’s picture, “The Shadow of the Cross”—in which not + Jesus, but only Mary, sees the shadow of the cross upon the wall. + He lived a life of faith, as well as of prayer (_Heb. + 12:2_—“_Jesus the author_ [captain, prince] _and perfecter of our + faith_”), dependent upon Scripture, which was much of it, as _Ps. + 16_ and _118_, and _Is. 49, 50, 61,_ written for him, as well as + about him. See Park, Discourses, 297-327; Deutsch, Remains, + 131—“The boldest transcendental flight of the Talmud is its + saying: ‘God prays.’ ” In Christ’s humanity, united as it is to + deity, we have the fact answering to this piece of Talmudic + poetry. + + +B. Its Integrity. We here use the term “integrity” to signify, not merely +completeness, but perfection. That which is perfect is, _a fortiori_, +complete in all its parts. Christ’s human nature was: + +(_a_) Supernaturally conceived; since the denial of his supernatural +conception involves either a denial of the purity of Mary, his mother, or +a denial of the truthfulness of Matthew’s and Luke’s narratives. + + + _Luke 1:34, 35_—“_And Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, + seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, + The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most + High shall overshadow thee._” The “_seed of the woman_” (_Gen. + 3:15_) was one who had no earthly father. “_Eve_” = life, not only + as being the source of physical life to the race, but also as + bringing into the world him who was to be its spiritual life. + Julius Müller, Proof-texts, 29—Jesus Christ “had no earthly + father; his birth was a creative act of God, breaking through the + chain of human generation.” Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:447 (Syst. + Doct., 3:345)—“The new science recognizes manifold methods of + propagation, and that too even in one and the same species.” + + Professor Loeb has found that the unfertilized egg of the + sea-urchin may be made by chemical treatment to produce thrifty + young, and he thinks it probable that the same effect may be + produced among the mammalia. Thus parthenogenesis in the highest + order of life is placed among the scientific possibilities. + Romanes, even while he was an agnostic, affirmed that a + virgin-birth even in the human race would be by no means out of + the range of possibility; see his Darwin and After Darwin, 119, + footnote—“Even if a virgin has ever conceived and borne a son, and + even if such a fact in the human species has been unique, it would + not betoken any breach of physiological continuity.” Only a new + impulse from the Creator could save the Redeemer from the long + accruing fatalities of human generation. But the new creation of + humanity in Christ is scientifically quite as possible as its + first creation in Adam; and in both cases there may have been no + violation of natural law, but only a unique revelation of its + possibilities. “Birth from a virgin made it clear that a new thing + was taking place in the earth, and that One was coming into the + world who was not simply man.” A. B. Bruce: “Thoroughgoing + naturalism excludes the virgin life as well as the virgin birth.” + See Griffith-Jones, Ascent through Christ, 254-270; A. H. Strong, + Christ in Creation, 176. + + Paul Lobstein, Incarnation of our Lord, 217—“That which is unknown + to the teachings of St. Peter and St. Paul, St. John and St. + James, and our Lord himself, and is absent from the earliest and + the latest gospels, cannot be so essential as many people have + supposed.” This argument from silence is sufficiently met by the + considerations that Mark passes over thirty years of our Lord’s + life in silence; that John presupposes the narratives of Matthew + and of Luke; that Paul does not deal with the story of Jesus’ + life. The facts were known at first only to Mary and to Joseph; + their very nature involved reticence until Jesus was demonstrated + to be “_the Son of God with power ... by the resurrection from the + dead_” (_Rom. 1:4_); meantime the natural development of Jesus and + his refusal to set up an earthly kingdom may have made the + miraculous events of thirty years ago seem to Mary like a + wonderful dream; so only gradually the marvellous tale of the + mother of the Lord found its way into the gospel tradition and + creeds of the church, and into the inmost hearts of Christians of + all countries; see F. L. Anderson, in Baptist Review and + Expositor, 1904:25-44, and Machen, on the N. T. Account of the + Birth of Jesus, in Princeton Theol. Rev., Oct. 1905, and Jan. + 1906. + + Cooke, on The Virgin Birth of our Lord, in Methodist Rev., Nov. + 1904:849-857—“If there is a moral taint in the human race, if in + the very blood and constitution of humanity there is an + ineradicable tendency to sin, then it is utterly inconceivable + that any one born in the race by natural means should escape the + taint of that race. And, finally, if the virgin birth is not + historical, then a difficulty greater than any that destructive + criticism has yet evolved from documents, interpolations, + psychological improbabilities and unconscious contradictions + confronts the reason and upsets all the long results of scientific + observation,—that a sinful and deliberately sinning and unmarried + pair should have given life to the purest human being that ever + lived or of whom the human race has ever dreamed, and that he, + knowing and forgiving the sins of others, never knew the shame of + his own origin.” See also Gore, Dissertations, 1-68, on the Virgin + Birth of our Lord, J. Armitage Robinson, Some Thoughts on the + Incarnation, 42, both of whom show that without assuming the + reality of the virgin birth we cannot account for the origin of + the narratives of Matthew and of Luke, nor for the acceptance of + the virgin birth by the early Christians. _Per contra_, see Hoben, + in Am. Jour. Theol., 1902:478-506, 709-752. For both sides of the + controversy, see Symposium by Bacon, Zenos, Rhees and Warfield, in + Am. Jour. Theol., Jan. 1906:1-30; and especially Orr, Virgin Birth + of Christ. + + +(_b_) Free, both from hereditary depravity, and from actual sin; as is +shown by his never offering sacrifice, never praying for forgiveness, +teaching that all but he needed the new birth, challenging all to convict +him of a single sin. + + + Jesus frequently went up to the temple, but he never offered + sacrifice. He prayed: “_Father, forgive them_” (_Luke 23:34_); but + he never prayed: “Father, forgive _me_.” He said: “_Ye must be + born anew_” (_John 3:7_); but the words indicated that _he_ had no + such need. “At no moment in all that life could a single detail + have been altered, except for the worse.” He not only _yielded_ to + God’s will when made known to him, but he _sought_ it: “_I seek + not mine own will, but the will of him that sent me_” (_John + 5:30_). The anger which he showed was no passionate or selfish or + vindictive anger, but the indignation of righteousness against + hypocrisy and cruelty—an indignation accompanied with grief: + “_looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the + hardening of their heart_” (_Mark 3:5_). F. W. H. Myers, St. Paul, + 19, 53—“Thou with strong prayer and very much entreating Willest + be asked, and thou wilt answer then, Show the hid heart beneath + creation beating, Smile with kind eyes and be a man with men.... + Yea, through life, death, through sorrow and through sinning, He + shall suffice me, for he hath sufficed: Christ is the end, for + Christ was the beginning, Christ the beginning, for the end is + Christ.” Not personal experience of sin, but resistance to it, + fitted him to deliver us from it. + + _Luke 1:35_—“_wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten + shall be called the Son of God_”; _John 8:46_—“_Which of you + convicteth me of sin?_” _14:30_—“_the prince of the world cometh: + and he hath nothing in me_” = not the slightest evil inclination + upon which his temptations can lay hold; _Rom. 8:3_—“_in the + likeness of sinful flesh_” = in flesh, but without the sin which + in other men clings to the flesh; _2 Cor. 5:21_—“_Him who knew no + sin_”; _Heb. 4:15_—“_in all points tempted like as we are, yet + without sin_”; _7:26_—“_holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from + sinners_”—by the fact of his immaculate conception; + _9:14_—“_through the eternal Spirit offered himself without + blemish unto God_”; _1 Pet. 1:19_—“_precious blood, as of a lamb + without blemish and without spot, even the blood of Christ_”; + _2:22_—“_who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth_”; + _1 John 3:5, 7_—“_in him is no sin ... he is righteous._” + + Julius Müller, Proof-texts, 29—“Had Christ been only human nature, + he could not have been without sin. But _life_ can draw out of the + putrescent clod materials for its own living. Divine life + appropriates the human.” Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:446 (Syst. + Doct., 3:344)—“What with us is regeneration, is with him the + incarnation of God.” In this origin of Jesus’ sinlessness from his + union with God, we see the absurdity, both doctrinally and + practically, of speaking of an immaculate conception of the + Virgin, and of making her sinlessness precede that of her Son. On + the Roman Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception of the + Virgin, see H. B. Smith, System, 389-392; Mason, Faith of the + Gospel, 129-131—“It makes the regeneration of humanity begin, not + with Christ, but with the Virgin. It breaks his connection with + the race. Instead of springing sinless from the sinful race, he + derives his humanity from something not like the rest of us.” + Thomas Aquinas and Liguori both call Mary the Queen of Mercy, as + Jesus her Son is King of Justice; see Thomas, Præf. in Sept. Cath. + Ep., Comment on Esther, 5:3, and Liguori, Glories of Mary, 1:80 + (Dublin version of 1866). Bradford, Heredity, 289—“The Roman + church has almost apotheosized Mary; but it must not be forgotten + that the process began with Jesus. From what he was, an inference + was drawn concerning what his mother must have been.” + + “Christ took human nature in such a way that this nature, without + sin, bore the consequences of sin.” That portion of human nature + which the Logos took into union with himself was, in the very + instant and by the fact of his taking it, purged from all its + inherent depravity. But if in Christ there was no sin, or tendency + to sin, how could he be tempted? In the same way, we reply, that + Adam was tempted. Christ was not omniscient: _Mark 13:32_—“_of + that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in + heaven, neither the Son, but the Father._” Only at the close of + the first temptation does Jesus recognize Satan as the adversary + of souls: _Mat. 4:10_—“_Get thee hence, Satan._” Jesus could be + tempted, not only because he was not omniscient, but also because + he had the keenest susceptibility to all the forms of innocent + desire. To these desires temptation may appeal. Sin consists, not + in these desires, but in the gratification of them out of God’s + order, and contrary to God’s will. Meyer: “Lust is appetite run + wild. There is no harm in any natural appetite, considered in + itself. But appetite has been spoiled by the Fall.” So Satan + appealed (_Mat. 4:1-11_) to our Lord’s desire for food, for + applause, for power; to “Ueberglaube, Aberglaude, Unglaube” + (Kurtz); _cf._ _Mat. 26:39; 27:42; 26:53_. All temptation must be + addressed either to desire or fear; so Christ “_was in all points + tempted like as we are_” (_Heb. 4:15_). The first temptation, in + the wilderness, was addressed to desire; the second, in the + garden, was addressed to fear. Satan, after the first, “_departed + from him for a season_” (_Luke 4:13_); but he returned, in + Gethsemane—“_the prince of the world cometh: and he hath nothing + in me_” (_John 14:30_)—If possible, to deter Jesus from his work, + by rousing within him vast and agonizing fears of the suffering + and death that lay before him. Yet, in spite of both the desire + and the fear with which his holy soul was moved, he was “_without + sin_” (_Heb. 4:15_). The tree on the edge of the precipice is + fiercely blown by the winds: the strain upon the roots is + tremendous, but the roots hold. Even in Gethsemane and on Calvary, + Christ never prays for forgiveness, he only imparts it to others. + See Ullman, Sinlessness of Jesus; Thomasius, Christi Person und + Werk, 2:7-17, 126-136, esp. 135, 136; Schaff, Person of Christ, + 51-72; Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 3:330-349. + + +(_c_) Ideal human nature,—furnishing the moral pattern which man is +progressively to realize, although within limitations of knowledge and of +activity required by his vocation as the world’s Redeemer. + + + _Psalm 8:4-8_—“_thou hast made him but little lower than God, And + crownest him with glory and honor. Thou madest him to have + dominion over the works of thy hands; Thou hast put all things + under his feet_”—a description of the ideal man, which finds its + realization only in Christ. _Heb. 2:6-10_—“_But now we see not yet + all things subjected to him. But we behold him who hath been made + a little lower than the angels, even Jesus, because of the + suffering of death crowned with glory and honor._” _1 Cor. + 15:45_—“_The first ... Adam ... The last Adam_”—implies that the + second Adam realized the full concept of humanity, which failed to + be realized in the first Adam; so _verse 49_—“_as we have borne + the image of the earthly_ [man], _we shall also bear the image of + the heavenly_” [man]. _2 Cor. 3:18_—“_the glory of the Lord_” is + the pattern, into whose likeness we are to be changed. _Phil + 3:21_—“_who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that + it may be conformed to the body of his glory_”; _Col. 1:18_—“_that + in all things he might have the pre-eminence_”; _1 Pet. + 2:21_—“_suffered for you, leaving you an example, that ye should + follow his steps_”; _1 John 3:3_—“_every one that hath this hope + set on him purifieth himself, even as he is pure._” + + The phrase “_Son of man_” (_John 5:27_; _cf._ _Dan. 7:13_, Com. of + Pusey, _in loco_, and Westcott, in Bible Com. on John, 32-35) + seems to intimate that Christ answers to the perfect idea of + humanity, as it at first existed in the mind of God. Not that he + was surpassingly beautiful in physical form; for the only way to + reconcile the seemingly conflicting intimations is to suppose that + in all outward respects he took our average humanity—at one time + appearing without form or comeliness (_Is. 52:2_), and aged before + his time (_John 8:57_—“_Thou art not yet fifty years old_”), at + another time revealing so much of his inward grace and glory that + men were attracted and awed (_Ps. 45:2_—“_Thou art fairer than the + children of men_”; _Luke 4:22_—“_the words of grace which + proceeded out of his mouth_”; _Mark 10:32_—“_Jesus was going + before them: and they were amazed; and they that followed were + afraid_”; _Mat. 17:1-8_—the account of the transfiguration). + Compare the Byzantine pictures of Christ with those of the Italian + painters,—the former ascetic and emaciated, the latter types of + physical well-being. Modern pictures make Jesus too exclusively a + Jew. Yet there is a certain truth in the words of Mozoomdar: + “Jesus was an Oriental, and we Orientals understand him. He spoke + in figure. We understand him. He was a mystic. You take him + literally: you make an Englishman of him.” So Japanese Christians + will not swallow the Western system of theology, because they say + that this would be depriving the world of the Japanese view of + Christ. + + But in all spiritual respects Christ was perfect. In him are + united all the excellences of both the sexes, of all temperaments + and nationalities and characters. He possesses, not simply passive + innocence, but positive and absolute holiness, triumphant through + temptation. He includes in himself all objects and reasons for + affection and worship; so that, in loving him, “love can never + love too much.” Christ’s human nature, therefore, and not human + nature as it is in us, is the true basis of ethics and of + theology. This absence of narrow individuality, this ideal, + universal manhood, could not have been secured by merely natural + laws of propagation,—it was secured by Christ’s miraculous + conception; see Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:446 (Syst. Doct., 3:344). + John G. Whittier, on the Birmingham philanthropist, Joseph Sturge: + “Tender as woman, manliness and meekness In him were so allied, + That they who judged him by his strength or weakness Saw but a + single side.” + + Seth, Ethical Principles, 420—“The secret of the power of the + moral Ideal is the conviction which it carries with it that it is + no _mere_ ideal, but the expression of the supreme Reality.” + Bowne, Theory of Thought and Knowledge, 364—“The _a priori_ only + outlines a _possible_, and does not determine what shall be + _actual_ within the limits of the possible. If experience is to be + possible, it must take on certain forms, but those forms are + compatible with an infinite variety of experience.” No _a priori_ + truths or ideals can guarantee Christianity. We want a historical + basis, an actual Christ, a _realization_ of the divine ideal. + “Great men,” says Amiel, “are the true men.” Yes, we add, but only + Christ, the greatest man, shows what the true man is. The heavenly + perfection of Jesus discloses to us the greatness of our own + possible being, while at the same time it reveals our infinite + shortcoming and the source from which all restoration must come. + + Gore, Incarnation, 168—“Jesus Christ is the catholic man. In a + sense, all the greatest men have overlapped the boundaries of + their time. ‘The truly great Have all one age, and from one + visible space Shed influence. They, both in power and act Are + permanent, and time is not with them, Save as it worketh for them, + they in it.’ But in a unique sense the manhood of Jesus is + catholic; because it is exempt, not from the limitations which + belong to manhood, but from the limitations which make our manhood + narrow and isolated, merely local or national.” Dale, Ephesians, + 42—“Christ is a servant and something more. There is an ease, a + freedom, a grace, about his doing the will of God, which can + belong only to a Son.... There is nothing constrained ... he was + born to it.... He does the will of God as a child does the will of + its father, naturally, as a matter of course, almost without + thought.... No irreverent familiarity about his communion with the + Father, but also no trace of fear, or even of wonder.... Prophets + had fallen to the ground when the divine glory was revealed to + them, but Christ stands calm and erect. A subject may lose his + self-possession in the presence of his prince, but not a son.” + + Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 148—“What once he had perceived, he + thenceforth knew. He had no opinions, no conjectures; we are never + told that he forgot, nor even that he remembered, which would + imply a degree of forgetting; we are not told that he arrived at + truths by the process of reasoning them out; but he reasons them + out for others. It is not recorded that he took counsel or formed + plans; but he desired, and he purposed, and he did one thing with + a view to another.” On Christ, as the ideal man, see + Griffith-Jones, Ascent through Christ, 307-336; F. W. Robertson, + Sermon on The Glory of the Divine Son, 2nd Series, Sermon XIX; + Wilberforce, Incarnation, 22-99; Ebrard, Dogmatik, 2:25; + Moorhouse, Nature and Revelation, 37; Tennyson, Introduction to In + Memoriam; Farrar, Life of Christ, 1:148-154, and 2:excursus iv; + Bushnell, Nature and the Supernatural, 276-332; Thomas Hughes, The + Manliness of Christ; Hopkins, Scriptural Idea of Man, 121-145; + Tyler, in Bib. Sac., 22:51, 620; Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:451 + _sq._ + + +(_d_) A human nature that found its personality only in union with the +divine nature,—in other words, a human nature impersonal, in the sense +that it had no personality separate from the divine nature, and prior to +its union therewith. + + + By the impersonality of Christ’s human nature, we mean only that + it had no personality before Christ took it, no personality before + its union with the divine. It was a human nature whose + consciousness and will were developed only in union with the + personality of the Logos. The Fathers therefore rejected the word + ἀνυποστασία, and substituted the word ἐνυποστασία,—they favored + not _un_personality but _in_personality. In still plainer terms, + the Logos did not take into union with himself an already + developed human person, such as James, Peter, or John, but human + nature before it had become personal or was capable of receiving a + name. It reached its personality only in union with his own divine + nature. Therefore we see in Christ not two persons—a human person + and a divine person—but one person, and that person possessed of a + human nature as well as of a divine. For proof of this, see pages + 683-700, also Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:289-308. + + Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 136—“We count it no defect in our + bodies that they have no personal subsistence apart from + ourselves, and that, if separated from ourselves, they are + nothing. They share in a true personal life because we, whose + bodies they are, are persons. What happens to them happens to us.” + In a similar manner the personality of the Logos furnished the + organizing principle of Jesus’ two-fold nature. As he looked + backward he could see himself dwelling in eternity with God, so + far as his divine nature was concerned. But as respects his + humanity he could remember that it was not eternal,—it had had its + beginnings in time. Yet this humanity had never had a separate + personal existence,—its personality had been developed only in + connection with the divine nature. Göschel, quoted in Dorner’s + Person of Christ, 5:170—“Christ _is_ humanity; we have it; he is + it entirely; we participate therein. His personality precedes and + lies at the basis of the personality of the race and its + individuals. As idea, he is implanted in the whole of humanity; he + lies at the basis of every human consciousness, without however + attaining realization in an individual; for this is only possible + in the entire race at the end of the times.” + + Emma Marie Caillard, on Man in the Light of Evolution, in Contemp. + Rev., Dec. 1893: 873-881—“Christ is not only the goal of the race + which is to be conformed to him, but he is also the vital + principle which moulds each individual of that race into its own + similitude. The perfect type exists potentially through all the + intermediate stages by which it is more and more nearly + approached, and, if it did not exist, neither could they. There + could be no development of an absent life. The goal of man’s + evolution, the perfect type of manhood, is Christ. He exists and + always has existed potentially in the race and in the individual, + equally before as after his visible incarnation, equally in the + millions of those who do not, as in the far fewer millions of + those who do, bear his name. In the strictest sense of the words, + he is the life of man, and that in a far deeper and more intimate + sense than he can be said to be the life of the universe.” Dale, + Christian Fellowship, 159—“Christ’s incarnation was not an + isolated and abnormal wonder. It was God’s witness to the true and + ideal relation of all men to God.” The incarnation was no detached + event,—it was the issue of an eternal process of utterance on the + part of the Word “_whose goings forth are from of old, from + everlasting_” (_Micah 5:2_). + + +(_e_) A human nature germinal, and capable of self-communication,—so +constituting him the spiritual head and beginning of a new race, the +second Adam from whom fallen man individually and collectively derives new +and holy life. + + + In _Is. 9:6_, Christ is called “_Everlasting Father_.” In _Is. + 53:10_, it is said that “_he shall see his seed_.” In _Rev. + 22:16_, he calls himself “_the root_” as well as “_the offspring + of David_.” See also _John 5.21_—“_the Son also giveth life to + whom he will_”; _15:1_—“_I am the true vine_”—whose roots are + planted in heaven, not on earth; the vine-man, from whom as its + stock the new life of humanity is to spring, and into whom the + half-withered branches of the old humanity are to be grafted that + they may have life divine. See Trench, Sermon on Christ, the True + Vine, in Hulsean Lectures. _John 17:2_—“_thou gavest him authority + over all flesh, that to all whom thou hast given him, he should + give eternal life_”; _1 Cor. 15:45_—“_the last Adam became a + life-giving spirit_”—here “_spirit_” = not the Holy Spirit, nor + Christ’s divine nature, but “the ego of his total divine-human + personality.” + + _Eph. 5:23_—“_Christ also is the head of the church_” = the head + to which all the members are united, and from which they derive + life and power. Christ calls the disciples his “_little children_” + (_John 13:33_); when he leaves them they are “_orphans_” (_14:18_ + marg.). “He represents himself as a father of children, no less + than as a brother” (_20:17_—“_my brethren_”; _cf._ _Heb. + 2:11_—“_brethren_”, and _13_—“_Behold, I and the children whom God + hath given me_”; see Westcott, Com. on _John 13:33_). The new race + is propagated after the analogy of the old; the first Adam is the + source of the physical, the second Adam of spiritual, life; the + first Adam the source of corruption, the second of holiness. Hence + _John 12:24_—“_if it die, it beareth much fruit_”; _Mat. 10:37_ + and _Luke 14:26_—“_He that loveth father or mother more than me is + not worthy of me_” = none is worthy of me, who prefers his old + natural ancestry to his new spiritual descent and relationship. + Thus Christ is not simply the noblest embodiment of the old + humanity, but also the fountain-head and beginning of a new + humanity, the new source of life for the race. _Cf._ _1 Tim. + 2:15_—“_she shall be saved through the child-bearing_”—which + brought Christ into the world. See Wilberforce, Incarnation, + 227-241; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 638-664; Dorner, Glaubenslehre, + 2:451 _sq._ (Syst. Doct., 3:349 _sq._). + + Lightfoot on _Col. 1:18_—“_who is the beginning, the fruits from + the dead_”—“Here ἀρχή = 1. priority in time. Christ was first + fruits of the dead (_1 Cor. 15:20, 23_); 2. originating power, not + only _principium principiatum_, but also _principium principians_. + As he _is_ first with respect to the universe, so he _becomes_ + first with respect to the church; _cf._ _Heb. 7:15, 16_—‘_another + priest, who hath been made, not after the law of a carnal + commandment but after the power of an endless life_’.” Paul + teaches that “_the head of every man is Christ_” (_1 Cor. 11:3_), + and that “_in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily_” + (_Col. 2:9_). Whiton, Gloria Patri, 88-92, remarks on _Eph. 1:10_, + that God’s purpose is “_to sum up all things in Christ, the things + in the heavens, and the things upon the earth_”—to bring all + things to a head (ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι). History is a perpetually + increasing incarnation of life, whose climax and crown is the + divine fulness of life in Christ. In him the before unconscious + sonship of the world awakes to consciousness of the Father. He is + worthiest to bear the name of _the_ Son of God, in a preëminent, + but not exclusive right. We agree with these words of Whiton, if + they mean that Christ is the only giver of life to man as he is + the only giver of life to the universe. + + Hence Christ is the only ultimate authority in religion. He + reveals himself in nature, in man, in history, in Scripture, but + each of these is only a mirror which reflects _him_ to us. In each + case the mirror is more or less blurred and the image obscured, + yet _he_ appears in the mirror notwithstanding. The mirror is + useless unless there is an eye to look into it, and an object to + be seen in it. The Holy Spirit gives the eyesight, while Christ + himself, living and present, furnishes the object (_James + 1:23-25_; _2 Cor. 3:18_; _1 Cor. 13:12_). + + Over against mankind is Christ-kind; over against the fallen and + sinful race is the new race created by Christ’s indwelling. + Therefore only when he ascended with his perfected manhood could + he send the Holy Spirit, for the Holy Spirit which makes men + children of God is the Spirit of Christ. Christ’s humanity now, by + virtue of its perfect union with Deity, has become universally + communicable. It is as consonant with evolution to derive + spiritual gifts from the second Adam, a solitary source, as it is + to derive the natural man from the first Adam, a solitary source; + see George Harris, Moral Evolution, 409; and A. H. Strong, Christ + in Creation, 174. + + Simon, Reconciliation, 308—“Every man is in a true sense + essentially of divine nature—even as Paul teaches, θεῖον γένος + (_Acts 17:29_).... At the centre, as it were, enswathed in fold + after fold, after the manner of a bulb, we discern the living + divine spark, impressing us qualitatively if not quantitatively, + with the absoluteness of the great sun to which it belongs.” The + idea of truth, beauty, right, has in it an absolute and divine + quality. It comes from God, yet from the depths of our own nature. + It is the evidence that Christ, “_the light that lighteth every + man_” (_John 1:9_), is present and is working within us. + + Pfleiderer, Philos. of Religion, 1:272—“That the divine idea of + man as ‘_the son of his love_’ (_Col. 1:13_), and of humanity as + the kingdom of this Son of God, is the immanent final cause of all + existence and development even in the prior world of nature, this + has been the fundamental thought of the Christian Gnosis since the + apostolic age, and I think that no philosophy has yet been able to + shake or to surpass this thought—the corner stone of an idealistic + view of the world.” But Mead, Ritschl’s Place in the History of + Doctrine, 10, says of Pfleiderer and Ritschl: “Both recognize + Christ as morally perfect and as the head of the Christian Church. + Both deny his pre-existence and his essential Deity. Both reject + the traditional conception of Christ as an atoning Redeemer. + Ritschl calls Christ God, though inconsistently; Pfleiderer + declines to say one thing when he seems to mean another.” + + +The passages here alluded to abundantly confute the Docetic denial of +Christ’s veritable human body, and the Apollinarian denial of Christ’s +veritable human soul. More than this, they establish the reality and +integrity of Christ’s human nature, as possessed of all the elements, +faculties, and powers essential to humanity. + + +2. The Deity of Christ. + + +The reality and integrity of Christ’s divine nature have been sufficiently +proved in a former chapter (see pages 305-315). We need only refer to the +evidence there given, that, during his earthly ministry, Christ: + +(_a_) Possessed a knowledge of his own deity. + + + _John 3:13_—“_the Son of man, who is in heaven_”—a passage with + clearly indicates Christ’s consciousness, at certain times in his + earthly life at least, that he was not confined to earth but was + also in heaven [here, however, Westcott and Hort, with א and B, + omit ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ; for advocacy of the common reading, see + Broadus, in Hovey’s Com. on _John 3:13_]; _8:58_—“_Before Abraham + was born, I am_”—here Jesus declares that there is a respect in + which the idea of birth and beginning does not apply to him, but + in which he can apply to himself the name “_I am_” of the eternal + God; _14:9, 10_—“_Have I been so long time with you, and dost thou + not know me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; + how sayest thou, Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am + in the Father, and the Father in me?_” + + Adamson, The Mind in Christ, 24-49, gives the following instances + of Jesus’ supernatural knowledge: 1. Jesus’ knowledge of Peter + (_John 1:42_); 2. his finding of Philip (_1:43_); 3. his + recognition of Nathanael (_1:47-50_); 4. of the woman of Samaria + (_4:17-19, 39_); 5. miraculous draughts of fishes (_Luke 5:6-9_; + _John 21:6_); 6. death of Lazarus (_John 11:14_); 7. of the ass’s + colt (_Mat. 21:2_); 8. of the upper room (_Mark 14:15_); 9. of + Peter’s denial (_Mat. 26:34_); 10. of the manner of his own death + (_John 12:33_; _18:32_); 11. of the manner of Peter’s death (_John + 21:19_); 12. of the fall of Jerusalem (_Mat. 24:2_). + + Jesus does not say “our Father” but “_my Father_” (_John 20:17_). + Rejection of him is a greater sin than rejection of the prophets, + because he is the “_beloved Son_” of God (_Luke 20:13_). He knows + God’s purposes better than the angels, because he is the Son of + God (_Mark 13:32_). As Son of God, he alone knows, and he alone + can reveal, the Father (_Mat. __ 11:27_). There to clearly + something more in his Sonship than in that of his disciples (_John + 1:14_—“_only begotten_”; _Heb. 1:6_—“_first begotten_”). See + Chapman, Jesus Christ and the Present Age, 37; Denney, Studies in + Theology, 33. + + +(b) Exercised divine powers and prerogatives. + + + _John 2:24, 25_—“_But Jesus did not trust himself unto them, for + that he knew all man, and because he needed not that any one + should bear witness concerning man; for he himself knew what was + in man_”; _18:4_—“_Jesus therefore, knowing all the things that + were coming upon him, went forth_”; _Mark 4:39_—“_he awoke, and + rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the + wind ceased, and there was a great calm_”; _Mat. 9:6_—“_But that + ye may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive + sins (then saith he to the sick of the palsy), Arise, and take up + thy bed, and go unto thy house_”; _Mark 2:7_—“_Why doth this man + thus speak? he blasphemeth: who can forgive sins but one, even + God?_” + + It is not enough to keep, like Alexander Severus, a bust of + Christ, in a private chapel, along with Virgil, Orpheus, Abraham, + Apollonius, and other persons of the same kind; see Gibbon, + Decline and Fall, chap. xvi. “Christ is all in all. The prince in + the Arabian story took from a walnut-shell a miniature tent, but + that tent expanded so as to cover, first himself, then his palace, + then his army, and at last his whole kingdom. So Christ’s being + and authority expand, as we reflect upon them, until they take in, + not only ourselves, our homes and our country, but the whole world + of sinning and suffering men, and the whole universe of God”; see + A. H. Strong, Address at the Ecumenical Missionary Conference, + April 23, 1900. + + Matheson, Voices of the Spirit, 39—“What is that law which I call + gravitation, but the sign of the Son of man in heaven? It is the + gospel of self-surrender in nature. It is the inability of any + world to be its own centre, the necessity of every world to center + in something else.... In the firmament as on the earth, the many + are made one by giving the one for the many.” “Subtlest thought + shall fail and learning falter; Churches change, forms perish, + systems go; But our human needs, they will not alter, Christ no + after age will e’er outgrow. Yea, amen, O changeless One, thou + only Art life’s guide and spiritual goal; Thou the light across + the dark vale lonely, Thou the eternal haven of the soul.” + + +But this is to say, in other words, that there were, in Christ, a +knowledge and a power such as belong only to God. The passages cited +furnish a refutation of both the Ebionite denial of the reality, and the +Arian denial of the integrity, of the divine nature in Christ. + + + Napoleon to Count Montholon (Bertrand’s Memoirs): “I think I + understand somewhat of human nature, and I tell you all these + [heroes of antiquity] were men, and I am a man; but not one is + like him: Jesus Christ was more than man.” See other testimonies + in Schaff, Person of Christ. Even Spinoza, Tract. Theol.-Pol., + cap. 1 (vol. 1:383), says that “Christ communed with God, mind to + mind ... this spiritual closeness is unique” (Martineau, Types, + 1:254), and Channing speaks of Christ as more than a human + being,—as having exhibited a spotless purity which is the highest + distinction of heaven. F. W. Robertson has called attention to the + fact that the phrase “Son of man” (_John 5:27_; _cf._ _Dan. 7:13_) + itself implies that Christ was more than man; it would have been + an impertinence for him to have proclaimed himself Son of man, + unless he had claimed to be something more; could not every human + being call himself the same? When one takes this for his + characteristic designation, as Jesus did, he implies that there is + something strange in his being Son of man; that this is not his + original condition and dignity; in other words, that he is also + Son of God. + + It corroborates the argument from Scripture, to find that + Christian experience instinctively recognizes Christ’s Godhead, + and that Christian history shows a new conception of the dignity + of childhood and of womanhood, of the sacredness of human life, + and of the value of a human soul,—all arising from the belief + that, in Christ, the Godhead honored human nature by taking it + into perpetual union with itself, by bearing its guilt and + punishment, and by raising it up from the dishonors of the grave + to the glory of heaven. We need both the humanity and the deity of + Christ; the humanity,—for, as Michael Angelo’s Last Judgment + witnesses, the ages that neglect Christ’s humanity must have some + human advocate and Savior, and find a poor substitute for the + ever-present Christ in Mariolatry, the invocation of the saints, + and the “real presence” of the wafer and the mass; the deity,—for, + unless Christ is God, he cannot offer an infinite atonement for + us, nor bring about a real union between our souls and the Father. + Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:325-327 (Syst. Doct., 3:221-223)—“Mary + and the saints took Christ’s place as intercessors in heaven; + transubstantiation furnished a present Christ on earth.” It might + almost be said that Mary was made a fourth person in the Godhead. + + Harnack, Das Wesen des Christenthums: “It is no paradox, and + neither is it rationalism, but the simple expression of the actual + position as it lies before us in the gospels: Not the Son, but the + Father alone, has a place in the gospel as Jesus proclaimed it”; + _i. e._, Jesus has no place, authority, supremacy, in the + gospel,—the gospel is a Christianity without Christ; see Nicoll, + The Church’s One Foundation, 48. And this in the face of Jesus’ + own words: “_Come unto me_” (_Mat. 11:28_); “_the Son of man ... + shall sit on the throne of his glory: and before him shall be + gathered all the nations_” (_Mat. 25:31, 32_); “_he that hath seen + me hath seen the Father_” (_John 14:9_); “_he that obeyeth not the + Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him_” + (_John 3:36_). Loisy, The Gospel and the Church, advocates the + nut-theory in distinction from the onion-theory of doctrine. Does + the fourth gospel appear a second century production? What of it? + There is an evolution of doctrine as to Christ. “Harnack does not + conceive of Christianity as a seed, at first a plant in + potentiality, then a real plant, identical from the beginning of + its evolution to the final limit, and from the root to the summit + of the stem. He conceives of it rather as a fruit ripe, or over + ripe, that must be peeled to reach the incorruptible kernel, and + he peels his fruit so thoroughly that little remains at the end.” + R. W. Gilder: “If Jesus is a man, And only a man, I say That of + all mankind I will cleave to him, And will cleave alway. If Jesus + Christ is a God, And the only God, I swear I will follow him + through heaven and hell, The earth, the sea, and the air.” + + On Christ manifested in Nature, see Jonathan Edwards, Observations + on Trinity, ed. Smyth, 92-97—“He who, by his immediate influence, + gives being every moment, and by his Spirit actuates the world, + because he inclines to communicate himself and his excellencies, + doth doubtless communicate his excellency to bodies, as far as + there is any consent or analogy. And the beauty of face and sweet + airs in men are not always the effect of the corresponding + excellencies of the mind; yet the beauties of nature are really + emanations or shadows of the excellencies of the Son of God. So + that, when we are delighted with flowery meadows and gentle + breezes of wind, we may consider that we see only the emanations + of the sweet benevolence of Jesus Christ. When we behold the + fragrant rose and lily, we see his love and purity. So the green + trees and fields, and singing of birds, are the emanations of his + infinite joy and benignity. The easiness and naturalness of trees + and vines are shadows of his beauty and loveliness. The crystal + rivers and murmuring streams are the footsteps of his favor, grace + and beauty. When we behold the light and brightness of the sun, + the golden edges of an evening cloud, or the beauteous bow, we + behold the adumbrations of his glory and goodness, and in the blue + sky, of his mildness and gentleness. There are also many things + wherein we may behold his awful majesty: in the sun in his + strength, in comets, in thunder, in the hovering thunder clouds, + in ragged rocks and the brows of mountains. That beauteous light + wherewith the world is filled in a clear day is a lively shadow of + his spotless holiness, and happiness and delight in communicating + himself. And doubtless this is a reason why Christ is compared so + often to these things, and called by their names, as the Sun of + Righteousness, the Morning Star, the Rose of Sharon, and Lily of + the Valley, the apple tree among trees of the wood, a bundle of + myrrh, a roe, or a young hart. By this we may discover the beauty + of many of those metaphors and similes which to an unphilosophical + person do seem so uncouth. In like manner, when we behold the + beauty of man’s body in its perfection, we still see like + emanations of Christ’s divine perfections, although they do not + always flow from the mental excellencies of the person that has + them. But we see the most proper image of the beauty of Christ + when we see beauty in the human soul.” + + On the deity of Christ, see Shedd, History of Doctrine, 1:262, + 351; Liddon, Our Lord’s Divinity, 127, 207, 458; Thomasius, + Christi Person und Werk, 1:61-64; Hovey, God with Us, 17-23; + Bengel on _John 10:30_. On the two natures of Christ, see A. H. + Strong, Philosophy and Religion, 201-212. + + +III. The Union of the two Natures in one Person. + + +Distinctly as the Scriptures represent Jesus Christ to have been possessed +of a divine nature and of a human nature, each unaltered in essence and +undivested of its normal attributes and powers, they with equal +distinctness represent Jesus Christ as a single undivided personality in +whom these two natures are vitally and inseparably united, so that he is +properly, not God and man, but the God-man. The two natures are bound +together, not by the moral tie of friendship, nor by the spiritual tie +which links the believer to his Lord, but by a bond unique and +inscrutable, which constitutes them one person with a single consciousness +and will,—this consciousness and will including within their possible +range both the human nature and the divine. + + + Whiton, Gloria Patri, 79-81, would give up speaking of the union + of God _and_ man; for this, he says, involves the fallacy of two + natures. He would speak rather of the manifestation of God _in_ + man. The ordinary Unitarian insists that Christ was “a mere man.” + As if there could be such a thing as _mere_ man, exclusive of + aught above him and beyond him, self-centered and self-moved. We + can sympathize with Whiton’s objection to the phrase “God _and_ + man,” because of its implication of an imperfect union. But we + prefer the term “God-man” to the phrase “God _in_ man,” for the + reason that this latter phrase might equally describe the union of + Christ with every believer. Christ is “the only begotten,” in a + sense that every believer is not. Yet we can also sympathize with + Dean Stanley, Life and Letters, 1:115—“Alas that a Church that has + so divine a service should keep its long list of Articles! I am + strengthened more than ever in my opinion that there is only + needed, that there only should be, one, _viz_., ‘I believe that + Christ is both God and man.’ ” + + +1. Proof of this Union. + + +(_a_) Christ uniformly speaks of himself, and is spoken of, as a single +person. There is no interchange of “I” and “thou” between the human and +the divine natures, such as we find between the persons of the Trinity +(John 17:23). Christ never uses the plural number in referring to himself, +unless it be in John 3:11—“we speak that we do know,”—and even here “we” +is more probably used as inclusive of the disciples. 1 John 4:2—“is come +in the flesh”—is supplemented by John 1:14—“became flesh”; and these texts +together assure us that Christ so came in human nature as to make that +nature an element in his single personality. + + + _John 17:23_—“_I in them, and thou in me, that they may be + perfected into one; that the world may know that thou didst send + me, and lovedst them, even as thou lovedst me_”; _3:11_—“_We speak + that which we know, and bear witness of that which we have seen; + and ye receive not our witness_”; _1 John 4:2_—“_every spirit that + confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God_”; + _John 1:14_—“_And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us_”—he + so came in human nature that human nature and himself formed, not + two persons, but one person. + + In the Trinity, the Father is objective to the Son, the Son to the + Father, and both to the Spirit. But Christ’s divinity is never + objective to his humanity, nor his humanity to his divinity. + Moberly, Atonement and Personality, 97—“He is not so much God + _and_ man, as God _in_, and _through_, and _as_ man. He is one + indivisible personality throughout.... We are to study the divine + in and through the human. By looking for the divine side by side + with the human, instead of discerning the divine within the human, + we miss the significance of them both.” We mistake when we say + that certain words of Jesus with regard to his ignorance of the + day of the end (_Mark 13:32_) were spoken by his human nature, + while certain other words with regard to his being in heaven at + the same time that he was on earth (_John 3:13_) were spoken by + his divine nature. There was never any separation of the human + from the divine, or of the divine from the human,—all Christ’s + words were spoken, and all Christ’s deeds were done, by the one + person, the God-man. See Forrest, The Authority of Christ, 49-100. + + +(_b_) The attributes and powers of both natures are ascribed to the one +Christ, and conversely the works and dignities of the one Christ are +ascribed to either of the natures, in a way inexplicable, except upon the +principle that these two natures are organically and indissolubly united +in a single person (examples of the former usage are Rom. 1:3 and 1 Pet. +3:18; of the latter, 1 Tim. 2:5 and Heb. 1:2, 3). Hence we can say, on the +one hand, that the God-man existed before Abraham, yet was born in the +reign of Augustus Cæsar, and that Jesus Christ wept, was weary, suffered, +died, yet is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever; on the other hand, +that a divine Savior redeemed us upon the cross, and that the human Christ +is present with his people even to the end of the world (Eph. 1:23; 4:10; +Mat. 28:20). + + + _Rom. 1:3_—“_his Son, who was born of the seed of David according + to the flesh_”; _1 Pet. 3:18_—“_Christ also suffered for sins once + ... being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the + spirit_”; _1 Tim. 2:5_—“_one mediator also between God and men, + himself man, Christ Jesus_”; _Heb. 1:2, 3_—“_his Son, whom he + appointed heir of all things ... who being the effulgence of his + glory ... when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the + right hand of the Majesty on high_”; _Eph. 1:22, 23_—“_put all + things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over + all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him + that filleth all in all_”; _4:10_—“_He that descended is the same + also that ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill + all things_”; _Mat. 28:20_—“_lo, I am with you always, even unto + the end of the world._” + + Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 142-145—“Mary was Theotokos, but she + was not the mother of Christ’s Godhood, but of his humanity. We + speak of the blood of God the Son, but it is not as God that he + has blood. The hands of the babe Jesus made the worlds, only in + the sense that he whose hands they were was the Agent in + creation.... Spirit and body in us are not merely put side by + side, and insulated from each other. The spirit does not have the + rheumatism, and the reverent body does not commune with God. The + reason why they affect each other is because they are equally + ours.... Let us avoid sensuous, fondling, modes of addressing + Christ—modes which dishonor him and enfeeble the soul of the + worshiper.... Let us also avoid, on the other hand, such phrases + as ‘the dying God’, which loses the manhood in the Godhead.” + Charles H. Spurgeon remarked that people who “dear” everybody + reminded him of the woman who said she had been reading in “dear + Hebrews.” + + +(_c_) The constant Scriptural representations of the infinite value of +Christ’s atonement and of the union of the human race with God which has +been secured in him are intelligible only when Christ is regarded, not as +a man of God, but as the God-man, in whom the two natures are so united +that what each does has the value of both. + + + _1 John 2:2_—“_he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for + ours only, but also for the whole world,_”—as John in his gospel + proves that Jesus is the Son of God, the Word, God, so in his + first Epistle he proves that the Son of God, the Word, God, has + become man; _Eph. 2:16-18_—“_might reconcile them both_ [Jew and + Gentile] _in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the + enmity thereby; and he came and preached peace to you that were + far off, and peace to them that were nigh: for through him we both + have our access in one Spirit unto the Father_”; _21, 22_—“_in + whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a + holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for + a habitation of God in the Spirit_”; _2 Pet. 1:4_—“_that through + these_ [promises] _ye may become partakers of the divine nature._” + John Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 2:107—“We cannot separate + Christ’s divine from his human acts, without rending in twain the + unity of his person and life.” + + +(_d_) It corroborates this view to remember that the universal Christian +consciousness recognizes in Christ a single and undivided personality, and +expresses this recognition in its services of song and prayer. + +The foregoing proof of the union of a perfect human nature and of a +perfect divine nature in the single person of Jesus Christ suffices to +refute both the Nestorian separation of the natures and the Eutychian +confounding of them. Certain modern forms of stating the doctrine of this +union, however—forms of statement into which there enter some of the +misconceptions already noticed—need a brief examination, before we proceed +to our own attempt at elucidation. + + + Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:403-411 (Syst. Doct., 3:300-308)—“Three + ideas are included in incarnation: (1) assumption of human nature + on the part of the Logos (_Heb. 2:14_—‘_partook __ of ... flesh + and blood_’; _2 Cor. 5:19_—‘_God was in Christ_’; _Col. 2:9_—‘_in + him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily_’); (2) new + creation of the second Adam, by the Holy Ghost and power of the + Highest (_Rom. 5:14_—‘_Adam’s’ transgression, who is a figure of + him that was to come_’; _1 Cor. 15:22_—‘_as in Adam all die, so + also in Christ shall all be made alive_’; _15:45_—‘_The first man + Adam became a living soul, the last Adam became a life-giving + Spirit_’; _Luke 1:35_—‘_the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and + the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee_’; _Mat. + 1:20_—‘_that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit_’); + (3) becoming flesh, without contraction of deity or humanity (_1 + Tim. 3:16_—‘_who was manifested in the flesh_’; _1 John + 4:2_—‘_Jesus Christ is come in the flesh_’; _John 6:41, 51_—‘_I am + the bread which came down out of heaven.... I am the living + bread_’; _2 John 7_—‘_Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh_’; _John + 1:14_—‘_the word became flesh_’). This last text cannot mean: The + Logos ceased to be what he was, and began to be only man. Nor can + it be a mere theophany, in human form. The reality of the humanity + is intimated, as well as the reality of the Logos.” + + The Lutherans hold to a communion of the natures, as well as to an + impartation of their properties: (1) _genus + idiomaticum_—impartation of attributes of both natures to the one + person; (2) _genus apotelesmaticum_ (from ἀποτέλεσμα, “that which + is finished or completed,” _i. e._, Jesus’ work)—attributes of the + one person imparted to each of the constituent natures. Hence Mary + may be called “the mother of God,” as the Chalcedon symbol + declares, “as to his humanity,” and what each nature did has the + value of both; (3) _genus majestaticum_—attributes of one nature + imparted to the other, yet so that the divine nature imparts to + the human, not the human to the divine. The Lutherans do not + believe in a _genus tapeinoticon_, _i. e._, that the human + elements communicated themselves to the divine. The only + communication of the human was to the person, not to the divine + nature, of the God-man. Examples of this third _genus + majestaticum_ are found is _John 3:13_—“_no one hath ascended into + heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man, + who is in heaven_” [here, however, Westcott and Hort, with א and + B, omit ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ]; _5:27_—“_he gave him authority to + execute judgment, because he is a son of man._” Of the explanation + that this is the figure of speech called “_allæosis,_” Luther + says: “_Allæosis_ est larva quædam diaboli, secundum cujus + rationes ego certe nolim esse Christianus.” + + The _genus majestaticum_ is denied by the Reformed Church, on the + ground that it does not permit a clear distinction of the natures. + And this is one great difference between it and the Lutheran + Church. So Hooker, in commenting upon the Son of man’s “ascending + up where he was before,” says: “By the ‘_Son of man_’ must be + meant the whole person of Christ, who, being man upon earth, + filled heaven with his glorious presence; but not according to + that nature for which the title of man is given him.” For the + Lutheran view of this union and its results in the communion of + natures, see Hase, Hutterus Redivivus, 11th ed., 195-197; + Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, 2:24, 25. For the Reformed + view, see Turretin, loc. 13, quæst. 8; Hodge, Syst. Theol., + 2:387-397, 407-418. + + +2. Modern misrepresentations of this Union. + + +A. Theory of an incomplete humanity.—Gess and Beecher hold that the +immaterial part in Christ’s humanity is only contracted and metamorphosed +deity. + +The advocates of this view maintain that the divine Logos reduced himself +to the condition and limits of human nature, and thus literally became a +human soul. The theory differs from Apollinarianism, in that it does not +necessarily presuppose a trichotomous view of man’s nature. While +Apollinarianism, however, denied the human origin only of Christ’s πνεῦμα, +this theory extends the denial to his entire immaterial being,—his body +alone being derived from the Virgin. It is held, in slightly varying +forms, by the Germans, Hofmann and Ebrard, as well as by Gess; and Henry +Ward Beecher was its chief representative in America. + + + Gess holds that Christ gave up his eternal holiness and divine + self-consciousness, to become man, so that he never during his + earthly life thought, spoke, or wrought as God, but was at all + times destitute of divine attributes. See Gess, Scripture Doctrine + of the Person of Christ; and synopsis of his view, by Reubelt, in + Bib. Sac., 1870:1-32; Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, 1:234-241, and 2:20; + Ebrard, Dogmatik, 2:144-151, and in Herzog, Encyclopädie, art.: + Jesus Christ, der Gottmensch; also Liebner, Christliche Dogmatik. + Henry Ward Beecher, in his Life of Jesus the Christ, chap. 3, + emphasizes the word “_flesh,_” in _John 1:14_ and declares the + passage to mean that the divine Spirit enveloped himself in a + human _body_, and in that condition was subject to the + indispensable limitations of material laws. All these advocates of + the view hold that Deity was dormant, or paralyzed, in Christ + during his earthly life. Its essence is there, but not its + efficiency at any time. + + +Against this theory we urge the following objections: + +(_a_) It rests upon a false interpretation of the passage John 1:14—ὁ +λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο. The word σάρξ here has its common New Testament +meaning. It designates neither soul nor body alone, but human nature in +its totality (_cf._ John 3:6—τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς σάρξ ἐστιν; +Rom. 7:18—οὐκ οἰκεῖ ἐν ἐμοί, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου, ἀγαθόν). That +ἐγένετο does not imply a transmutation of the λόγος into human nature, or +into a human soul, is evident from ἐσκήνωσεν which follows—an allusion to +the Shechinah of the Mosaic tabernacle; and from the parallel passage 1 +John 4:2—ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα—where we are taught not only the oneness of +Christ’s person, but the distinctness of the constituent natures. + + + _John 1:14_—“_the Word became flesh, and dwelt_ [tabernacled] + _among us, and we behold his glory_”; _3:6_—“_That which is born + of the flesh is flesh_”; _Rom., 7:18_—“_in me, that is, in my + flesh, dwelleth no good thing_”; _1 John 4:2_—“_Jesus Christ is + come in the flesh._” Since “_flesh_,” in Scriptural usage, denotes + human nature in its entirety, there is as little reason to infer + from these passages a change of the Logos into a human body, as a + change of the Logos into a human soul. There is no curtailed + humanity in Christ. One advantage of the monistic doctrine is that + it avoids this error. Omnipresence is the presence of the whole of + God in every place. _Ps. 85:9_—“_Surely his salvation is nigh them + that fear him, That glory may dwell in our land_”—was fulfilled + when Christ, the true Shekinah, tabernacled in human flesh and men + “_beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, + full of grace and truth_” (_John 1:14_). And Paul can say in _2 + Cor. 12:9_—“_Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my + weaknesses, that the power of Christ may spread a tabernacle over + me._” + + +(_b_) It contradicts the two great classes of Scripture passages already +referred to, which assert on the one hand the divine knowledge and power +of Christ and his consciousness of oneness with the Father, and on the +other hand the completeness of his human nature and its derivation from +the stock of Israel and the seed of Abraham (Mat. 1:1-16; Heb. 2:16). Thus +it denies both the true humanity, and the true deity, of Christ. + + + See the Scripture passages cited in proof of the Deity of Christ, + pages 305-315. Gess himself acknowledges that, if the passages in + which Jesus avers his divine knowledge and power and his + consciousness of oneness with the Father refer to his earthly + life, his theory is overthrown. “Apollinarianism had a certain + sort of grotesque grandeur, in giving to the human body and soul + of Christ an infinite, divine πνεῦμα. It maintained at least the + divine side of Christ’s person. But the theory before us denies + both sides.” While it so curtails deity that it is no proper + deity, it takes away from humanity all that is valuable in + humanity; for a manhood that consists only in body is no proper + manhood. Such manhood is like the “half length” portrait which + depicted only the _lower half_ of the man. _Mat. 1:1-16_, the + genealogy of Jesus, and _Heb. 2:16_—“_taketh hold of the seed of + Abraham_”—intimate that Christ took all that belonged to human + nature. + + +(_c_) It is inconsistent with the Scriptural representations of God’s +immutability, in maintaining that the Logos gives up the attributes of +Godhead, and his place and office as second person of the Trinity, in +order to contract himself into the limits of humanity. Since attributes +and substance are correlative terms, it is impossible to hold that the +substance of God is in Christ, so long as he does not possess divine +attributes. As we shall see hereafter, however, the possession of divine +attributes by Christ does not necessarily imply his constant exercise of +them. His humiliation indeed, consisted in his giving up their independent +exercise. + + + See Dorner, Unveränderlichkeit Gottes, in Jahrbuch für deutsche + Theologie, 1:361; 2:440; 3:579; esp. 1:390-412—“Gess holds that, + during the thirty-three years of Jesus’ earthly life, the Trinity + was altered; the Father no more poured his fulness into the Son; + the Son no more, with the Father, sent forth the Holy Spirit; the + world was upheld and governed by Father and Spirit alone, without + the mediation of the Son; the Father ceased to beget the Son. He + says the Father alone has _aseity_; he is the only Monas. The + Trinity is a family, whose head is the Father, but whose number + and condition is variable. To Gess, it is indifferent whether the + Trinity consists of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or (as during + Jesus’ life) of only one. But this is a Trinity in which two + members are accidental. A Trinity that can get along without one + of its members is not the Scriptural Trinity. The Father depends + on the Son, and the Spirit depends on the Son, as much as the Son + depends on the Father. To take away the Son is to take away the + Father and the Spirit. This giving up of the actuality of his + attributes, even of his holiness, on the part of the Logos, is in + order to make it possible for Christ to sin. But can we ascribe + the possibility of sin to a being who is really God? The reality + of temptation requires us to postulate a veritable human soul.” + + +(_d_) It is destructive of the whole Scriptural scheme of salvation, in +that it renders impossible any experience of human nature on the part of +the divine,—for when God becomes man he ceases to be God; in that it +renders impossible any sufficient atonement on the part of human +nature,—for mere humanity, even though its essence be a contracted and +dormant deity, is not capable of a suffering which shall have infinite +value; in that it renders impossible any proper union of the human race +with God in the person of Jesus Christ,—for where true deity and true +humanity are both absent, there can be no union between the two. + + + See Dorner, Jahrbuch f. d. Theologie, 1:390—“Upon this theory only + an exhibitory atonement can be maintained. There is no real + humanity that, in the strength of divinity, can bring a sacrifice + to God. Not substitution, therefore, but obedience, on this view, + reconciles us to God. Even if it is said that God’s Spirit is the + real soul in all men, this will not help the matter; for we should + then have to make an essential distinction between the indwelling + of the Spirit in the unregenerate, the regenerate, and Christ, + respectively. But in that case we lose the likeness between + Christ’s nature and our own,—Christ’s being preëxistent, and ours + not. Without this pantheistic doctrine, Christ’s unlikeness to us + is yet greater; for he is really a wandering God, clothed in a + human body, and cannot properly be called a human soul. We have + then no middle-point between the body and the Godhead; and in the + state of exaltation, we have no manhood at all,—only the infinite + Logos, in a glorified body as his garment.” + + Isaac Watts’s theory of a preëxistent humanity in like manner + implies that humanity is originally in deity; it does not proceed + from a human stock, but from a divine; between the human and the + divine there is no proper distinction; hence there can be no + proper redeeming of humanity; see Bib. Sac., 1875:421. A. A. + Hodge, Pop. Lectures, 226—“If Christ does not take a human πνεῦμα, + he cannot be a high-priest who feels with us in all our + infirmities, having been tempted like us.” Mason, Faith of the + Gospel, 138—“The conversion of the Godhead into flesh would have + only added one more man to the number of men—a sinless one, + perhaps, among sinners—but it would have effected no union of God + and men.” On the theory in general, see Hovey, God with Us, 62-69; + Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:430-440; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, + 4:386-408; Biedermann, Christliche Dogmatik, 356-359; Bruce, + Humiliation of Christ, 187, 230; Schaff, Christ and Christianity, + 115-119. + + +B. Theory of a gradual incarnation.—Dorner and Rothe hold that the union +between the divine and the human natures is not completed by the +incarnating act. + +The advocates of this view maintain that the union between the two natures +is accomplished by a gradual communication of the fulness of the divine +Logos to the man Christ Jesus. This communication is mediated by the human +consciousness of Jesus. Before the human consciousness begins, the +personality of the Logos is not yet divine-human. The personal union +completes itself only gradually, as the human consciousness is +sufficiently developed to appropriate the divine. + + + Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:660 (Syst. Doct., 4:125)—“In order that + Christ might show his high-priestly love by suffering and death, + the different sides of his personality yet stood to one another in + relative separableness. The divine-human union in him, + accordingly, was before his death not yet completely actualized, + although its completion was from the beginning divinely assured.” + 2:431 (Syst. Doct., 3:328)—“In spite of this _becoming_, inside of + the _Unio_, the Logos is from the beginning united with Jesus in + the deepest foundation of his being, and Jesus’ life has ever been + a divine-human one, in that a present receptivity for the Godhead + has never remained without its satisfaction.... Even the + unconscious humanity of the babe turns receptively to the Logos, + as the plant turns toward the light. The initial union makes + Christ already the God-man, but not in such a way as to prevent a + subsequent _becoming_; for surely he did become omniscient and + incapable of death, as he was not at the beginning.” + + 2:464 _sq._ (Syst. Doct., 3:363 _sq._)—“The actual life of God, as + the Logos, reaches beyond the beginnings of the divine-human life. + For if the _Unio_ is to complete itself by growth, the relation of + impartation and reception must continue. In his personal + consciousness, there was a distinction between duty and being. The + will had to take up practically, and turn into action, each new + revelation or perception of God’s will on the part of intellect or + conscience. He had to maintain, with his will, each revelation of + his nature and work. In his twelfth year, he says: ‘_I must be + about my Father’s business._’ To Satan’s temptation: ‘_Art thou + God’s Son?_’ he must reply with an affirmation that suppresses all + doubt, though he will not prove it by miracle. This moral growth, + as it was the will of the Father, was his task. He hears from his + Father, and obeys. In him, imperfect knowledge was never the same + with false conception. In us, ignorance has error for its obverse + side. But this was never the case with him, though he grew in + knowledge unto the end.” Dorner’s view of the Person of Christ may + be found in his Hist. Doct. Person Christ, 5:248-261; + Glaubenslehre, 2:347-474 (Syst. Doct., 3:243-373). + + A summary of his views is also given in Princeton Rev., + 1873:71-87—Dorner illustrates the relation between the humanity + and the deity of Christ by the relation between God and man, in + conscience, and in the witness of the Spirit. “So far as the human + element was immature or incomplete, so far the Logos was not + present. Knowledge advanced to unity with the Logos, and the human + will afterwards confirmed the best and highest knowledge. A + resignation of both the Logos and the human nature to the union is + involved in the incarnation. The growth continues until the idea, + and the reality, of divine humanity perfectly coincide. The + assumption of unity was gradual, in the life of Christ. His + exaltation began with the perfection of this development.” Rothe’s + statement of the theory can be found in his Dogmatik, 2:49-182; + and in Bib. Sac., 27:386. + + +It is objectionable for the following reasons: + +(_a_) The Scripture plainly teaches that that which was born of Mary was +as completely Son of God as Son of man (Luke 1:35); and that in the +incarnating act, and not at his resurrection, Jesus Christ became the +God-man (Phil. 2:7). But this theory virtually teaches the birth of a man +who subsequently and gradually became the God-man, by consciously +appropriating the Logos to whom he sustained ethical relations—relations +with regard to which the Scripture is entirely silent. Its radical error +is that of mistaking an incomplete consciousness of the union for an +incomplete union. + + + In _Luke 1:35_—“_the holy thing which is begotten shall be called + the Son of God_”—and _Phil. 2:7_—“_emptied himself, taking the + form of servant, being made in the likeness of men_”—we have + evidence that Christ was both Son of God and Son of man from the + very beginning of his earthly life. But, according to Dorner, + before there was any human consciousness, the personality of Jesus + Christ was not divine-human. + + +(_b_) Since consciousness and will belong to personality, as distinguished +from nature, the hypothesis of a mutual, conscious, and voluntary +appropriation of divinity by humanity and of humanity by divinity, during +the earthly life of Christ, is but a more subtle form of the Nestorian +doctrine of a double personality. It follows, moreover, that as these two +personalities do not become absolutely one until the resurrection, the +death of the man Jesus Christ, to whom the Logos has not yet fully united +himself, cannot possess an infinite atoning efficacy. + + + Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, 2:68-70, objects to Dorner’s + view, that it “leads us to a man who is in intimate communion with + God,—a man of God, but not a man who is God.” He maintains, + against Dorner, that “the union between the divine and human in + Christ exists before the consciousness of it.” 193-195—Dorner’s + view “makes each element, the divine and the human, long for the + other, and reach its truth and reality only in the other. This, so + far as the divine is concerned, is very like pantheism. Two + _willing_ personalities are presupposed, with ethical relation to + each other,—two persons, at least at the first. Says Dorner: ‘So + long as the manhood is yet unconscious, the person of the Logos is + not yet the central _ego_ of this man. At the beginning, the Logos + does not impart himself, so far as he is person or + self-consciousness. He keeps apart by himself, just in proportion + as the manhood fails in power of perception.’ At the beginning, + then, this man is not yet the God-man; the Logos only works in + him, and on him. ‘The _unio personalis_ grows and completes + itself,—becomes ever more all-sided and complete. Till the + resurrection, there is a relative separability still.’ Thus + Dorner. But the Scripture knows nothing of an ethical relation of + the divine, to the human in Christ’s person. It knows only of one + divine-human subject.” See also Thomasius, 2:80-92. + + +(_c_) While this theory asserts a final complete union of God and man in +Jesus Christ, it renders this union far more difficult to reason, by +involving the merging of two persons in one, rather than the union of two +natures in one person. We have seen, moreover, that the Scripture gives no +countenance to the doctrine of a double personality during the earthly +life of Christ. The God-man never says: “I and the Logos are one”; “he +that hath seen me hath seen the Logos”; “the Logos is greater than I”; “I +go to the Logos.” In the absence of all Scripture evidence in favor of +this theory, we must regard the rational and dogmatic arguments against it +as conclusive. + + + Liebner, in Jahrbuch f. d. Theologie, 3:349-366, urges, against + Dorner, that there is no sign in Scripture of such communion + between the two natures of Christ as exists between the three + persons of the Trinity. Philippi also objects to Dorner’s view: + (1) that it implies a pantheistic identity of essence in both God + and man; (2) that it makes the resurrection, not the birth, the + time when the Word became flesh; (3) that it does not explain how + two personalities can become one; see Philippi, Glaubenslehre, + 4:364-380. Philippi quotes Dorner as saying: “The unity of essence + of God and man is the great discovery of this age.” But that + Dorner was no pantheist appears from the following quotations from + his Hist. Doctrine of the Person of Christ, II, 3:5, 23, 69, + 115—“Protestant philosophy has brought about the recognition of + the essential connection and unity of the human and the divine.... + To the theology of the present day, the divine and human are not + mutually exclusive but connected magnitudes, having an inward + relation to each other and reciprocally confirming each other, by + which view both separation and identification are set aside.... + And now the common task of carrying on the union of faculties and + qualities to a union of essence was devolved on both. The + difference between them is that only God has aseity.... Were we to + set our face against every view which represents the divine and + human as intimately and essentially related, we should be wilfully + throwing away the gains of centuries, and returning to a soil + where a Christology is an absolute impossibility.” + + See also Dorner, System, 1:123—“Faith postulates a difference + between the world and God, between whom religion seeks a union. + Faith does not wish to be a mere relation to itself or to its own + representations and thoughts. That would be a monologue; faith + desires a dialogue. Therefore it does not consent with a monism + which recognizes only God or the world (with the ego). The duality + (not the dualism, which is opposed to such monism, but which has + no desire to oppose the rational demand for unity) is in fact a + condition of true and vital unity.” The _unity_ is the foundation + of religion; the _difference_ is the foundation of morality. + Morality and religion are but different manifestations of the same + principle. Man’s moral endeavor is the working of God within him. + God can be revealed only in the perfect character and life of + Jesus Christ. See Jones, Robert Browning, 146. + + Stalker, Imago Christi: “Christ was not half a God and half a man, + but he was perfectly God and perfectly man.” Moberly, Atonement + and Personality, 95—“The Incarnate did not oscillate between being + God and being man. He was indeed _always_ God, and yet never + otherwise God than as expressed within the possibilities of human + consciousness and character.” He knew that he was something more + than he was as incarnate. His miracles showed what humanity might + become. John Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 14—“The divinity + of Christ was not that of a divine nature in local or mechanical + juxtaposition with a human, but of a divine nature that suffused, + blended, identified itself with the thoughts, feelings, volitions + of a human individuality. Whatever of divinity could not + organically unite itself with and breathe through a human spirit, + was not and could not be present in one who, whatever else he was, + was really and truly human.” See also Biedermann, Dogmatik, + 351-353; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:428-430. + + +3. The real nature of this Union. + + +(_a_) Its great importance.—While the Scriptures represent the person of +Christ as the crowning mystery of the Christian scheme (Matt 11:27; Col. +1:27; 2:2; 1 Tim. 3:16), they also incite us to its study (John 17:3; +20:27; Luke 24:39; Phil. 3:8, 10). This is the more needful, since Christ +is not only the central point of Christianity, but is Christianity +itself—the embodied reconciliation and union between man and God. The +following remarks are offered, not as fully explaining, but only as in +some respects relieving, the difficulties of the subject. + + + _Matt. 11:27_—“_no one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither + doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the + Son willeth to reveal him._” Here it seems to be intimated that + the mystery of the nature of the Son is even greater than that of + the Father. Shedd, Hist. Doct., 1:408—The Person of Christ is in + some respects more baffling to reason than the Trinity. Yet there + is a profane neglect, as well as a profane curiosity: _Col. + 1:27_—“_the riches of the glory of this mystery ... which is + Christ in you, the hope of glory_”; _2:2, 3_—“_the mystery of God, + even Christ, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge + hidden_”; _1 Tim. 3:16_—“_great is the mystery of godliness; He + who was manifested in the flesh_”—here the Vulgate, the Latin + Fathers, and Buttmann make μυστήριον the antecedent of ὅς, the + relative taking the _natural_ gender of its antecedent, and + μυστήριον referring to Christ; _Heb. 2:11_—“_both he that + sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one_ [not + father, but race, or substance]” (_cf._ _Acts 17:26_—“_he made of + one every nation of men_”)—an allusion to the solidarity of the + race and Christ’s participation in all that belongs to us. + + _John 17:3_—“_this is life eternal, that they should know thee the + only true God, and him who thou didst send, even Jesus Christ_”; + _20:27_—“_Reach hither thy finger, and see my hands; and reach + hither thy hand, and put it into my side: and be not faithless, + but believing_”; _Luke 24:39_—“_See my hands and my feet, that it + is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and + bones, as ye behold me having_”; _Phil. 3:8, 10_—“_I count all + things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ + Jesus my Lord ... that I may know him_”; _1 John 1:1_—“_that which + we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which + we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life._” + + Nash, Ethics and Revelation, 254, 255—“Ranke said that Alexander + was one of the few men in whom biography is identical with + universal history. The words apply far better to Christ.” Crane, + Religion of To-morrow, 267—“Religion being merely the personality + of God, Christianity the personality of Christ.” Pascal: “Jesus + Christ is the centre of everything and the object of everything, + and he who does not know him knows nothing of the order of nature + and nothing of himself.” Goethe in his last years wrote: “Humanity + cannot take a retrograde step, and we may say that the Christian + religion, now that it has once appeared, can never again + disappear; now that it has once found a divine embodiment, cannot + again be dissolved.” H. B. Smith, that man of clear and devout + thought, put his whole doctrine into one sentence: “Let us come to + Jesus,—the person of Christ is the centre of theology.” Dean + Stanley never tired of quoting as his own Confession of Faith the + words of John Bunyan: “Blest Cross—blest Sepulchre—blest rather + he—The man who there was put to shame for me!” And Charles Wesley + wrote on Catholic Love: “Weary of all this wordy strife, These + motions, forms, and modes and names, To thee, the Way, the Truth, + the Life, Whose love my simple heart inflames—Divinely taught, at + last I fly, With thee and thine to live and die.” + + “We have two great lakes, named Erie and Ontario, and these are + connected by the Niagara River through which Erie pours its waters + into Ontario. The whole Christian Church throughout the ages has + been called the overflow of Jesus Christ, who is infinitely + greater than it. Let Lake Erie be the symbol of Christ, the + pre-existent Logos, the Eternal Word, God revealed in the + universe. Let Niagara River be a picture to us of this same Christ + now confined to the narrow channel of His manifestation in the + flesh, but within those limits showing the same eastward current + and downward gravitation which men perceived so imperfectly + before. The tremendous cataract, with its waters plunging into the + abyss and shaking the very earth, is the suffering and death of + the Son of God, which for the first time makes palpable to human + hearts the forces of righteousness and love operative in the + Divine nature from the beginning. The law of universal life has + been made manifest; now it is seen that justice and judgment are + the foundations of God’s throne; that God’s righteousness + everywhere and always makes penalty to follow sin; that the love + which creates and upholds sinners must itself be numbered with the + transgressors, and must bear their iniquities. Niagara has + demonstrated the gravitation of Lake Erie. And not in vain. For + from Niagara there widens out another peaceful lake. Ontario is + the offspring and likeness of Erie. So redeemed humanity is the + overflow of Jesus Christ, but only of Jesus Christ after He has + passed through the measureless self-abandonment of His earthly + life and of His tragic death on Calvary. As the waters of Lake + Ontario are ever fed by Niagara, so the Church draws its life from + the cross. And Christ’s purpose is, not that we should repeat + Calvary, for that we can never do, but that we should reflect in + ourselves the same onward movement and gravitation towards + self-sacrifice which He has revealed as characterizing the very + life of God” (A. H. Strong, Sermon before the Baptist World + Congress, London, July 12, 1905). + + +(_b_) The chief problems.—These problems are the following: 1. one +personality and two natures; 2. human nature without personality; 3. +relation of the Logos to the humanity during the earthly life of Christ; +4. relation of the humanity to the Logos during the heavenly life of +Christ. We may throw light on 1, by the figure of two concentric circles; +on 2, by remembering that two earthly parents unite in producing a single +child; on 3, by the illustration of latent memory, which contains so much +more than present recollection; on 4, by the thought that body is the +manifestation of spirit, and that Christ in his heavenly state is not +confined to place. + + + Luther said that we should need “new tongues” before we could + properly set forth this doctrine,—particularly a new language with + regard to the nature of man. The further elucidation of the + problems mentioned above will immediately occupy our attention. + Our investigation should not be prejudiced by the fact that the + divine element in Jesus Christ manifests itself within human + limitations. This is the condition of all revelation. _John + 14:9_—“_he that hath seen me hath seen the father_”; _Col. + 2:9_—“_in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily_” = + up to the measure of human capacity to receive and to express the + divine. _Heb. 2:11_ and _Acts 17:26_ both attribute to man a + consubstantiality with Christ, and Christ is the manifested God. + It is a law of hydrostatics that the smallest column of water will + balance the largest. Lake Erie will be no higher than the water in + the tube connected therewith. So the person of Christ reached the + level of God, though limited in extent and environment. He was God + manifest in the flesh. + + Robert Browning, Death in the Desert: “I say, the acknowledgment + of God in Christ Accepted by thy reason, solves for thee All + questions in the earth and out of it, And has so far advanced thee + to be wise”; Epilogue to Dramatis Personæ: “That one Face, far + from vanish, rather grows, Or decomposes but to recompose, Become + my Universe that feels and knows.” “That face,” said Browning to + Mrs. Orr, as he finished reading the poem, “is the face of Christ. + That is how I feel him.” This is his answer to those victims of + nineteenth century scepticism for whom incarnate Love has + disappeared from the universe, carrying with it the belief in God. + He thus attests the continued presence of God in Christ, both in + nature and humanity. On Browning as a Christian Poet, see A. H. + Strong, The Great Poets and their Theology, 373-447; S. Law + Wilson, Theology of Modern Literature, 181-226. + + +(_c_) Reason for mystery.—The union of the two natures in Christ’s person +is necessarily inscrutable, because there are no analogies to it in our +experience. Attempts to illustrate it on the one hand from the union and +yet the distinctness of soul and body, of iron and heat, and on the other +hand from the union and yet the distinctness of Christ and the believer, +of the divine Son and the Father, are one-sided and become utterly +misleading, if they are regarded as furnishing a rationale of the union +and not simply a means of repelling objection. The first two illustrations +mentioned above lack the essential element of two natures to make them +complete: soul and body are not two natures, but one, nor are iron and +heat two substances. The last two illustrations mentioned above lack the +element of single personality: Christ and the believer are two persons, +not one, even as the Son and the Father are not one person, but two. + + + The two illustrations most commonly employed are the union of soul + and body, and the union of the believer with Christ. Each of these + illustrates one side of the great doctrine, but each must be + complemented by the other. The former, taken by itself, would be + Eutychian; the latter, taken by itself, would be Nestorian. Like + the doctrine of the Trinity, the Person of Christ is an absolutely + unique fact, for which we can find no complete analogies. But + neither do we know how soul and body are united. See Blunt, Dict. + Doct. and Hist. Theol., art.: Hypostasis; Sartorius, Person and + Work of Christ, 27-65; Wilberforce, Incarnation, 39-77; Luthardt, + Fund. Truths, 281-334. + + A. A. Hodge, Popular Lectures, 218, 230—“Many people are + Unitarians, not because of the difficulties of the Trinity, but + because of the difficulties of the Person of Christ.... The union + of the two natures is not mechanical, as between oxygen and + nitrogen in our air; nor chemical, as between oxygen and hydrogen + in water; nor organic, as between our hearts and our brains; but + personal. The best illustration is the union of body and soul in + our own persons,—how perfectly joined they are in the great + orator! Yet here are not two natures, but one human nature. We + need therefore to add the illustration of the union between the + believer and Christ.” And here too we must confess the + imperfection of the analogy, for Christ and the believer are two + persons, and not one. The person of the God-man is unique and + without adequate parallel. But this constitutes its dignity and + glory. + + +(_d_) Ground of possibility.—The possibility of the union of deity and +humanity in one person is grounded in the original creation of man in the +divine image. Man’s kinship to God, in other words, his possession of a +rational and spiritual nature, is the condition of incarnation. Brute-life +is incapable of union with God. But human nature is capable of the divine, +in the sense not only that it lives, moves, and has its being in God, but +that God may unite himself indissolubly to it and endue it with divine +powers, while yet it remains all the more truly human. Since the moral +image of God in human nature has been lost by sin, Christ, the perfect +image of God after which man was originally made, restores that lost image +by uniting himself to humanity and filling it with his divine life and +love. + + + _2 Pet. 1:4_—“_partakers of the divine nature._” Creation and + providence do not furnish the last limit of God’s indwelling. + Beyond these, there is the spiritual union between the believer + and Christ, and even beyond this, there is the unity of God and + man in the person of Jesus Christ. Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:283 + (Syst. Doct., 3:180)—“Humanity in Christ is related to divinity, + as woman to man in marriage. It is receptive, but it is exalted by + receiving. Christ is the offspring of the [marriage] covenant + between God and Israel.” _Ib._, 2:403-411 (Syst. Doct., + 3:301-308)—“The question is: How can Christ be both Creator and + creature? The Logos, as such, stands over against the creature as + a distinct object. How can he become, and be, that which exists + only as object of his activity and inworking? Can the cause become + its own effect? The problem is solved, only by remembering that + the divine and human, though distinct from each other, are not to + be thought of as foreign to each other and mutually exclusive. The + very thing that distinguishes them binds them together. Their + essential distinction is that God has aseity, while man has simply + dependence. ‘_Deep calleth unto deep_’ (_Ps. 42:7_)—the deep of + the divine riches, and the deep of human poverty, call to each + other. ‘From me a cry,—from him reply.’ God’s infinite resources + and man’s infinite need, God’s measureless supply and man’s + boundless receptivity, attract each other, until they unite in him + in whom dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. The mutual + attraction is of an ethical sort, but the divine love has ‘_first + loved_’ (_1 John 4:19_). + + “The new second creation is therefore not merely, like the first + creation, one that distinguishes from God,—it is one that unites + with God. Nature is distinct from God, yet God moves and works in + nature. Much more does human nature find its only true reality, or + realization, in union with God. God’s uniting act does not violate + or unmake it, but rather first causes it to be what, in God’s + idea, it was meant to be.” Incarnation is therefore the very + fulfilment of the idea of humanity. The supernatural assumption of + humanity is the most natural of all things. Man is not a mere + tangent to God, but an empty vessel to be filled from the infinite + fountain. Natura humana in Christo capax divinæ. See Talbot, in + Bap. Quar., 1868:129; Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, 270. + + God could not have become an angel, or a tree, or a stone. But he + could become man, because man was made in his image. God in man, + as Phillips Brooks held, is the absolutely natural. Channing said + that “all minds are of one family.” E. B. Andrews: “Divinity and + humanity are not contradictory predicates. If this had been + properly understood, there would have been no Unitarian movement. + Man is in a true sense divine. This is also true of Christ. But he + is infinitely further along in the divine nature than we are. If + we say his divinity is a new kind, then the new kind arises out of + the degree.” “Were not the eye itself a sun, No light for it could + ever shine: By nothing godlike could the soul be won, Were not the + soul itself divine.” + + John Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 1:165—“A smaller circle + may represent a larger in respect of its circularity; but a + circle, small or large, cannot be the image of a square.” ... + 2:101—“God would not be God without union with man, and man would + not be man without union with God. Immanent in the spirits he has + made, he shares their pains and sorrows.... Showing the infinite + element in man, Christ attracts us toward his own moral + excellence.” Lyman Abbott, Theology of an Evolutionist, + 190—“Incarnation is the indwelling of God in his children, of + which the type and pattern is seen in him who is at once the + manifestation of God to man, and the revelation to men of what + humanity is to be when God’s work in the world is done—perfect God + and perfect man, because God perfectly dwelling in a perfect man.” + + We have quoted these latter utterances, not because we regard them + as admitting the full truth with regard to the union of the divine + and human in Christ; but because they recognize the essential + likeness of the human to the divine, and so help our understanding + of the union between the two. We go further than the writers + quoted, in maintaining not merely an indwelling of God in Christ, + but an organic and essential union. Christ moreover is not the + God-man by virtue of his possessing a larger measure of the divine + than we, but rather by being the original source of all life, both + human and divine. We hold to his deity as well as to his divinity, + as some of these authors apparently do not. See _Heb. 7:15, + 16_—“_another priest, who hath been made ... after the power of an + endless life_”; _John 1:4_—“_In him was life; and the life was the + light of men._” + + +(_e_) No double personality.—This possession of two natures does not +involve a double personality in the God-man, for the reason that the Logos +takes into union with himself, not an individual man with already +developed personality, but human nature which has had no separate +existence before its union with the divine. Christ’s human nature is +impersonal, in the sense that it attains self-consciousness, and +self-determination only in the personality of the God-man. Here it is +important to mark the distinction between nature and person. Nature is +substance possessed in common; the persons of the Trinity have one nature; +there is a common nature of mankind. Person is nature separately +subsisting, with powers of consciousness and will. Since the human nature +of Christ has not and never had a separate subsistence, it is impersonal, +and in the God-man the Logos furnishes the principle of personality. It is +equally important to observe that self-consciousness and +self-determination do not belong to nature as such, but only to +personality. For this reason, Christ has not two consciousnesses and two +wills, but a single consciousness and a single will. This consciousness +and will, moreover, is never simply human, but is always theanthropic—an +activity of the one personality which unites in itself the human and the +divine (Mark 13:32; Luke 22:42). + + + The human father and the human mother are distinct persons, and + they each give something of their own peculiar nature to their + child; yet the result is, not two persons in the child, but only + one person, with one consciousness and one will. So the Fatherhood + of God and the motherhood of Mary produced not a double + personality in Christ, but a single personality. Dorner + illustrates the union of human and divine in Jesus by the _Holy + Spirit_ in the Christian,—nothing foreign, nothing distinguishable + from the human life into which it enters; and by the _moral + sense_, which is the very presence and power of God in the human + soul,—yet conscience does not break up the unity of the life; see + C. C. Everett, Essays, 32. These illustrations help us to + understand the interpenetration of the human by the divine in + Jesus; but they are defective in suggesting that his relation to + God was different from ours not in kind but only in degree. Only + Jesus could say: “_Before Abraham was born, I am_” (_John 8:58_); + “_I and the Father are one_” (_John 10:30_). + + The theory of two consciousnesses and two wills, first elaborated + by John of Damascus, was an unwarranted addition to the orthodox + doctrine propounded at Chalcedon. Although the view of John of + Damascus was sanctioned by the Council of Constantinople (681), + “this Council has never been regarded by the Greek Church as + œcumenical, and its composition and spirit deprive its decisions + of all value as indicating the true sense of Scripture”; see + Bruce, Humiliation of Christ, 90. _Nature_ has consciousness and + will, only as it is manifested in _person_. The one person has a + single consciousness and will, which embraces within its scope at + all times a human nature, and sometimes a divine. Notice that we + do not say Christ’s human nature had no will, but only that it had + none before its union with the divine nature, and none separately + from the one will which was made up of the human and the divine + united; _versus_ Current Discussions in Theology, 5:283. + + Sartorius uses the illustration of two concentric circles: the one + ego of personality in Christ is at the same time the centre of + both circles, the human nature and the divine. Or, still better, + illustrate by a smaller vessel of air inverted and sunk, sometimes + below its centre, sometimes above, in a far larger vessel of + water. See _Mark 13:32_—“_of that day or that hour knoweth no one, + not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son_”; _Luke + 22:42_—“_Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: + nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done._” To say that, + although in his capacity as man he was ignorant, yet at that same + moment in his capacity as God he was omniscient, is to accuse + Christ of unveracity. Whenever Christ spoke, it was not one of the + natures that spoke, but the person in whom both natures were + united. + + We subjoin various definitions of personality: Boëthius, quoted in + Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:415 (Syst. Doct., 3:313)—“Persona est + animæ rationalis individua substantia”; F. W. Robertson, Lect. on + Gen., p. 3—“Personality = self-consciousness, will, character”; + Porter, Human Intellect, 626—“Personality = distinct subsistence, + either actually or latently self-conscious and self-determining”; + Harris, Philos. Basis of Theism, 408—“Person = being, conscious of + self, subsisting in individuality and identity, and endowed with + intuitive reason, rational sensibility, and free-will.” Dr. E. G. + Robinson defines “nature” as “that substratum or condition of + being which determines the kind and attributes of the person, but + which is clearly distinguishable from the person itself.” + + Lotze, Metaphysics, § 244—“The identity of the subject of inward + experience is all that we require. So far as, and so long as, the + soul knows itself as this identical subject, it is and is named, + simply for that reason, substance.” Illingworth, Personality, + Human and Divine, 32—“Our conception of substance is not derived + from the physical, but from the mental, world. Substance is first + of all that which underlies our mental affections and + manifestations. Kant declared that the idea of freedom is the + source of our idea of personality. Personality consists in the + freedom of the whole soul from the mechanism of nature.” On + personality, see Windelband, Hist. Philos., 238. For the theory of + two consciousnesses and two wills, see Philippi, Glaubenslehre, + 4:129, 234; Kahnis, Dogmatik, 2:314; Ridgeley, Body of Divinity, + 1:476; Hodge, Syst Theol., 2:378-391; Shedd, Dogm. Theol., + 2:289-308, esp. 328. _Per contra_, see Hovey, God with Us, 66; + Schaff, Church Hist., 1:757, and 3:751; Calderwood, Moral + Philosophy, 12-14; Wilberforce, Incarnation, 148-169; Van + Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 512-518. + + +(_f_) Effect upon the human.—The union of the divine and the human natures +makes the latter possessed of the powers belonging to the former; in other +words, the attributes of the divine nature are imparted to the human +without passing over into its essence,—so that the human Christ even on +earth had power to be, to know, and to do, as God. That this power was +latent, or was only rarely manifested, was the result of the self-chosen +state of humiliation upon which the God-man had entered. In this state of +humiliation, the communication of the contents of his divine nature to the +human was mediated by the Holy Spirit. The God-man, in his servant-form, +knew and taught and performed only what the Spirit permitted and directed +(Mat. 3:16; John 3:34; Acts 1:2; 10:38; Heb. 9:14). But when thus +permitted, he knew, taught, and performed, not, like the prophets, by +power communicated from without, but by virtue of his own inner divine +energy (Mat. 17:2; Mark 5:41; Luke 5:20, 21; 6:19; John 2:11, 24, 25; +3:13; 20:19). + + + Kahnis, Dogmatik, 2d ed., 2:77—“Human nature does not become + divine, but (as Chemnitz has said) only the medium of the divine; + as the moon has not a light of her own, but only shines in the + light of the sun. So human nature may derivatively exercise divine + attributes, because it is united to the divine in one person.” + Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 151—“Our souls spiritualize our + bodies, and will one day give us the spiritual body, while yet the + body does not become spirit. So the Godhead gives divine powers to + the humanity in Christ, while yet the humanity does not cease to + be humanity.” + + Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 4:131—“The union exalts the human, as + light brightens the air, heat gives glow to the iron, spirit + exalts the body, the Holy Spirit hallows the believer by union + with his soul. Fire gives to iron its own properties of lighting + and burning; yet the iron does not become fire. Soul gives to body + its life-energy; yet the body does not become soul. The Holy + Spirit sanctifies the believer, but the believer does not become + divine; for the divine principle is the determining one. We do not + speak of airy light, of iron heat, or of a bodily soul. So human + nature possesses the divine only derivatively. In this sense it is + _our_ destiny to become ‘_partakers of the divine nature_’ (_2 + Pet. 1:4_). Even in his earthly life, when he wished to be, or + more correctly, when the Spirit permitted, he was omnipotent, + omniscient, omnipresent, could walk the sea, or pass through + closed doors. But, in his state of humiliation, he was subject to + the Holy Spirit.” + + In _Mat. 3:16_, the anointing of the Spirit at his baptism was not + the descent of a material dove (“_as a dove_”). The dove-like + appearance was only the outward sign of the coming forth of the + Holy Spirit from the depths of his being and pouring itself like a + flood into his divine-human consciousness. _John 3:34_—“_for he + giveth not the Spirit by measure_”; _Acts 1:2_—“_after that he had + given commandment through the Holy Spirit unto the apostles_”; + _10:38_—“_Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him with the Holy + Spirit and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all + that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him_”; _Heb, + 9:14_—“_the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit + offered himself without blemish onto God._” + + When permitted by the Holy Spirit, he knew, taught, and wrought as + God: _Mat. 17:2_—“_he was transfigured before them_”; _Mark + 5:41_—“_Damsel, I say unto thee, Arise_”; _Luke 5:20, 21_—“_Man, + thy sins are forgiven thee.... Who can forgive sins, but God + alone?_”—_Luke 6:19_—“_power came forth from him, and healed them + all_”; _John 2:11_—“_This beginning of his signs did Jesus in Cana + of Galilee, and manifested his glory_”; _24, 25_—“_he knew all + men.... he himself knew what was in man_”; _3:13_—“_the Son of + man, who is __ in heaven_” [here, however, Westcott and Hort, with + א and B, omit ὁ ὢν ἔν τῷ ὀυρανῷ,—for advocacy of the common + reading, see Broadus, in Hovey’s Com., on _John 3:13_]; + _20:19_—“_when the doors were shut ... Jesus came and stood in the + midst._” + + Christ is the “_servant of Jehovah_” (_Is. 42:1-7; 49:1-12; 52:13; + 53:11_) and the meaning of παῖς (_Acts 3:13, 28; 4:27, 30_) is not + “child” or “Son”; it is “_servant_,” as in the Revised Version. + But, in the state of exaltation, Christ is the “_Lord of the + Spirit_” (_2 Cor. 3:18_—Meyer), giving the Spirit (_John 16:7_—“_I + will send him unto you_”), present in the Spirit (_John 14:18_—“_I + come unto you_”; _Mat. 28:20_—“_I am with you always, even unto + the the end of the world_”), and working through the Spirit (_1 + Cor. 15:45_—“_The last Adam became a life-giving spirit_”); _2 + Cor. 3:17_—“_Now the Lord is the Spirit_”. On Christ’s relation to + the Holy Spirit, see John Owen, Works, 282-297; Robins, in Bib. + Sac., Oct. 1874:615; Wilberforce, Incarnation, 208-241. + + Delitzsch: “The conception of the servant of Jehovah is, as it + were, a pyramid, of which the base is the people of Israel as a + whole; the central part, Israel according to the Spirit; and the + summit, the Mediator of Salvation who rises out of Israel.” Cheyne + on Isaiah, 2:253, agrees with this view of Delitzsch, which is + also the view of Oehler. The O. T. is the life of a nation; the N. + T. is the life of a man. The chief end of the nation was to + produce the man; the chief end of the man was to save the world. + Sabatier, Philos. Religion, 59—“If humanity were not potentially + and in some degree an Immanuel, God with us, there would never + have issued from its bosom he who bore and revealed this blessed + name.” We would enlarge and amend this illustration of the + pyramid, by making the base to be the Logos, as Creator and + Upholder of all (_Eph. 1:23_; _Col. 1:16_); the stratum which + rests next upon the Logos is universal humanity (_Ps, 8:5, 6_); + then comes Israel as a whole (_Mat. 2:15_); spiritual Israel rests + upon Israel after the flesh (_Is. 42:1-7_); as the acme and cap + stone of all, Christ appears, to crown the pyramid, the true + servant of Jehovah and Son of man (_Is. 53:11_; _Mat. 20:28_). We + may go even further and represent Christ as forming the basis of + another inverted pyramid of redeemed humanity ever growing and + rising to heaven (_Is. 9:6_—“_Everlasting Father_”; _Is. + 53:10_—“_he shall see his seed_”; _Rev. 22:16_—“_root and + offspring of David_”; _Heb. 2:13_—“_I and the children whom God + hath given me._”) + + +(_g_) Effect upon the divine.—This communion of the natures was such that, +although the divine nature in itself is incapable of ignorance, weakness, +temptation, suffering, or death, the one person Jesus Christ was capable +of these by virtue of the union of the divine nature with a human nature +in him. As the human Savior can exercise divine attributes, not in virtue +of his humanity alone, but derivatively, by virtue of his possession of a +divine nature, so the divine Savior can suffer and be ignorant as man, not +in his divine nature, but derivatively, by virtue of his possession of a +human nature. We may illustrate this from the connection between body and +soul. The soul suffers pain from its union with the body, of which apart +from the body it would be incapable. So the God-man, although in his +divine nature impassible, was capable, through his union with humanity, of +absolutely infinite suffering. + + + Just as my soul could never suffer the pains of fire if it were + only soul, but can suffer those pains in union with the body, so + the otherwise impassible God can suffer mortal pangs through his + union with humanity, which he never could suffer if he had not + joined himself to my nature. The union between the humanity and + the deity is so close, that deity itself is brought under the + curse and penalty of the law. Because Christ was God, did he pass + unscorched through the fires of Gethsemane and Calvary? Rather let + us say, because Christ was God, he underwent a suffering that was + absolutely infinite. Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 4:300 _sq._; + Lawrence, in Bib. Sac., 24:41; Schöberlein, in Jahrbuch für + deutsche Theologie, 1871:459-501. + + A. J. F. Behrends, in The Examiner, April 21, 1898—“Jesus Christ + is God in the form of man; as completely God as if he were not + man; as completely man as if he were not God. He is always divine + and always human.... The infirmities and pains of his body pierced + his divine nature.... The demand of the law was not laid upon + Christ from without, but proceeded from within. It is the + righteousness _in_ him which makes his death necessary.” + + +(_h_) Necessity of the union.—The union of two natures in one person is +necessary to constitute Jesus Christ a proper mediator between man and +God. His two-fold nature gives him fellowship with both parties, since it +involves an equal dignity with God, and at the same time a perfect +sympathy with man (Heb. 2:17, 18; 4:15, 16). This two-fold nature, +moreover, enables him to present to both God and man proper terms of +reconciliation: being man, he can make atonement for man; being God, his +atonement has infinite value; while both his divinity and his humanity +combine to move the hearts of offenders and constrain them to submission +and love (1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 7:25). + + + _Heb. 2:17,18_—“_Wherefore it behooved him in all things to be + made like unto his brethren, that he might become a merciful and + faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make + propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself + hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are + tempted_”; _4:15,16_—“_For we have not a high priest that cannot + be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath + been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us + therefore draw near with boldness unto the throne of grace, that + we may receive mercy, and may find grace to help us in time of + need_”; _1 Tim. 2:5_—“_one God, one mediator also between God and + men, himself man, Christ Jesus_”; _Heb. 7:25_—“_Wherefore also he + is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God + through him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for + them._” + + Because Christ is man, he can make atonement for man and can + sympathize with man. Because Christ is God, his atonement has + infinite value, and the union which he effects with God is + complete. A merely human Savior could never reconcile or reunite + us to God. But a divine-human Savior meets all our needs. See + Wilberforce, Incarnation, 170-208. As the high priest of old bore + on his mitre the name Jehovah, and on his breastplate the names of + the tribes of Israel, so Christ Jesus is God with us, and at the + same time our propitiatory representative before God. In Virgil’s + Æneid, Dido says well: “Haud ignara malí, miseris succurrere + disco”—“Myself not ignorant of woe, Compassion I have learned to + show.” And Terence uttered almost a Christian word when he wrote: + “Homo sum, et humani nihil a me alienum puto”—“I am a man, and I + count nothing human as foreign to me.” Christ’s experience and + divinity made these words far more true of him than of any merely + human being. + + +(_i_) The union eternal.—The union of humanity with deity in the person of +Christ is indissoluble and eternal. Unlike the avatars of the East, the +incarnation was a permanent assumption of human nature by the second +person of the Trinity. In the ascension of Christ, glorified humanity has +attained the throne of the universe. By his Spirit, this same divine-human +Savior is omnipresent to secure the progress of his kingdom. The final +subjection of the Son to the Father, alluded to in 1 Cor. 15:28, cannot be +other than the complete return of the Son to his original relation to the +Father; since, according to John 17:5, Christ is again to possess the +glory which he had with the Father before the world was (_cf._ Heb. 1:8; +7:24, 25). + + + _1 Cor. 15:28_—“_and when all things have been subjected unto him, + then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did + subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all_”; _John + 17:5_—“_Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory + which I had with thee before the world was_”; _Heb. 1:8_—“_of the + Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever_”; + _7:24_—“_he, because he abideth forever, hath his priesthood + unchangeable._” Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:281-283 (Syst. Doct. + 3:177-179), holds that there is a present and relative distinction + between the Son’s will, as Mediator, and that of the Father (_Mat. + 26:39_—“_not as I will, but as thou wilt_”)—a distinction which + shall cease when Christ becomes Judge (_John 16:26_—“_In that day + ye shall ask in my name: and I say not onto you, that I will pray + the Father for you_”) If Christ’s _reign_ ceased, he would be + inferior to the saints, who are themselves to reign. But they are + to reign only in and with Christ, their head. + + The best illustration of the possible meaning of Christ’s giving + up the kingdom is found in the Governor of the East India Company + giving up his authority to the Queen and merging it in that of the + home government, he himself, however, at the same time becoming + Secretary of State for India. So Christ will give up his + vicegerency, but not his mediatorship. Now he reigns by delegated + authority; then he will reign in union with the Father. So + Kendrick, in Bib. Sac., Jan. 1890:68-83. Wrightnour: “When the + great remedy has wrought its perfect cure, the physician will no + longer be looked upon as the physician. When the work of + redemption is completed, the mediatorial office of the Son will + cease.” We may add that other offices of friendship and + instruction will then begin. + + Melanchthon: “Christ will finish his work as Mediator, and then + will reign as God, immediately revealing to us the Deity.” + Quenstedt, quoted in Schmid, Dogmatik, 293, thinks the giving up + of the kingdom will be only an exchange of outward administration + for inward,—not a surrender of all power and authority, but only + of one mode of exercising it. Hanna, on Resurrection, lect. 4—“It + is not a giving up of his mediatorial authority,—that throne is to + endure forever,—but it is a simple public recognition of the fact + that God is all in all, that Christ is God’s medium of + accomplishing all.” An. Par. Bible, on _1 Cor. 15:28_—“Not his + mediatorial relation to his own people shall be given up; much + less his personal relation to the Godhead, as the divine Word; but + only his mediatorial relation to the world at large.” See also + Edwards, Observations on the Trinity, 85 _sq._ Expositor’s Greek + Testament, on _1 Cor. 15:28_, “affirms no other subjection than is + involved in Sonship.... This implies no inferiority of nature, no + extrusion from power, but the free submission of love ... which is + the essence of the filial spirit which actuated Christ from first + to last.... Whatsoever glory he gains is devoted to the glory and + power of the Father, who glorifies him in turn.” + + Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:402 (Syst. Doct., 3:297-299)—“We are not + to imagine incarnations of Christ in the angel-world, or in other + spheres. This would make incarnation only the change of a garment, + a passing theophany; and Christ’s relation to humanity would be a + merely external one.” Bishop of Salisbury, quoted in Swayne, Our + Lord’s Knowledge as Man, XX—“Are we permitted to believe that + there is something parallel to the progress of our Lord’s humanity + in the state of humiliation, still going on even now, in the state + of exaltation? that it is, in fact, becoming more and more + adequate to the divine nature? See _Col. 1:24_—‘_fill up that + which is lacking_’; _Heb. 10:12, 13_—‘_expecting till his + enemies_’; _1 Cor. 15:28_—‘_when all things have been subjected + unto him._’ ” In our judgment such a conclusion is unwarranted, in + view of the fact that the God-man in his exaltation has the glory + of his preëxistent state (_John 17:5_); that all the heavenly + powers are already subject to him (_Eph. 1:21, 22_); and that he + is now omnipresent (_Mat. 28:20_). + + +(_j_) Infinite and finite in Christ.—Our investigation of the Scripture +teaching with regard to the Person of Christ leads us to three important +conclusions: 1. that deity and humanity, the infinite and the finite, in +him are not mutually exclusive; 2. that the humanity in Christ differs +from his deity not merely in degree but also in kind; and 3. that this +difference in kind is the difference between the infinite original and the +finite derivative, so that Christ is the source of life, both physical and +spiritual, for all men. + + + Our doctrine excludes the view that Christ is only quantitatively + different from other men in whom God’s Spirit dwells. He is + qualitatively different, in that he is the source of life, and + they the recipients. Not only is it true that the fulness of the + Godhead is in him alone,—it is also true that he is himself God, + self-revealing and self-communicating, as men are not. Yet we + cannot hold with E. H. Johnson, Outline of Syst. Theol., 176-178, + that Christ’s humanity was of one species with his deity, but not + of one substance. We know of but one underlying substance and + ground of being. This one substance is self-limiting, and so + self-manifesting, in Jesus Christ. The determining element is not + the human but the divine. The infinite Source has a finite + manifestation; but in the finite we see the Infinite; _2 Cor. + 5:19_—“_God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself_”; + _John 14:9_—“_he that hath seen me hath seen the Father._” We can + therefore agree with the following writers who regard all men as + partakers of the life of God, while yet we deny that Christ is + only a man, distinguished from his fellows by having a larger + share in that life than they have. + + J. M. Whiton: “How is the divine spirit which is manifest in the + life of the man Christ Jesus to be distinguished, _qua_ divine, + from the same divine spirit as manifested in the life of humanity? + I answer, that in him, the person Christ, dwelleth the _fulness_ + of the Godhead bodily. I emphasize _fulness_, and say: The + God-head is alike in the race and in its spiritual head, but the + _fulness_ is in the head alone—a fulness of course not absolute, + since circumscribed by a human organism, but a fulness to the + limits of the organism. Essential deity cannot be ascribed to the + human Christ, except as in common with the race created in the + image of God. Life is one, and all life is divine.”... Gloria + Patri, 88, 23—“Every incarnation of life is _pro tanto_ and in its + measure an incarnation of God ... and God’s way is a perpetually + increasing incarnation of life whose climax and crown is the + divine fulness of life in Christ.... The _Homoousios_ of the + Nicene Creed was a great victory of the truth. But the Nicene + Fathers builded better than they knew. The Unitarian Dr. Hedge + praised them because they got at the truth, the logical conclusion + of which was to come so long after, that God and man are of one + substance.” So Momerie, Inspiration, holds man’s nature to be the + same in kind with God’s. See criticism of this view in Watts, New + Apologetic, 133, 134. _Homoiousios_ he regards as involving + _homoousios_; the divine nature capable of fission or + segmentation, broken off in portions, and distributed among finite + moral agents; the divine nature undergoing perpetual curtailment; + every man therefore to some extent inspired, and evil as truly an + inspiration of God as is good. Watts seems to us to lack the + proper conception of the infinite as the ground of the finite, and + so not excluding it. + + Lyman Abbott affirms that Christ is, “not God _and_ man, but God + _in_ man.” Christ differs from other men only as the flower + differs from the bulb. As the true man, he is genuinely divine. + Deity and humanity are not two distinct natures, but one nature. + The ethico-spiritual nature which is finite in man is identical + with the nature which is infinite in God. Christ’s distinction + from other men is therefore in the degree in which he shared this + nature and possessed a unique fulness of life—“_anointed with the + Holy Spirit and with power_” (_Acts 10:38_). Phillips Brooks: “To + this humanity of man as a part of God—to this I cling; for I do + love it, and I will know nothing else.... Man is, in virtue of his + essential humanity, partaker of the life of the essential Word.... + Into every soul, just so far as it is possible for that soul to + receive it, God beats his life and gives his help.” Phillips + Brooks believes in the redemptive indwelling of God in man, so + that salvation is of man, for man, and by man. He does not scruple + to say to every man: “You are a part of God.” + + While we shrink from the expressions which seem to imply a + partition of the divine nature, we are compelled to recognize a + truth which these writers are laboring to express, the truth + namely of the essential oneness of all life, and of God in Christ + as the source and giver of it. “Jesus quotes approvingly the words + of _Psalm 82:6_—‘_I said, Ye are Gods._’ Microscopic, indeed, but + divine are we—sparks from the flame of deity. God is the Creator, + but it is through Christ as the mediating and as the final Cause. + ‘_And we through him_’ (_1 Cor. 8:6_)—we exist for him, for the + realization of a divine humanity in solidarity with him. Christ is + at once the end and the instrumental cause of the whole process.” + Samuel Harris, God the Creator and Lord of All, speaks of “the + essentially human in God, and the essentially divine in man.” The + Son, or Word of God, “when manifested in the forms of a finite + personality, is the essential Christ, revealing that in God which + is essentially and eternally human.” + + Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 1:196—“The whole of humanity is the + object of the divine love; it is an Immanuel and son of God; its + whole history is a continual incarnation of God; as indeed it is + said in Scripture that we are a divine offspring, and that we live + and move and have our being in God. But what lies potentially in + the human consciousness of God is not on that account also + manifestly revealed to it from the beginning.” Hatch, Hibbert + Lectures, 175-180, on Stoic monism and Platonic dualism, tells us + that the Stoics believed in a personal λόγος and an impersonal + ὕλη, both of them modes of a single substance. Some regarded God + as a mode of matter, _natura naturata_: “Jupiter est quodcunque + vides, quodcunque moveris” (Lucan, Phars., 9:579); others + conceived of him as the _natura naturans_,—this became the + governing conception.... The products are all divine, but not + equally divine.... Nearest of all to the pure essence of God is + the human soul: it is an emanation or outflow from him, a sapling + which is separate from and yet continues the life of the parent + tree, a colony in which some members of the parent state have + settled. Plato followed Anaxagoras in holding that mind is + separate from matter and acts upon it. God is outside the world. + He shapes it as a carpenter shapes wood. On the general subject of + the union of deity and humanity in the person of Christ, see + Herzog, Encyclopädie, art.: Christologie; Barrows, in Bib. Sac., + 10:765; 26:83; also, Bib. Sac., 17:535; John Owen, Person of + Christ, in Works, 1:223; Hooker, Eccl. Polity, book v. chap. + 51-56: Boyce, in Bap. Quar., 1870:385; Shedd, Hist. Doct., 1:403 + sq.; Hovey, God with Us, 61-88; Plumptre, Christ and Christendom, + appendix; E. H. Johnson, The Idea of Law in Christology, in Bib. + Sac., Oct. 1889:599-625. + + + +Section III.—The Two States Of Christ. + + +I. The State of Humiliation. + + +1. The nature of this humiliation. + + +We may dismiss, as unworthy of serious notice, the views that it consisted +essentially either in the union of the Logos with human nature,—for this +union with human nature continues in the state of exaltation; or in the +outward trials and privations of Christ’s human life,—for this view casts +reproach upon poverty, and ignores the power of the soul to rise superior +to its outward circumstances. + + + E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 224—“The error of supposing it + too humiliating to obey law was derived from the Roman treasury of + merit and works of supererogation. Better was Frederick the + Great’s sentiment when his sturdy subject and neighbor, the + miller, whose windmill he had attempted to remove, having beaten + him in a lawsuit, the thwarted monarch exclaimed: ‘Thank God, + there is law in Prussia!’ ” Palmer, Theological Definition, + 79—“God reveals himself in the rock, vegetable, animal, man. Must + not the process go on? Must there not appear in the fulness of + time a man who will reveal God as perfectly as is possible in + human conditions—a man who is God under the limitations of + humanity? Such incarnation is humiliation only in the eyes of men. + To Christ it is lifting up, exaltation, glory; _John 12:32_—‘_And + I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto + myself._’ ” George Harris, Moral Evolution, 409—“The divinity of + Christ is not obscured, but is more clearly seen, shining through + his humanity.” + + +We may devote more attention to the + +A. Theory of Thomasius, Delitzsch, and Crosby, that the humiliation +consisted in the surrender of the relative divine attributes. + +This theory holds that the Logos, although retaining his divine +self-consciousness and his immanent attributes of holiness, love, and +truth, surrendered his relative attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, +and omnipresence, in order to take to himself veritable human nature. +According to this view, there are, indeed, two natures in Christ, but +neither of these natures is infinite. Thomasius and Delitzsch are the +chief advocates of this theory in Germany. Dr. Howard Crosby has +maintained a similar view in America. + + + The theory of Thomasius, Delitzsch, and Crosby has been, though + improperly, called the theory of the Kenosis (from + ἐκένωσεν—“_emptied himself_”—in _Phil. 2:7_), and its advocates + are often called Kenotic theologians. There is a Kenosis of the + Logos, but it is of a different sort from that which this theory + supposes. For statements of this theory, see Thomasius, Christi + Person und Werk, 2:233-255, 542-550; Delitzsch, Biblische + Psychologie, 323-333; Howard Crosby, in Bap. Quar., 1870:350-363—a + discourse subsequently published in a separate volume, with the + title: The True Humanity of Christ, and reviewed by Shedd, in + Presb. Rev., April, 1881:429-431. Crosby emphasizes the word + “_became_,” in _John 1:14_—“_and the Word became flesh_”—and gives + the Word “_flesh_” the sense of “man,” or “human.” Crosby, then, + should logically deny, though he does not deny, that Christ’s body + was derived from the Virgin. + + +We object to this view that: + +(_a_) It contradicts the Scriptures already referred to, in which Christ +asserts his divine knowledge and power. Divinity, it is said, can give up +its world-functions, for it existed without these before creation. But to +give up divine attributes is to give up the substance of Godhead. Nor is +it a sufficient reply to say that only the relative attributes are given +up, while the immanent attributes, which chiefly characterize the Godhead, +are retained; for the immanent necessarily involve the relative, as the +greater involve the less. + + + Liebner, Jahrbuch f. d. Theol., 3:349-356—“Is the Logos here? But + wherein does he show his presence, that it may be known?” Hase, + Hutterus Redivivus, 11th ed., 217, note. John Caird, Fund. Ideas + of Christianity, 2:125-146, criticises the theory of the Kenosis, + but grants that, with all its self-contradictions, as he regards + them, it is an attempt to render conceivable the profound truth of + a sympathizing, self-sacrificing God. + + +(_b_) Since the Logos, in uniting himself to a human soul, reduces himself +to the condition and limitations of a human soul, the theory is virtually +a theory of the coëxistence of two human souls in Christ. But the union of +two finite souls is more difficult to explain than the union of a finite +and an infinite,—since there can be in the former case no intelligent +guidance and control of the human element by the divine. + + + Dorner, Jahrbuch f. d. Theol., 1:397-408—“The impossibility of + making two finite souls into one finally drove Arianism to the + denial of any human soul in Christ” (Apollinarianism). This + statement of Dorner, which we have already quoted in our account + of Apollinarianism, illustrates the similar impossibility, upon + the theory of Thomasius, of constructing out of two finite souls + the person of Christ. See also Hovey, God with Us, 68. + + +(_c_) This theory fails to secure its end, that of making comprehensible +the human development of Jesus,—for even though divested of the relative +attributes of Godhood, the Logos still retains his divine +self-consciousness, together with his immanent attributes of holiness, +love, and truth. This is as difficult to reconcile with a purely natural +human development as the possession of the relative divine attributes +would be. The theory logically leads to a further denial of the possession +of any divine attributes, or of any divine consciousness at all, on the +part of Christ, and merges itself in the view of Gess and Beecher, that +the Godhead of the Logos is actually transformed into a human soul. + + + Kahnis, Dogmatik 3:343—“The old theology conceived of Christ as in + full and unbroken use of the divine self-consciousness, the divine + attributes, and the divine world-functions, from the conception + until death. Though Jesus, as fœtus, child, boy, was not almighty + and omnipresent according to his human nature, yet he was so, as + to his divine nature, which constituted one _ego_ with his human. + Thomasius, however, declared that the Logos gave up his relative + attributes, during his sojourn in flesh. Dorner’s objection to + this, on the ground of the divine unchangeableness, overshoots the + mark, because it makes any _becoming_ impossible. + + “But some things in Thomasius’ doctrine are still difficult: 1st, + divinity can certainly give up its world-functions, for it has + existed without these before the world was. In the nature of an + absolute personality, however, lies an absolute knowing, willing, + feeling, which it cannot give up. Hence _Phil. 2:6-11_ speaks of a + giving-up of divine glory, but not of a giving-up of divine + attributes or nature. 2d, little is gained by such an assumption + of the giving-up of _relative_ attributes, since the Logos, even + while divested of a part of his attributes, still has full + possession of his divine self-consciousness, which must make a + purely human development no less difficult. 3d, the expressions of + divine self-consciousness, the works of divine power, the words of + divine wisdom, prove that Jesus was in possession of his divine + self-consciousness and attributes. + + “The essential thing which the Kenotics aim at, however, stands + fast; namely, that the divine personality of the Logos divested + itself of its glory (_John 17:5_), riches (_2 Cor. 8:6_), divine + form (_Phil. 2:6_). This divesting is the becoming man. The + humiliation, then, was a giving up of the use, not of the + possession, of the divine nature and attributes. That man can thus + give up self-consciousness and powers, we see every day in sleep. + But man does not, thereby, cease to be man. So we maintain that + the Logos, when he became man, did not divest himself of his + divine person and nature, which was impossible; but only divested + himself of the use and exercise of these—these being latent to + him—in order to unfold themselves to use in the measure to which + his human nature developed itself—a use which found its completion + in the condition of exaltation.” This statement of Kahnis, + although approaching correctness, is still neither quite correct + nor quite complete. + + +B. Theory that the humiliation consisted in the surrender of the +independent exercise of the divine attributes. + +This theory, which we regard as the most satisfactory of all, may be more +fully set forth as follows. The humiliation, as the Scriptures seem to +show, consisted: + +(_a_) In that act of the preëxistent Logos by which he gave up his divine +glory with the Father, in order to take a servant-form. In this act, he +resigned not the possession, nor yet entirely the use, but rather the +independent exercise, of the divine attributes. + + + _John 17:5_—“_glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory + which I had with thee before the world was_”; _Phil. 2:6, + 7_—“_who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an + equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, + taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men_”; + _2 Cor. 8:9_—“_For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, + that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that + ye through his poverty might become rich._” Pompilia, in Robert + Browning’s The Ring and the Book: “Now I see how God is likest God + in being born.” + + Omniscience gives up all knowledge but that of the child, the + infant, the embryo, the infinitesimal germ of humanity. + Omnipotence gives up all power but that of the impregnated ovum in + the womb of the Virgin. The Godhead narrows itself down to a point + that is next to absolute extinction. Jesus washing his disciples’ + feet, in _John 13:1-20_, is the symbol of his coming down from his + throne of glory and taking the form of a servant, in order that he + may purify us, by regeneration and sanctification, for the + marriage-supper of the Lamb. + + +(_b_) In the submission of the Logos to the control of the Holy Spirit and +the limitations of his Messianic mission, in his communication of the +divine fulness of the human nature which he had taken into union with +himself. + + + _Acts 1:2_—Jesus, “_after that he had given commandment through + the Holy Spirit unto the apostles whom he had chosen_”; + _10:38_—“_Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him with the Holy + Spirit and with power_”; _Heb. 9:14_—“_the blood of Christ, who + through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto + God._” A minor may have a great estate left to him, yet may have + only such use of it as his guardian permits. In Homer’s Iliad, + when Andromache brings her infant son to part with Hector, the boy + is terrified by the warlike plumes of his father’s helmet, and + Hector puts them off to embrace him. So God lays aside “That + glorious form, that light unsufferable, And that far-beaming blaze + of majesty.” Arthur H. Hallam, in John Brown’s Rab and his + Friends, 282, 283—“Revelation is the voluntary approximation of + the infinite Being to the ways and thoughts of finite humanity.” + + +(_c_) In the continuous surrender, on the part of the God-man, so far as +his human nature was concerned, of the exercise of those divine powers +with which it was endowed by virtue of its union with the divine, and in +the voluntary acceptance, which followed upon this, of temptation, +suffering, and death. + + + _Mat. 26:53_—“_thinkest thou that I cannot beseech my Father, and + he shall even now send me more than twelve legions of angels?_” + _John 10:17, 18_—“_Therefore doth the Father love me, because I + lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one taketh it away + from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, + and I have power to take it again_”; _Phil. 2:8_—“_and being found + in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even + unto death, yea, the death of the cross._” _Cf._ Shakespeare, + Merchant of Venice: “Such music is there in immortal souls, That + while this muddy vesture of decay Doth close it in, we cannot see + it.” + + +Each of these elements of the doctrine has its own Scriptural support. We +must therefore regard the humiliation of Christ, not as consisting in a +single act, but as involving a continuous self-renunciation, which began +with the Kenosis of the Logos in becoming man, and which culminated in the +self-subjection of the God-man to the death of the cross. + + + Our doctrine of Christ’s humiliation will be better understood if + we put it midway between two pairs of erroneous views, making it + the third of five. The list would be as follows: (1) Gess: The + Logos gave up all divine attributes; (2) Thomasius: The Logos gave + up relative attributes only; (3) True View: The Logos gave up the + independent exercise of divine attributes; (4) Old Orthodoxy: + Christ gave up the use of divine attributes; (5) Anselm: Christ + acted as if he did not possess divine attributes. The full + exposition of the classical passage with reference to the + humiliation, namely, _Phil. 2:5-8_, we give below, under the next + paragraph, pages 705, 706. Brentius illustrated Christ’s + humiliation by the king who travels incognito. But Mason, Faith of + the Gospel, 158, says well that “to part in appearance with only + the fruition of the divine attributes would be to impose upon us + with a pretence of self-sacrifice; but to part with it in reality + was to manifest most perfectly the true nature of God.” + + This same objection lies against the explanation given in the + Church Quarterly Review, Oct. 1891:1-30, on Our Lord’s Knowledge + as Man: “If divine knowledge exists in a different form from + human, and a translation into a different form is necessary before + it can be available in the human sphere, our Lord might know the + day of judgment as God, and yet be ignorant of it as man. This + must have been the case if he did not choose to translate it into + the human form. But it might also have been incapable of + translation. The processes of divine knowledge may be far above + our finite comprehension.” This seems to us to be a virtual denial + of the unity of Christ’s person, and to make our Lord play fast + and loose with the truth. He either knew, or he did not know; and + his denial that he knew makes it impossible that he should have + known in any sense. + + +2. The stages of Christ’s humiliation. + + +We may distinguish: (_a_) That act of the preïncarnate Logos by which, in +becoming man, he gave up the independent exercise of the divine +attributes. (_b_) His submission to the common laws which regulate the +origin of souls from a preëxisting sinful stock, in taking his human +nature from the Virgin,—a human nature which only the miraculous +conception rendered pure. (_c_) His subjection to the limitations involved +in a human growth and development,—reaching the consciousness of his +sonship at his twelfth year, and working no miracles till after the +baptism. (_d_) The subordination of himself, in state, knowledge, +teaching, and acts, to the control of the Holy Spirit,—so living, not +independently, but as a servant. (_e_) His subjection, as connected with a +sinful race, to temptation and suffering, and finally to the death which +constituted the penalty of the law. + + + Peter Lombard asked whether God could know more than he was aware + of? It is only another way of putting the question whether, during + the earthly life of Christ, the Logos existed outside of the flesh + of Jesus. We must answer in the affirmative. Otherwise the number + of the persons in the Trinity would be variable, and the universe + could do without him who is ever “_upholding all things by the + word of his power_” (_Heb. 1:3_), and in whom “_all things + consist_” (_Col. 1:17_). Let us recall the nature of God’s + omnipresence (see pages 279-282). Omnipresence is nothing less + than the presence of the whole of God in every place. From this it + follows, that the whole Christ can be present in every believer as + fully as if that believer were the only one to receive of his + fulness, and that the whole Logos can be united to and be present + in the man Christ Jesus, while at the same time he fills and + governs the universe. By virtue of this omnipresence, therefore, + the whole Logos can suffer on earth, while yet the whole Logos + reigns in heaven. The Logos outside of Christ has the perpetual + consciousness of his Godhead, while yet the Logos, as united to + humanity in Christ, is subject to ignorance, weakness, and death. + Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 1:153—“Jehovah, though present in the form of + the burning bush, was at the same time omnipresent also”; + 2:265-284, esp. 282—“Because the sun is shining in and through a + cloud, it does not follow that it cannot at the same time be + shining through the remainder of universal space, unobstructed by + any vapor whatever.” Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 21—“Not with + God, as with finite man, does arrival in one place necessitate + withdrawal from another.” John Calvin: “The whole Christ was + there; but not all that was in Christ was there.” See Adamson, The + Mind of Christ. + + How the independent exercise of the attributes of omnipotence, + omniscience, and omnipresence can be surrendered, even for a time, + would be inconceivable, if we were regarding the Logos as he is in + himself, seated upon the throne of the universe. The matter is + somewhat easier when we remember that it was not the Logos _per + se_, but rather the God-man, Jesus Christ, in whom the Logos + submitted to this humiliation. South, Sermons, 2:9—“Be the + fountain never so full, yet if it communicate itself by a little + pipe, the stream can be but small and inconsiderable, and equal to + the measure of its conveyance.” Sartorius, Person and Work of + Christ, 39—“The human eye, when open, sees heaven and earth; but + when shut, it sees little or nothing. Yet its inherent capacity + does not change. So divinity does not change its nature, when it + drops the curtain of humanity before the eyes of the God-man.” + + The divine in Christ, during most of his earthly life, is latent, + or only now and then present to his consciousness or manifested to + others. Illustrate from second childhood, where the mind itself + exists, but is not capable of use; or from first childhood, where + even a Newton or a Humboldt, if brought back to earth and made to + occupy an infant body and brain, would develop as an infant, with + infantile powers. There is more in memory than we can at this + moment recall,—memory is greater than recollection. There is more + of us at all times than we know,—only the sudden emergency reveals + the largeness of our resources of mind and heart and will. The new + nature, in the regenerate, is greater than it appears: “_Beloved, + now are we children of God, and it is not yet made manifest what + we shall be. We, know that, if he shall be manifested, we shall be + like him_” (_1 John 3:2_). So in Christ there was an ocean-like + fulness of resource, of which only now and then the Spirit + permitted the consciousness and the exercise. + + Without denying (with Dorner) the completeness, even from the + moment of the conception, of the union between the deity and the + humanity, we may still say with Kahnis: “The human nature of + Christ, according to the measure of its development, appropriates + more and more to its conscious use the latent fulness of the + divine nature.” So we take the middle ground between two opposite + extremes. On the one hand, the Kenosis was not the extinction of + the Logos. Nor, on the other hand, did Christ hunger and sleep by + miracle,—this is Docetism. We must not minimize Christ’s + humiliation, for this was his glory. There was no limit to his + descent, except that arising from his sinlessness. His humiliation + was not merely the giving-up of the appearance of Godhead. Baird, + Elohim Revealed, 585—“Should any one aim to celebrate the + condescension of the emperor Charles the Fifth, by dwelling on the + fact that he laid aside the robes of royalty and assumed the style + of a subject, and altogether ignore the more important matter that + he actually became a private person, it would be very weak and + absurd.” _Cf._ _2 Cor. 8:9_—“_though he was rich, yet for your + sakes he became poor_” = he beggared himself. _Mat. 27:46_—“_My + God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?_” = non-exercise of divine + omniscience. + + Inasmuch, however, as the passage _Phil. 2:6-8_ is the chief basis + and support of the doctrine of Christ’s humiliation, we here + subjoin a more detailed examination of it. + + EXPOSITION OF PHILIPPIANS, 2:6-8. The passage reads: “_who, + existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality + with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the + form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being + found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient + even unto death, yea, the death of the cross_.” + + The subject of the sentence is at first (_verses 6, 7_) Christ + Jesus, regarded as the preëxistent Logos; subsequently (_verse + 8_), this same Christ Jesus, regarded as incarnate. This change in + the subject is indicated by the contrast between μορφῇ θεοῦ + (_verse 6_) and μορφὴν δούλου (_verse 7_), as well as by the + participles λαβών and γενόμενος (_verse 7_) and εύρεθείς (_verse + 8_) It is asserted, then, that the preëxisting Logos, “although + subsisting in the form of God, did not regard his equality with + God as a thing to be forcibly retained, but emptied himself by + taking the form of a servant, (that is,) by being made in the + likeness of men. And being found in outward condition as a man, he + (the incarnate son of God, yet further) humbled himself, by + becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (_verse + 8_). + + Here notice that what the Logos divested himself of, in becoming + man, is not the substance of his Godhead, but the “_form of God_” + in which this substance was manifested. This “_form of God_” can + be only that independent exercise of the powers and prerogatives + of Deity which constitutes his “_equality with God_.” This he + surrenders, in the act of “_taking the form of a servant_”—or + becoming subordinate, as man. (Here other Scriptures complete the + view, by their representations of the controlling influence of the + Holy Spirit in the earthly life of Christ.) The phrases “made in + the likeness of men” and “found in fashion as a man” are used to + intimate, not that Jesus Christ was not really man, but that he + was God as well as man, and therefore free from the sin which + clings to man (_cf._ _Rom. 8:3_—ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς + ἁμαρτίας—Meyer). Finally, this one person, now God and man united, + submits himself, consciously and voluntarily, to the humiliation + of an ignominious death. + + See Lightfoot, on _Phil. 2:8_—“Christ divested himself, not of his + divine nature, for that was impossible, but of the glories and + prerogatives of Deity. This he did by taking the form of a + servant.” Evans, in Presb. Rev., 1883:287—“Two stages in Christ’s + humiliation, each represented by a finite verb defining the + central act of the particular stage, accompanied by two modal + participles. 1st stage indicated in _v. 7_. Its central act is: + ‘_he emptied himself_.’ Its two modalities are: (1) ‘_taking the + form of servant_’; (2) ‘_being made in the likeness of men_.’ Here + we have the humiliation of the Kenosis,—that by which Christ + _became_ man. 2d stage, indicated in _v. 8_. Its central act is: + ‘_he humbled himself_.’ Its two modalities are: (1) ‘_being found + in fashion as a man_’; (2) ‘_becoming obedient unto death, yea, + the death of the cross_.’ Here we have the humiliation of his + obedience and death,—that by which, _in_ humanity, he became a + sacrifice for our sins.” + + Meyer refers _Eph. 5:31_ exclusively to Christ and the church, + making the completed union future, however, _i. e._, at the time + of the Parousia. “_For this cause shall a man leave his father and + mother_” = “in the incarnation, Christ leaves father and mother + (his seat at the right hand of God), and cleaves to his wife (the + church), and then the two (the descended Christ and the church) + become one flesh (one ethical person, as the married pair become + one by physical union). The Fathers, however, (Jerome, Theodoret, + Chrysostom), referred it to the incarnation.” On the + interpretation of _Phil 2:6-11_, see Comm. of Neander, Meyer, + Lange, Ellicott. + + On the question whether Christ would have become man had there + been no sin, theologians are divided. Dorner, Martensen, and + Westcott answer in the affirmative; Robinson, Watts, and Denney in + the negative. See Dorner, Hist. Doct. Person of Christ, 5:236; + Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, 327-329; Westcott, Com. on + Hebrews, page 8—“The Incarnation is in its essence independent of + the Fall, though conditioned by it as to its circumstances.” _Per + contra_, see Robinson, Christ. Theol., 219, note—“It would be + difficult to show that a like method of argument from _a priori_ + premisses will not equally avail to prove sin to have been a + necessary part of the scheme of creation.” Denney, Studies in + Theology, 101, objects to the doctrine of necessary incarnation + irrespective of sin, that it tends to obliterate the distinction + between nature and grace, to blur the definite outlines of the + redemption wrought by Christ, as the supreme revelation of God and + his love. See also Watts, New Apologetic, 198-202; Julius Müller, + Dogmat. Abhandlungen, 66-126; Van Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 512-526, + 543-548; Forrest, The Authority of Christ, 340-345. On the general + subject of the Kenosis of the Logos, see Bruce, Humiliation of + Christ; Robins, in Bib. Sac., Oct. 1874:615; Philippi, + Glaubenslehre, 4:138-150, 386-475; Pope, Person of Christ, 23; + Bodemeyer, Lehre von der Kenosis; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:610-625. + + +II. The State of Exaltation. + + +1. The nature of this exaltation. + + +It consisted essentially in: (_a_) A resumption, on the part of the Logos, +of his independent exercise of divine attributes. (_b_) The withdrawal, on +the part of the Logos, of all limitations in his communication of the +divine fulness to the human nature of Christ. (_c_) The corresponding +exercise, on the part of the human nature, of those powers which belonged +to it by virtue of its union with the divine. + + + The eighth Psalm, with its account of the glory of human nature, + is at present fulfilled only in Christ (see _Heb. 2:9_—“_but we + behold ... Jesus_”). _Heb. 2:7_—ἠλάττωσας αὐτὸν βραχύ τι παρ᾽ + ἀγγέλους—may be translated, as in the margin of the Rev. Vers.: + “_Thou madest __ him for a little while lower than the angels._” + Christ’s human body was not necessarily subject to death; only by + outward compulsion or voluntary surrender could he die. Hence + resurrection was a natural necessity (_Acts 2:24_—“_whom God + raised up, having loosed the pangs of death: because it was not + possible he should be holden of it_”; _31_—“_neither was he left + unto Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption_”). This exaltation, + which then affected humanity only in its head, is to be the + experience also of the members. Our bodies also are to be + delivered from the bondage of corruption, and we are to sit with + Christ upon his throne. + + +2. The stages of Christ’s exaltation. + + +(a) The quickening and resurrection. + +Both Lutherans and Romanists distinguish between these two, making the +former precede, and the latter follow, Christ’s “preaching to the spirits +in prison.” These views rest upon a misinterpretation of 1 Pet. 3:18-20. +Lutherans teach that Christ descended into hell, to proclaim his triumph +to evil spirits. But this is to give ἐκήρυξεν the unusual sense of +proclaiming his triumph, instead of his gospel. Romanists teach that +Christ entered the underworld to preach to Old Testament saints, that they +might be saved. But the passage speaks only of the disobedient; it cannot +be pressed into the support of a sacramental theory of the salvation of +Old Testament believers. The passage does not assert the descent of Christ +into the world of spirits, but only a work of the preïncarnate Logos in +offering salvation, through Noah, to the world then about to perish. + + + Augustine, Ad Euodiam, ep. 99—“The spirits shut up in prison are + the unbelievers who lived in the time of Noah, whose spirits or + souls were shut up in the darkness of ignorance as in a prison; + Christ preached to them, not in the flesh, for he was not yet + incarnate, but in the spirit, that is, in his divine nature.” + Calvin taught that Christ descended into the underworld and + suffered the pains of the lost. But not all Calvinists hold with + him here; see Princeton Essays, 1:153. Meyer, on _Rom. 10:7_, + regards the question—“_Who shall descend into the abyss?_ (_that + is, to bring Christ up from the dead_)”—as an allusion to, and so + indirectly a proof-text for, Christ’s descent into the underworld. + Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 211, favors a preaching to the dead: + “During that time [the three days] he did not return to heaven and + his Father.” But though _John 20:17_ is referred to for proof, is + not this statement true only of his body? So far as the soul is + concerned, Christ can say: “_Father, into thy hands I commend my + spirit_,” and “_To-day thou shalt be with me in Paradise_” (_Luke + 23:43, 46_). + + Zahn and Dorner best represent the Lutheran view. Zahn, in + Expositor, March, 1898: 216-223—“If Jesus was truly man, then his + soul, after it left the body, entered into the fellowship of + departed spirits.... If Jesus is he who lives forevermore and even + his dying was his act, this carrying in the realm of the dead + cannot be thought of as a purely passive condition, but must have + been known to those who dwelt there..... If Jesus was the Redeemer + of mankind, the generations of those who had passed away must have + thus been brought into personal relation to him, his work and his + kingdom, without waiting for the last day.” + + Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:662 (Syst. Doct., 4:127), thinks + “Christ’s descent into Hades marks a new era of his pneumatic + life, in which he shows himself free from the limitations of time + and space.” He rejects “Luther’s notion of a merely triumphal + progress and proclamation of Christ. Before Christ,” he says, + “there was no abode peopled by the damned. The descent was an + application of the benefit of the atonement (implied in + κηρύσσειν). The work was prophetic, not high-priestly nor kingly. + Going to the spirits in prison is spoken of as a spontaneous act, + not one of physical necessity. No power of Hades led him over into + Hades. Deliverance from the limitations of a mortal body is + already an indication of a higher stage of existence. Christ’s + soul is bodiless for a time—πνεῦμα only—as the departed were. + + “The ceasing of this preaching is neither recorded, nor reasonably + to be supposed,—indeed the ancient church supposed it carried on + through the apostles. It expresses the universal significance of + Christ for former generations and for the entire kingdom of the + dead. No physical power is a limit to him. The gates of hell, or + Hades, shall not prevail over or against him. The intermediate + state is one of blessedness for him, and he can admit the penitent + thief into it. Even those who were not laid hold of by Christ’s + historic manifestation in this earthly life still must, and may, + be brought into relation with him, in order to be able to accept + or to reject him. And thus the universal relation of Christ to + humanity and the absoluteness of the Christian religion are + confirmed.” So Dorner, for substance. + + All this _versus_ Strauss, who thought that the dying of vast + masses of men, before and after Christ, who had not been brought + into relation to Christ, proves that the Christian religion is not + necessary to salvation, because not universal. For advocacy of + Christ’s preaching to the dead, see also Jahrbuch für d. Theol., + 23:177-228; W. W. Patton, in N. Eng., July, 1882:460-478; John + Miller, Problems Suggested by the Bible, part 1:93-98; part 2:38; + Plumptre, The Spirits in Prison; Kendrick, in Bap. Rev., Apl. + 1888; Clemen, Niedergefahren zu den Toten. + + For the opposite view, see “No Preaching to the Dead,” in + Princeton Rev., March, 1875:197; 1878:451-491; Hovey, in Bap. + Quar., 4:486 _sq._, and Bib. Eschatology, 97-107; Love, Christ’s + Preaching to the Spirits in Prison; Cowles, in Bib. Sac., + 1875:401; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:616-622; Salmond, in Popular + Commentary; and Johnstone, Com., in loco. So Augustine, Thomas + Aquinas, and Bishop Pearson. See also E. D. Morris, Is There + Salvation after Death? and Wright, Relation of Death to Probation, + 22:28—“If Christ preached to spirits in Hades, it may have been to + demonstrate the _hopelessness_ of adding in the other world to the + privileges enjoyed in this. We do not read that it had any + favorable effect upon the hearers. If men will not hear Moses and + the Prophets, then they will not hear one risen from the dead. + ‘_Today thou shalt be with me in Paradise_’ (_Luke 23:43_) was not + comforting, if Christ was going that day to the realm of lost + spirits. The antediluvians, however, were specially favored with + Noah’s preaching, and were specially wicked.” + + For full statement of the view presented in the text, that the + preaching referred to was the preaching of Christ as preëxisting + Logos to the spirits, now in prison, when once they were + disobedient in the days of Noah, see Bartlett, in New Englander, + Oct. 1872: 601 sq., and in Bib. Sac., Apr. 1883:333-373. Before + giving the substance of Bartlett’s exposition, we transcribe in + full the passage in question, _1 Pet. 3:18-20_—“_Because Christ + also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, + that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, + but made alive in the spirit; in which also he went and preached + unto the spirits in prison, that aforetime were disobedient, when + the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah._” + + Bartlett expounds as follows: “ ‘_In which_ [πνεύματι, divine + nature] ‘_he went and preached to the spirits in prison when once + they disobeyed._’ ἀπειθήσασιν is circumstantial aorist, indicating + the time of the preaching as a definite past: It is an anarthrous + dative, as in _Luke 8:27_; _Mat. 8:23_; _Acts 15:25_; _22:17_. It + is an appositive, or predicative, participle. [That the aorist + participle does not necessarily describe an action preliminary to + that of the principal verb appears from its use in _verse 18_ + (θανατωθείς), in _1 Thess. 1:6_ (δεξάμενοι), and in _Col. 2:11, + 13_.] The connection of thought is: Peter exhorts his readers to + endure suffering bravely, because Christ did so,—in his lower + nature being put to death, in his higher nature enduring the + opposition of sinners before the flood. Sinners of that time only + are mentioned, because this permits an introduction of the + subsequent reference to baptism. _Cf._ _Gen. 6:3_; _1 Pet. 1:10, + 11_; _2 Pet. 2:4, 5_.” + + +(_b_) The ascension and sitting at the right hand of God. + +As the resurrection proclaimed Christ to men as the perfected and +glorified man, the conqueror of sin and lord of death, the ascension +proclaimed him to the universe as the reinstated God, the possessor of +universal dominion, the omnipresent object of worship and hearer of +prayer. _Dextra Dei ubique est._ + + + _Mat. 28:18, 20_—“_All authority hath been given unto me in heaven + and on earth.... lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of + the world_”; _Mark 16:19_—“_So then the Lord Jesus, after he had + spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the + right hand of God_”; _Acts 7:55_—“_But he, being full of the Holy + Spirit, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of + God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God_”; _2 Cor. + 13:4_—“_he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth through + the power of God_”; _Eph. 1:22, 23_—“_he put all things in + subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things + to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth + all in all_”; _4:10_—“_He that descended is the same also that + ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all + things._” Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 4:184-189—“Before the + resurrection, Christ was the God-_man_; since the resurrection, he + is the _God_-man.... He ate with his disciples, not to show the + _quality_, but the _reality_, of his human body.” Nicoll, Life of + Christ: “It was hard for Elijah to ascend”—it required chariot and + horses of fire—“but it was easier for Christ to ascend than to + descend,”—there was a gravitation upwards. Maclaren: “He has not + left the world, though he has ascended to the Father, any more + than he left the Father when he came into the world”; _John + 1:18_—“_the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the + Father_”; _3:13_—“_the Son of man, who is in heaven._” + + We are compelled here to consider the problem of the relation of + the humanity to the Logos in the state of exaltation. The + Lutherans maintain the ubiquity of Christ’s human body, and they + make it the basis of their doctrine of the sacraments. Dorner, + Glaubenslehre, 2:674-676 (Syst. Doct., 4:138-142), holds to “a + presence, not simply of the Logos, but of the whole God-man, with + all his people, but not necessarily likewise a similar presence in + the world; in other words, his presence is morally conditioned by + men’s receptivity.” The old theologians said that Christ is not in + heaven, quasi carcere. Calvin, Institutes, 2:15—he is “incarnate, + but not incarcerated.” He has gone into heaven, the place of + spirits, and he manifests himself there; but he has also gone far + above all heavens, that he may fill all things. He is with his + people alway. All power is given into his hand. The church is the + fulness of him that filleth all in all. So the Acts of the + Apostles speak constantly of the Son of man, of the man Jesus as + God, ever present, the object of worship, seated at the right hand + of God, having all the powers and prerogatives of Deity. See + Westcott, Bible Com., on _John 20:22_—“_he breathed on them, and + saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit_”—“The characteristic + effect of the Paschal gift was shown in the new faith by which the + disciples were gathered into a living society; the characteristic + effect of the Pentecostal gift was shown in the exercise of + supremacy potentially universal.” + + Who and what is this Christ who is present with his people when + they pray? It is not enough to say, He is simply the Holy Spirit; + for the Holy Spirit is the “_Spirit of Christ_” (_Rom. 8:9_), and + in having the Holy Spirit we have Christ himself (_John 16:7_—“_I + will send him_ [the Comforter] _unto you_”; _14:18_—“_I come unto + you_”). The Christ, who is thus present with us when we pray, is + not simply the Logos, or the divine nature of Christ,—his humanity + being separated from the divinity and being localized in heaven. + This would be inconsistent with his promise, “_Lo, I am with + you_,” in which the “I” that spoke was not simply Deity, but Deity + and humanity inseparably united; and it would deny the real and + indissoluble union of the two natures. The elder brother and + sympathizing Savior who is with us when we pray is man, as well as + God. This manhood is therefore ubiquitous by virtue of its union + with the Godhead. + + But this is not to say that Christ’s human _body_ is everywhere + present. It would seem that body must exist in spatial relations, + and be confined to place. We do not know that this is so with + regard to soul. Heaven would seem to be a place, because Christ’s + body is there; and a spiritual body is not a body which is spirit, + but a body which is suited to the uses of the spirit. But even + though Christ may manifest himself, in a glorified human body, + only in heaven, his human soul, by virtue of its union with the + divine nature, can at the same moment be with all his scattered + people over the whole earth. As, in the days of his flesh, his + humanity was confined to place, while as to his Deity he could + speak of the Son of man who is in heaven, so now, although his + human body may be confined to place, his human soul is ubiquitous. + Humanity can exist without body; for during the three days in the + sepulchre, Christ’s body was on earth, but his soul was in the + other world; and in like manner there is, during the intermediate + state, a separation of the soul and the body of believers. But + humanity cannot exist without soul; and if the human Savior is + with us, then his humanity, at least so far as respects its + immaterial part, must be everywhere present. _Per contra_, see + Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:326, 327. Since Christ’s human nature has + derivatively become possessed of divine attributes, there is no + validity in the notion of a progressiveness in that nature, now + that it has ascended to the right hand of God. See Philippi, + Glaubenslehre, 4:131; Van Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 558, 576. + + Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:327—“Suppose the presence of the divine + nature of Christ in the soul of a believer in London. This divine + nature is at the same moment conjoined with, and present to, and + modified by, the human nature of Christ, which is in heaven and + not in London.” So Hooker, Eccl. Pol., 54, 55, and E. G. Robinson: + “Christ is in heaven at the right hand of the Father, interceding + for us, while he is present in the church by his Spirit. We pray + to the theanthropic Jesus. Possession of a human body does not now + constitute a limitation. We know little of the nature of the + present body.” We add to this last excellent remark the expression + of our own conviction that the modern conception of the merely + relative nature of space, and the idealistic view of matter as + only the expression of mind and will, have relieved this subject + of many of its former difficulties. If Christ is omnipresent and + if his body is simply the manifestation of his soul, then every + soul may feel the presence of his humanity even now and “_every + eye_” may “_see him_” at his second coming, even though believers + may be separated as far as is Boston from Pekin. The body from + which his glory flashes forth may be visible in ten thousand + places at the same time; (_Mat. 28:20_; _Rev. 1:7_). + + + +Section IV.—The Offices Of Christ. + + +The Scriptures represent Christ’s offices as three in number,—prophetic, +priestly, and kingly. Although these terms are derived from concrete human +relations, they express perfectly distinct ideas. The prophet, the priest, +and the king, of the Old Testament, were detached but designed +prefigurations of him who should combine all these various activities in +himself, and should furnish the ideal reality, of which they were the +imperfect symbols. + + + _1 Cor. 1:30_—“_of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who was made unto + us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and + redemption._” Here “_wisdom_” seems to indicate the prophetic, + “_righteousness_” (or “_justification_”) the priestly, and + “_sanctification and redemption_” the kingly work of Christ. + Denovan: “Three offices are necessary. Christ must be a prophet, + to save us from the ignorance of sin; a priest, to save us from + its guilt; a king, to save us from its dominion in our flesh. Our + faith cannot have firm basis in any one of these alone, any more + than a stool can stand on less than three legs.” See Van + Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 583-586; Archer Butler, Sermons, 1:314. + + A. A. Hodge, Popular Lectures, 235—“For ‘office,’ there are two + words in Latin: _munus_ = position (of Mediator), and _officia_ = + functions (of Prophet, Priest, and King). They are not separate + offices, as are those of President, Chief-Justice, and Senator. + They are not separate functions, capable of successive and + isolated performance. They are rather like the several functions + of the one living human body—lungs, heart, brain—functionally + distinct, yet interdependent, and together constituting one life. + So the functions of Prophet, Priest, and King mutually imply one + another: Christ is always a prophetical Priest, and a priestly + Prophet; and he is always a royal Priest, and a priestly King; and + together they accomplish one redemption, to which all are equally + essential. Christ is both μεσίτης and παράκλητος.” + + +I. The Prophetic Office of Christ. + + +1. The nature of Christ’s prophetic work. + + +(_a_) Here we must avoid the narrow interpretation which would make the +prophet a mere foreteller of future events. He was rather an inspired +interpreter or revealer of the divine will, a medium of communication +between God and men (προφήτης = not foreteller, but forteller, or +forth-teller. _Cf._ Gen. 20:7,—of Abraham; Ps. 105:15,—of the patriarchs; +Mat. 11:9,—of John the Baptist; 1 Cor. 12:28, Eph. 2:20, and 3:5,—of N. T. +expounders of Scripture). + + + _Gen. 20:7_—“_restore the man’s wife; for he is a prophet_”—spoken + of Abraham; _Ps. 105:15_—“_Touch not mine anointed ones, And do my + prophets no harm_”—spoken of the patriarchs; _Mat. 11:9_—“_But + wherefore went ye out? to see a prophet? Yea, I say into you, and + much more than a prophet_”—spoken of John the Baptist, from whom + we have no recorded predictions, and whose pointing to Jesus as + the “_Lamb of God_” (_John 1:29_) was apparently but an echo of + _Isaiah 53_. _1 Cor. 12:28_—“_first apostles, secondly prophets_”; + _Eph. 2:20_—“_built upon the foundation of the apostles and + prophets_”; _3:5_—“_revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets + in the Spirit_”—all these latter texts speaking of New Testament + expounders of Scripture. + + Any organ of divine revelation, or medium of divine communication, + is a prophet. “Hence,” says Philippi, “the books of Joshua, + Judges, Samuel, and Kings are called ‘_prophetæ priores_,’ or ‘the + earlier prophets.’ Bernard’s _Respice, Aspice, Prospice_ describes + the work of the prophet: for the prophet might see and might + disclose things in the past, things in the present, or things in + the future. Daniel was a prophet, in telling Nebuchadnezzar what + his dream had been, as well as in telling its interpretation + (_Dan. 2:28, 36_). The woman of Samaria rightly called Christ a + prophet, when he told her all things that ever she did (_John + 4:29_).” On the work of the prophet, see Stanley, Jewish Church, + 1:491. + + +(_b_) The prophet commonly united three methods of fulfilling his +office,—those of teaching, predicting, and miracle-working. In all these +respects, Jesus Christ did the work of a prophet (Deut 18:15; _cf._ Acts +3:22; Mat. 13:57; Luke 13:33; John 6:14). He taught (Mat. 5-7), he uttered +predictions (Mat. 24 and 25), he wrought miracles (Mat. 8 and 9), while in +his person, his life, his work, and his death, he revealed the Father +(John 8:26; 14:9; 17:8). + + + _Deut. 18:15_—“_Jehovah thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet, + from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him + shall ye hearken_”; _cf._ _Acts 3:22_—where this prophecy is said + to be fulfilled in Christ. Jesus calls himself a prophet in _Mat. + 13:57_—“_A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, + and in his own house_”; _Luke 13:33_—“_Nevertheless I must go on + my way to-day and to-morrow and the day following: for it cannot + be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem._” He was called a + prophet: _John 6:14_—“_When therefore the people saw the sign + which he did, they said, This is of a truth the prophet that + cometh into the world._” _John 8:26_—“_the things which I heard + from him_ [the Father], _these speak I unto the world_”; + _14:9_—“_he that hath seen me hath seen the Father_”; _17:8_—“_the + words which thou gavest me I have given unto them._” + + Denovan: “Christ teaches us by his word, his Spirit, his example.” + Christ’s miracles were mainly miracles of healing. “Only sickness + is contagious with us. But Christ was an example of perfect + health, and his health was contagious. By its overflow, he healed + others. Only a ‘_touch_’ (_Mat. 9:21_) was necessary.” + + Edwin P. Parker, on Horace Bushnell: “The two fundamental elements + of prophecy are insight and expression. Christian prophecy implies + insight or discernment of spiritual things by divine illumination, + and expression of them, by inspiration, in terms of Christian + truth or in the tones and cadences of Christian testimony. We may + define it, then, as the publication, under the impulse of + inspiration, and for edification, of truths perceived by divine + illumination, apprehended by faith, and assimilated by + experience.... It requires a natural basis and rational + preparation in the human mind, a suitable stock of natural gifts + on which to graft the spiritual gift for support and nourishment. + These gifts have had devout culture. They have been crowned by + illuminations and inspirations. Because insight gives foresight, + the prophet will be a seer of things as they are unfolding and + becoming; will discern far-signalings and intimations of + Providence; will forerun men to prepare the way for them, and them + for the way of God’s coming kingdom.” + + +2. The stages of Christ’s prophetic work. + + +These are four, namely: + +(_a_) The preparatory work of the Logos, in enlightening mankind before +the time of Christ’s advent in the flesh.—All preliminary religious +knowledge, whether within or without the bounds of the chosen people, is +from Christ, the revealer of God. + + + Christ’s prophetic work began before he came in the flesh. _John + 1:9_—“_There was the true light, even the light which lighteth + every man, coming into the world_”—all the natural light of + conscience, science, philosophy, art, civilization, is the light + of Christ. Tennyson: “Our little systems have their day, They have + their day and cease to be; They are but broken lights of thee, And + thou, O Lord, art more than they.” _Heb. 12:25, 26_—“_See that ye + refuse not him that speaketh.... whose voice then_ [at Sinai] + _shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more + will I make to tremble not the earth only, but also the heaven_”; + _Luke 11:49_—“_Therefore said the wisdom of God, I will send unto + them prophets and apostles_”; _cf._ _Mat 23:34_—“_behold, I send + unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall + ye kill and crucify_”—which shows that Jesus was referring to his + own teachings, as well as to those of the earlier prophets. + + +(_b_) The earthly ministry of Christ incarnate.—In his earthly ministry, +Christ showed himself the prophet _par excellence_. While he submitted, +like the Old Testament prophets, to the direction of the Holy Spirit, +unlike them, he found the sources of all knowledge and power within +himself. The word of God did not _come_ to him,—he was _himself_ the Word. + + + _Luke 6:19_—“_And all the multitude sought to touch him; for power + came forth from him, and healed them all_”; _John 2:11_—“_This + beginning of his signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and + manifested his glory_”; _8:38, 58_—“_I speak the things which I + have seen with my Father.... Before Abraham was born, I am_”; + _cf._ _Jer. 2:1_—“_the word of Jehovah came to me_”; _John + 1:1_—“_In the beginning was the Word._” _Mat. 26:53_—“_twelve + legions of angels_”; _John 10:18_—of his life: “_I have power to + lay it down, and I have power to take it again_”; _34_—“_Is it not + written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, + unto whom the word of God came ... say ye of him, whom the Father + sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I + said, I am the Son of God?_” Martensen, Dogmatics, 295-301, says + of Jesus’ teaching that “its source was not inspiration, but + incarnation.” Jesus was not inspired,—he was the Inspirer. + Therefore he is the true “Master of those who know.” His disciples + act in his name; he acts in his own name. + + +(_c_) The guidance and teaching of his church on earth, since his +ascension.—Christ’s prophetic activity is continued through the preaching +of his apostles and ministers, and by the enlightening influences of his +Holy Spirit (John 16:12-14; Acts 1:1). The apostles unfolded the germs of +doctrine put into their hands by Christ. The church is, in a derivative +sense, a prophetic institution, established to teach the world by its +preaching and its ordinances. But Christians are prophets, only as being +proclaimers of Christ’s teaching (Num. 11:29; Joel 2:28). + + + _John 16:12-14_—“_I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye + cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is + come, he shall guide you into all the truth.... He shall glorify + me: for he shall take of mine and shall declare it unto you_”; + _Acts 1:1_—“_The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, concerning + all that Jesus began both to do and to teach_”—Christ’s prophetic + work was only _begun_, during his earthly ministry; it is + continued since his ascension. The inspiration of the apostles, + the illumination of all preachers and Christians to understand and + to unfold the meaning of the word they wrote, the conviction of + sinners, and the sanctification of believers,—all these are parts + of Christ’s prophetic work, performed through the Holy Spirit. + + By virtue of their union with Christ and participation in Christ’s + Spirit, all Christians are made in a secondary sense prophets, as + well as priests and kings. _Num. 11:29_—“_Would that all Jehovah’s + people were prophets, that Jehovah would put his Spirit upon + them_”; _Joel 2:28_—“_I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; + and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy._” All modern + prophecy that is true, however, is but the republication of + Christ’s message—the proclamation and expounding of truth already + revealed in Scripture. “All so-called new prophecy, from Montanus + to Swedenborg, proves its own falsity by its lack of attesting + miracles.” + + A. A. Hodge, Popular Lectures, 242—“Every human prophet + presupposes an infinite eternal divine Prophet from whom his + knowledge is received, just as every stream presupposes a fountain + from which it flows.... As the telescope of highest power takes + into its field the narrowest segment of the sky, so Christ the + prophet sometimes gives the intensest insight into the glowing + centre of the heavenly world to those whom this world regards as + unlearned and foolish, and the church recognizes as only babes in + Christ.” + + +(_d_) Christ’s final revelation of the Father to his saints in glory (John +16:25; 17:24, 26; _cf._ Is. 64:4; 1 Cor. 13:12).—Thus Christ’s prophetic +work will be an endless one, as the Father whom he reveals is infinite. + + + _John 16:25_—“_the hour cometh, when I shall no more speak unto + you in dark sayings, but shall tell you plainly of the Father_”; + _17:24_—“_I desire that where I am, they also may be with me; that + they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me_”; _26_—“_I + made known unto them thy name, and will make it known._” The + revelation of his own glory will be the revelation of the Father, + in the Son. _Is. 64:4_—“_For from of old men have not heard, nor + perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen a God besides + thee, who worketh for him that waiteth for him_”; _1 Cor. + 13:12_—“_now we see in a mirror, darkly; but then face to face: + now I know in part; but then shall I know fully even as also I was + fully known._” _Rev. 21:23_—“_And the city hath no need of the + sun, neither of the moon, to shine upon it: for the glory of God + did lighten it, and the lamp thereof is the Lamb_”—not light, but + lamp. Light is something generally diffused; one sees _by_ it, but + one cannot see _it_. Lamp is the narrowing down, the + concentrating, the focusing of light, so that the light becomes + definite and visible. So in heaven Christ will be the visible God. + We shall never see the Father separate from Christ. No man or + angel has at any time seen God, “_whom no man hath seen, nor can + see._” “_The only begotten Son ... he hath declared him,_” and he + will forever declare him (_John 1:18_; _1 Tim. 6:16_). + + The ministers of the gospel in modern times, so far as they are + joined to Christ and possessed by his spirit, have a right to call + themselves prophets. The prophet is one—1. sent by God and + conscious of his mission; 2. with a message from God which he is + under compulsion to deliver; 3. a message grounded in the truth of + the past, setting it in new lights for the present, and making new + applications of it for the future. The word of the Lord must come + to him; it must be his gospel; there must be things new as well as + old. All mathematics are in the simplest axiom; but it needs + divine illumination to discover them. All truth was in Jesus’ + words, nay, in the first prophecy uttered after the Fall, but only + the apostles brought it out. The prophet’s message must be 4. a + message for the place and time—primarily for contemporaries and + present needs; 5. a message of eternal significance and worldwide + influence. As the prophet’s word was for the whole world, so our + word may be for other worlds, that _“__unto the principalities and + the powers in the heavenly places might be made known through the + church the manifold wisdom of God__”__ (Eph. 3:10)_. It must be + also 6. a message of the kingdom and triumph of Christ, which puts + over against the distractions and calamities of the present time + the glowing ideal and the perfect consummation to which God is + leading his people: “_Blessed be the glory of Jehovah from his + place_”; “_Jehovah is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep + silence before him_” (_Ez. 3:12; Hab. 2:20_). On the whole subject + of Christ’s prophetic office, see Philippi, Glaubenslehre, IV, + 2:24-27; Bruce, Humiliation of Christ, 320-330; Shedd, Dogm. + Theol., 2:366-370. + + +II. The Priestly Office of Christ. + + +The priest was a person divinely appointed to transact with God on man’s +behalf. He fulfilled his office, first by offering sacrifice, and secondly +by making intercession. In both these respects Christ is priest. + + + _Hebrews 7:24-28_—“_he, because he abideth forever, hath his + priesthood unchangeable. Wherefore also he is able to save to the + uttermost them that draw near unto God through him, seeing he ever + liveth to make intercession for them. For such a high priest + became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and + made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, like these + high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and + then for the sins of the people: for this he did once for all, + when he offered up himself. For the law appointeth men high + priests, having infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was + after the law, appointeth a Son, perfected for evermore._” The + whole race was shut out from God by its sin. But God chose the + Israelites as a priestly nation, Levi as a priestly tribe, Aaron + as a priestly family, the high priest out of this family as type + of the great high priest, Jesus Christ. J. S. Candlish, in Bib. + World, Feb. 1897:87-97, cites the following facts with regard to + our Lord’s sufferings as proofs of the doctrine of atonement: 1. + Christ gave up his life by a perfectly free act; 2. out of regard + to God his Father and obedience to his will; 3. the bitterest + element of his suffering was that he endured it at the hand of + God; 4. this divine appointment and infliction of suffering is + inexplicable, except as Christ endured the divine judgment against + the sin of the race. + + +1. Christ’s Sacrificial Work, or the Doctrine of the Atonement. + + +The Scriptures teach that Christ obeyed and suffered in our stead, to +satisfy an immanent demand of the divine holiness, and thus remove an +obstacle in the divine mind to the pardon and restoration of the guilty. +This statement may be expanded and explained in a preliminary way as +follows:— + +(_a_) The fundamental attribute of God is holiness, and holiness is not +self-communicating love, but self-affirming righteousness. Holiness limits +and conditions love, for love can will happiness only as happiness results +from or consists with righteousness, that is, with conformity to God. + + + We have shown in our discussion of the divine attributes (vol. 1, + pages 268-275) that holiness is neither self-love nor love, but + self-affirming purity and right. Those who maintain that love is + self-affirming as well as self-communicating, and therefore that + holiness is God’s love for himself, must still admit that this + self-affirming love which is holiness conditions and furnishes the + standard for the self-communicating love which is benevolence. But + we hold that holiness is not identical with, nor a manifestation + of, love. Since self-maintenance must precede self-impartation; + and since benevolence finds its object, motive, standard, and + limit in righteousness, holiness, the self-affirming attribute, + can in no way be resolved into love, the self-communicating. God + must first maintain his own being before he can give to another; + and this self-maintenance must have its reason and motive in the + worth of that which is maintained. Holiness cannot be love, + because love is irrational and capricious except as it has a + standard by which it is regulated, and this standard cannot be + itself love, but must be holiness. To make holiness a form of love + is really to deny its existence, and with this to deny that any + atonement is necessary for man’s salvation. + + +(_b_) The universe is a reflection of God, and Christ the Logos is its +life. God has constituted the universe, and humanity as a part of it, so +as to express his holiness, positively by connecting happiness with +righteousness, negatively by attaching unhappiness or suffering to sin. + + + We have seen, in vol. I, pages 109, 309-311, 335-338, that since + Christ is the Logos, the immanent God, God revealed in nature, in + humanity, and in redemption, the universe must be recognized as + created, upheld and governed by the same Being who in the course + of history was manifest in human form and who made atonement for + human sin by his death on Calvary. As all God’s creative activity + has been exercised through Christ (vol. I, page 310), so it is + Christ in whom all things consist or are held together (vol. I, + page 311). Providence, as well as preservation, is his work. He + makes the universe to reflect God, and especially God’s ethical + nature. That pain or loss universally and inevitably follow sin is + the proof that God is unalterably opposed to moral evil; and the + demands and reproaches of conscience witness that holiness is the + fundamental attribute of God’s being. + + +(_c_) Christ the Logos, as the Revealer of God in the universe and in +humanity, must condemn sin by visiting upon it the suffering which is its +penalty; while at the same time, as the Life of humanity, he must endure +the reaction of God’s holiness against sin which constitutes that penalty. + + + Here is a double work of Christ which Paul distinctly declares in + _Rom. 8:3_—“_For what the law could not do, in that it was weak + through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of + sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh._” The + meaning is that God did through Christ what the law could not do, + namely, accomplish deliverance for humanity; and did this by + sending his son in a nature which in us is identified with sin. In + connection with sin (περὶ ἁμαρτίας), and as an offering for sin, + God condemned sin, by condemning Christ. Expositor’s Greek + Testament, _in loco_: “When the question is asked, In what sense + did God send his Son ‘in connection with sin’, there is only one + answer possible. He sent him to expiate sin by his sacrificial + death. This is the centre and foundation of Paul’s gospel; see + _Rom. 3:25_ _sq._” But whatever God did in condemning sin he did + through Christ; “_God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto + himself_” (_2 Cor. 5:19_); Christ was the condemner, as well as + the condemned; conscience in us, which unites the accuser and the + accused, shows us how Christ could be both the Judge and the + Sin-bearer. + + +(_d_) Our personality is not self-contained. We live, move, and have our +being naturally in Christ the Logos. Our reason, affection, conscience, +and will are complete only in him. He is generic humanity, of which we are +the offshoots. When his righteousness condemns sin, and his love +voluntarily endures the suffering which is sin’s penalty, humanity +ratifies the judgment of God, makes full propitiation for sin, and +satisfies the demands of holiness. + + + My personal existence is grounded in God. I cannot perceive the + world outside of me nor recognize the existence of my fellow men, + except as he bridges the gulf between me and the universe. + Complete self-consciousness would be impossible if we did not + partake of the universal Reason. The smallest child makes + assumptions and uses processes of logic which are all instinctive, + but which indicate the working in him of an absolute and infinite + Intelligence. True love is possible only as God’s love flows into + us and takes possession of us; so that the poet can truly say: + “Our loves in higher love endure.” No human will is truly free, + unless God emancipates it; only he whom the Son of God makes free + is free indeed; “_work out your own salvation with fear and + trembling; for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to + work_” (_Phil. 2:12, 13_). Our moral nature, even more than our + intellectual nature, witnesses that we are not sufficient to + ourselves, but are complete only in him in whom we live and move + and have our being (_Col. 2:10_; _Acts 17:28_). No man can make a + conscience for himself. There is a common conscience, over and + above the finite and individual conscience. That common conscience + is one in all moral beings. John Watson: “There is no + consciousness of self apart from the consciousness of other selves + and things, and no consciousness of the world apart from the + consciousness of the single Reality presupposed in both.” This + single Reality is Jesus Christ, the manifested God, the Light that + lighteth every man, and the Life of all that lives (_John 1:4, + 9_). He can represent humanity before God, because his immanent + Deity constitutes the very essence of humanity. + + +(_e_) While Christ’s love explains his willingness to endure suffering for +us, only his holiness furnishes the reason for that constitution of the +universe and of human nature which makes this suffering necessary. As +respects us, his sufferings are substitutionary, since his divinity and +his sinlessness enable him to do for us what we could never do for +ourselves. Yet this substitution is also a sharing—not the work of one +external to us, but of one who is the life of humanity, the soul of our +soul and the life of our life, and so responsible with us for the sins of +the race. + + + Most of the recent treatises on the Atonement have been + descriptions of the effects of the Atonement upon life and + character, but have thrown no light upon the Atonement itself, if + indeed they have not denied its existence. We must not emphasize + the effects by ignoring the cause. Scripture declares the ultimate + aim of the Atonement to be that God “_might himself be just_” + (_Rom. 3:26_); and no theory of the atonement will meet the + demands of reason or conscience that does not ground its necessity + in God’s righteousness, rather than in his love. We acknowledge + that our conceptions of atonement have suffered some change. To + our fathers the atonement was a mere historical fact, a sacrifice + offered in a few brief hours upon the Cross. It was a literal + substitution of Christ’s suffering for ours, the payment of our + debt by another, and upon the ground of that payment we are + permitted to go free. Those sufferings were soon over, and the + hymn, “Love’s Redeeming Work is Done,” expressed the believer’s + joy in a finished redemption. And all this is true. But it is only + a part of the truth. The atonement, like every other doctrine of + Christianity, is a fact of life; and such facts of life cannot be + crowded into our definitions, because they are greater than any + definitions that we can frame. We must add to the idea of + _substitution_ the idea of _sharing_. Christ’s doing and suffering + is not that of one external and foreign to us. He is bone of our + bone, and flesh of our flesh; the bearer of our humanity; yes, the + very life of the race. + + +(_f_) The historical work of the incarnate Christ is not itself the +atonement,—it is rather the revelation of the atonement. The suffering of +the incarnate Christ is the manifestation in space and time of the eternal +suffering of God on account of human sin. Yet without the historical work +which was finished on Calvary, the age-long suffering of God could never +have been made comprehensible to men. + + + The life that Christ lived in Palestine and the death that he + endured on Calvary were the revelation of a union with mankind + which antedated the Fall. Being thus joined to us from the + beginning, he has suffered in all human sin; “_in all our + affliction he has been afflicted_” (_Is. 63:9_); so that the + Psalmist can say: “_Blessed be the Lord, who daily beareth our + burden, even the God who is our salvation_” (_Ps. 68:19_). The + historical sacrifice was a burning-glass which focused the + diffused rays of the Sun of righteousness and made them effective + in the melting of human hearts. The sufferings of Christ take + deepest hold upon us only when we see in them the two contrasted + but complementary truths: that holiness must make penalty to + follow sin, and that love must share that penalty with the + transgressor. The Cross was the concrete exhibition of the + holiness that required, and of the love that provided, man’s + redemption. Those six hours of pain could never have procured our + salvation if they had not been a revelation of eternal facts in + the being of God. The heart of God and the meaning of all previous + history were then unveiled. The whole evolution of humanity was + there depicted in its essential elements, on the one hand the sin + and condemnation of the race, on the other hand the grace and + suffering of him who was its life and salvation. As he who hung + upon the cross was God, manifest in the flesh, so the suffering of + the cross was God’s suffering for sin, manifest in the flesh. The + imputation of our sins to him is the result of his natural union + with us. He has been our substitute from the beginning. We cannot + quarrel with the doctrine of substitution when we see that this + substitution is but the sharing of our griefs and sorrows by him + whose very life pulsates in our veins. See A. H. Strong, Christ in + Creation, 78-80, 177-180. + + +(_g_) The historical sacrifice of our Lord is not only the final +revelation of the heart of God, but also the manifestation of the law of +universal life—the law that sin brings suffering to all connected with it, +and that we can overcome sin in ourselves and in the world only by +entering into the fellowship of Christ’s sufferings and Christ’s victory, +or, in other words, only by union with him through faith. + + + We too are subject to the same law of life. We who enter into + fellowship with our Lord “_fill up ... that which is lacking of + the afflictions of Christ ... for his body’s sake, which is the + church_” (_Col. 1:24_). The Christian Church can reign with Christ + only as it partakes in his suffering. The atonement becomes a + model and stimulus to self-sacrifice, and a test of Christian + character. But it is easy to see how the subjective effect of + Christ’s sacrifice may absorb the attention, to the exclusion of + its ground and cause. The moral influence of the atonement has + taken deep hold upon our minds, and we are in danger of forgetting + that it is the holiness of God, and not the salvation of men, that + primarily requires it. When sharing excludes substitution; when + reconciliation of man to God excludes reconciliation of God to + man; when the only peace secured is peace in the sinner’s heart + and no thought is given to that peace with God which it is the + first object of the atonement to secure; then the whole + evangelical system is weakened, God’s righteousness is ignored, + and man is practically put in place of God. We must not go back to + the old mechanical and arbitrary conceptions of the atonement,—we + must go forward to a more vital apprehension of the relation of + the race to Christ. A larger knowledge of Christ, the life of + humanity, will enable us to hold fast the objective nature of the + atonement, and its necessity as grounded in the holiness of God; + while at the same time we appropriate all that is good in the + modern view of the atonement, as the final demonstration of God’s + constraining love which moves men to repentance and submission. + See A. H. Strong, Cleveland Address, 1904:16-18; Dinsmore, The + Atonement in Literature and in Life, 213-250. + + +A. Scripture Methods of Representing the Atonement. + + +We may classify the Scripture representations according as they conform to +moral, commercial, legal or sacrificial analogies. + +(_a_) MORAL.—The atonement is described as + +A _provision originating in God’s love_, and manifesting this love to the +universe; but also as an _example of disinterested love_, to secure our +deliverance from selfishness.—In these latter passages, Christ’s death is +referred to as a source of moral stimulus to men. + + + _A provision_: _John 3:16_—“_For God so loved the world, that he + gave his only begotten Son_”; _Rom. 5:8_—“_God commendeth his own + love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died + for us_”; _1 John 4:9_—“_Herein was the love of God manifested in + us, that God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world that + we might live through him_”; _Heb. 2:9_—“_Jesus, because of the + suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace + of God he should taste of death for every man_”—redemption + originated in the love of the Father, as well as in that of the + Son.—_An example_: _Luke 9:22-24_—“_The Son of man must suffer ... + and be killed.... If any man would come after me, let him ... take + up his cross daily, and follow me ... whosoever shall lose his + life for my sake, the same shall save it_”; _2 Cor. 5:15_—“_he + died for all, that they that live should no longer live unto + themselves_”; _Gal. 1:4_—“_gave himself for our sins, that he + might deliver us out of this present __ evil world_”; _Eph. + 5:25-27_—“_Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for + it; that he might sanctify it_”; _Col. 1:22_—“_reconciled in the + body of his flesh through death, to present you holy_”; _Titus + 2:14_—“_gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all + iniquity, and purify_”; _1 Pet. 2:21-24_—“_Christ also suffered + for you, leaving you an example, that ye should follow his steps: + who did no sin ... who his own self bare our sins in his body upon + the tree, that we, having died unto sins, might live unto + righteousness._” Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 181—“A pious + cottager, on hearing the text, ‘_God so loved the world_,’ + exclaimed: ‘Ah, that _was_ love! I could have given myself, but I + could never have given my son.’ ” There was a wounding of the + Father through the heart of the Son: “_they shall look unto me + whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him, as one + mourneth for his only son_” (_Zech. 12:10_). + + +(b) COMMERCIAL.—The atonement is described as + +A _ransom_, paid to free us from the bondage of sin (note in these +passages the use of ἀντί, the preposition of price, bargain, exchange).—In +these passages, Christ’s death is represented as the price of our +deliverance from sin and death. + + + _Mat. 20:28, and Mark 10:45_—“_to give his life a ransom for + many_”—λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν. _1 Tim. 2:6_—“_who gave himself a + ransom for all_”—ἀντίλυτρον. Ἀντί (“_for_,” in the sense of + “instead of”) is never confounded with ὑπέρ (“_for_,” in the sense + of “in behalf of,” “for the benefit of”). Ἀντί is the preposition + of price, bargain, exchange; and this signification is traceable + in every passage where it occurs in the N. T. See _Mat. + 2:22_—“_Archelaus was reigning over Judea in the room of_ [ἀντί] + _his father Herod_”; _Luke 11:11_—“_shall his son ask ... a fish, + and he for_ [ἀντί] _a fish give him a serpent?_” _Heb. + 12:2_—“_Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith, who for_ + [ἀντί = as the price of] _the joy that was set before him endured + the cross_”; _16_—“_Esau, who for_ [ἀντί = in exchange for] _one + mess of meat sold his own birthright._” See also _Mat. + 16:26_—“_what shall a man give in exchange for_ (ἀντάλλαγμα) _his + life_” = how shall he buy it back, when once he has lost it? + Ἀντίλυτρον = substitutionary ransom. The connection in _1 Tim. + 2:6_ requires that ὑπέρ should mean “instead of.” We should + interpret this ὑπέρ by the ἀντί in _Mat. 20:28_. “Something befell + Christ, and by reason of that, the same thing need not befall + sinners” (E. Y. Mullins). + + Meyer, on _Mat. 20:28_—“_to give his life a ransom for many_”—“The + ψυχή is conceived of as λύτρον, a ransom, for, through the + shedding of the blood, it becomes the τιμή (price) of redemption.” + See also _1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23_—“_ye were bought with a price_”; and + _2 Pet. 2:1_—“_denying even the Master that bought them._” The + word “redemption,” indeed, means simply “repurchase,” or “the + state of being repurchased”—_i. e._, delivered by the payment of a + price. _Rev. 5:9_—“_thou wast slain, and didst purchase unto God + with thy blood men of every tribe._” Winer, N. T. Grammar, 258—“In + Greek, ἀντί is the preposition of price.” Buttmann, N. T. Grammar, + 321—“In the signification of the preposition ἀντί (instead of, + for), no deviation occurs from ordinary usage.” See Grimm’s Wilke, + Lexicon Græco-Lat.: “ἀντί, _in vicem_, _anstatt_”; Thayer, Lexicon + N. T.—“ἀντί, of that for which anything is given, received, + endured; ... of the price of sale (or purchase) _Mat. 20:28_”; + also Cremer, N. T. Lex., on ἀντάλλαγμα. + + Pfleiderer, in New World, Sept. 1899, doubts whether Jesus ever + really uttered the words “_give his life a ransom for many_” + (_Mat. 20:28_). He regards them as essentially Pauline, and the + result of later dogmatic reflection on the death of Jesus as a + means of redemption. So Paine, Evolution of Trinitarianism, + 377-381. But these words occur not in Luke, the Pauline gospel, + but in Matthew, which is much earlier. They represent at any rate + the apostolic conception of Jesus’ teaching, a conception which + Jesus himself promised should be formed under the guidance of the + Holy Spirit, who should bring all things to the remembrance of his + apostles and should guide them into all the truth (_John 14:26_; + _16:13_). As will be seen below, Pfleiderer declares the Pauline + doctrine to be that of substitutionary suffering. + + +(_c_) LEGAL.—The atonement is described as + +An act of _obedience_ to the law which sinners had violated; a _penalty_, +borne in order to rescue the guilty; and an _exhibition_ of God’s +righteousness, necessary to the vindication of his procedure in the pardon +and restoration of sinners.—In these passages the death of Christ is +represented as demanded by God’s law and government. + + + _Obedience_: _Gal. 4:4, 5_—“_born of a woman, born under the law, + that he might redeem them that were under the law_”; _Mat. + 3:15_—“_thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness_”—Christ’s + baptism prefigured his death, and was a consecration to death; + _cf._ _Mark 10:38_—“_Are ye able to drink the cup that I drink? or + to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?_” _Luke + 12:50_—“_I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I + straitened till it be accomplished!_” _Mat. 26:39_—“_My Father, if + it be possible, let this cup pass away from me: nevertheless, not + as I will, but as thou wilt_”; _5:17_—“_Think not that I came to + destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to + fulfil_”; _Phil. 2:8_—“_becoming obedient even unto death_”; _Rom. + 5:19_—“_through the obedience of the one shall the many be made + righteous_”; _10:4_—“_Christ is the end of the law unto + righteousness to every one that believeth._”—_Penalty_: _Rom. + 4:25_—“_who was delivered up for our trespasses, and was raised + for our justification_”; _8:3_—“_God, sending his own Son in the + likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the + flesh_”; _2 Cor. 5:21_—“_Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on + our behalf_”—here “_sin_”—a sinner, an accursed one (Meyer); _Gal. + 1:4_—“_gave himself for our sins_”; _3:13_—“_Christ redeemed us + from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is + written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree_”; _cf._ _Deut + 21:23_—“_he that is hanged is accursed of God._” _Heb. + 9:28_—“_Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of + many_”; _cf._ _Lev. 5:17_—“_if any one sin ... yet is he guilty, + and shall bear his iniquity_”; _Num. 14:34_—“_for every day a + year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years_”; _Lam. + 5:7_—“_Our fathers sinned and are not; And we have borne their + iniquities._”—_Exhibition_: _Rom. 3:25, 26_—“_whom God set forth + to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his + righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done + aforetime, in the forbearance of God_”; _cf._ _Heb. 9:15_—“_a + death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions + that were under the first covenant._” + + On these passages, see an excellent section in Pfleiderer, Die + Ritschl’sche Theologie, 38-53. Pfleiderer severely criticizes + Ritschl’s evasion of their natural force and declares Paul’s + teaching to be that Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the + law by suffering as a substitute the death threatened by the law + against sinners. So Orelli Cone, Paul, 261. On the other hand, L. + L. Paine, Evolution of Trinitarianism, 288-307, chapter on the New + Christian Atonement, holds that Christ taught only reconciliation + on condition of repentance. Paul added the idea of mediation drawn + from the Platonic dualism of Philo. The Epistle to the Hebrews + made Christ a sacrificial victim to propitiate God, so that the + reconciliation became Godward instead of manward. But Professor + Paine’s view that Paul taught an Arian Mediatorship is incorrect. + “_God was in Christ_” (_2 Cor. 5:19_) and God “_manifested in the + flesh_” (_1 Tim. 3:16_) are the keynote of Paul’s teaching, and + this is identical with John’s doctrine of the Logos: “_the Word + was God_,” and “_the Word became flesh_” (_John 1:1, 14_) + + The Outlook, December 15, 1900, in criticizing Prof. Paine, states + three postulates of the New Trinitarianism as: 1. The essential + kinship of God and man,—in man there is an essential divineness, + in God there is an essential humanness. 2. The divine + immanence,—this universal presence gives nature its physical + unity, and humanity its moral unity. This is not pantheism, any + more than the presence of man’s spirit in all he thinks and does + proves that man’s spirit is only the sum of his experiences. 3. + God transcends all phenomena,—though in all, he is greater than + all. He entered perfectly into one man, and through this + indwelling in one man he is gradually entering into all men and + filling all men with his fulness, so that Christ will be the + first-born among many brethren. The defects of this view, which + contains many elements of truth, are: 1. That it regards Christ as + the product instead of the Producer, the divinely formed man + instead of the humanly acting God, the head man among men instead + of the Creator and Life of humanity; 2. That it therefore renders + impossible any divine bearing of the sins of all men by Jesus + Christ, and substitutes for it such a histrionic exhibition of + God’s feeling and such a beauty of example as are possible within + the limits of human nature,—in other words, there is no real Deity + of Christ and no objective atonement. + + +(d) SACRIFICIAL.—The atonement is described as + +A work of _priestly mediation_, which reconciles God to men,—notice here +that the term “reconciliation” has its usual sense of removing enmity, not +from the offending, but from the offended party;—a _sin-offering_, +presented on behalf of transgressors;—a _propitiation_, which satisfies +the demands of violated holiness;—and a _substitution_, of Christ’s +obedience and sufferings for ours.—These passages, taken together, show +that Christ’s death is demanded by God’s attribute of justice, or +holiness, if sinners are to be saved. + + + _Priestly mediation_: _Heb. 9:11, 12_—“_Christ having come a high + priest, ... nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but + through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy + place, having obtained eternal redemption_”; _Rom. 5:10_—“_while + we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of + his Son_”; _2 Cor. 5:18, 19_—“_all things are of God, who + reconciled us to himself through Christ.... God was in Christ + reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their + trespasses_”; _Eph. 2:16_—“_might reconcile them both in one body + unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby_”; + _cf._ _12, 13, 19_—“_strangers from the covenants of the + promise.... far off.... no more strangers and sojourners, but ye + are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of + God_”; _Col. 1:20_—“_through him to reconcile all things unto + himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross._” + + On all these passages, see Meyer, who shows the meaning of the + apostle to be, that “we were ‘_enemies_,’ not actively, as hostile + to God, but passively, as those with whom God was angry.” The + epistle to the Romans begins with the revelation of wrath against + Gentile and Jew alike (_Rom. 1:18_). “_While we were enemies_” + (_Rom. 5:10_)—“when God was hostile to us.” “Reconciliation” is + therefore the removal of God’s wrath toward man. Meyer, on this + last passage, says that Christ’s death does not remove man’s wrath + toward God [this is not the work of Christ, but of the Holy + Spirit]. The offender reconciles the person offended, not himself. + See Denney, Com. on _Rom. 5:9-11_, in Expositor’s Gk. Test. + + _Cf._ _Num. 25:13_, where Phinehas, by slaying Zimri, is said to + have “_made atonement for the children of Israel_.” Surely, the + “_atonement_” here cannot be a reconciliation of _Israel_. The + action terminates, not on the subject, but on the object—God. So, + _1 Sam. 29:4_—“_wherewith should this fellow reconcile himself + unto his lord? should it not be with the heads of these men?_” + _Mat. 5:23, 24_—“_If therefore thou art offering thy gift at the + altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against + thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first + be reconciled to thy brother_ [_i. e._, remove his enmity, not + thine own], _and then come and offer thy gift._” See Shedd, Dogm. + Theol., 2:387-398. + + Pfleiderer, Die Ritschl’sche Theologie, 42—“Ἐχθροὶ ὄντες (_Rom. + 5:10_) = not the active disposition of enmity to God on our part, + but our passive condition under the enmity or wrath of God.” Paul + was not the author of this doctrine,—he claims that he received it + from Christ himself (_Gal. 1:12_). Simon, Reconciliation, 167—“The + idea that only man needs to be reconciled arises from a false + conception of the unchangeableness of God. But God would be + unjust, if his relation to man were the same after his sin as it + was before.” The old hymn expressed the truth: “My God is + reconciled; His pardoning voice I hear; He owns me for his child; + I can no longer fear; With filial trust I now draw nigh, And + ‘Father, Abba, Father’ cry.” + + _A sin-offering_: _John 1:29_—“_Behold, the Lamb of God, that + taketh away the sin of the world_”—here αἴρων means to take away + by taking or bearing; to take, and so take away. It is an allusion + to the sin-offering of _Isaiah 53:6-12_—“_when thou shalt make his + soul an offering for sin ... as a lamb that is led to the + slaughter ... Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all._” + _Mat. 26:28_—“_this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured + out for many unto remission of sins_”; _cf._ _Ps. 50:5_—“_made a + covenant with me by sacrifice._” _1 John 1:7_—“_the blood of Jesus + his Son cleanseth us from all sin_”—not sanctification, but + justification; _1 Cor. 5:7_—“_our passover also hath been + sacrificed, even Christ_”; _cf._ _Deut. 16:2-6_—“_thou shalt + sacrifice the passover unto Jehovah thy God._” _Eph. 5:2_—“_gave + himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for an odor + of a sweet smell_” (see Com. of Salmond, in Expositor’s Greek + Testament); _Heb. 9:14_—“_the blood of Christ, who through the + eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God_”; _22, + 26_—“_apart from shedding of blood there is no remission.... now + once in the end of the ages hath he been manifested to put away + sin by the sacrifice of himself_”; _1 Pet. 1:18, 19_—“_redeemed + ... with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without + spot, even the blood of Christ._” See Expos. Gk. Test., on _Eph. + 1:7_. + + Lowrie, Doctrine of St. John, 35, points out that _John + 6:52-59_—“_eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood_”—is Christ’s + reference to his death in terms of _sacrifice_. So, as we shall + see below, it is a _propitiation_ (_1 John 2:2_). We therefore + strongly object to the statement of Wilson, Gospel of Atonement, + 64—“Christ’s death is a sacrifice, if sacrifice means the crowning + instance of that suffering of the innocent for the guilty which + springs from the solidarity of mankind; but there is no thought of + substitution or expiation.” Wilson forgets that this necessity of + suffering arises from God’s righteousness; that without this + suffering man cannot be saved; that Christ endures what we, on + account of the insensibility of sin, cannot feel or endure; that + this suffering takes the place of ours, so that we are saved + thereby. Wilson holds that the Incarnation _constituted_ the + Atonement, and that all thought of expiation may be eliminated. + Henry B. Smith far better summed up the gospel in the words: + “Incarnation in order to Atonement.” We regard as still better the + words: “Incarnation in order to reveal the Atonement.” + + _A propitiation_: _Rom. 3:25, 26_—“_whom God set forth to be a + propitiation, ... in his blood ... that he might himself be just, + and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus._” A full and + critical exposition of this passage will be found under the + Ethical Theory of the Atonement, pages 750-760. Here it is + sufficient to say that it shows: (1) that Christ’s death is a + propitiatory sacrifice; (2) that its first and main effect is upon + God; (3) that the particular attribute in God which demands the + atonement is his justice, or holiness; (4) that the satisfaction + of this holiness is the necessary condition of God’s justifying + the believer. + + Compare _Luke 18:13_, marg.—“_God, be thou merciful unto me the + sinner_”; lit.: “_God be propitiated toward me the sinner_”—by the + sacrifice, whose smoke was ascending before the publican, even + while he prayed. _Heb. 2:17_—“_a merciful and faithful high priest + in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of + the people_”; _1 John 2:2_—“_and he is the propitiation for our + sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world_”; + _4:10_—“_Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved + us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins_”; _cf._ + _Gen. 32:20_, LXX.—“_I will appease_ [ἐξιλάσομαι, “propitiate”] + _him with the present that goeth before me_”; _Prov. 16:14_, + LXX.—“_The wrath of a king is as messengers of death; but a wise + man will pacify it_” [ἐξιλάσεται, “propitiate it”]. + + On propitiation, see Foster, Christian Life and Theology, + 216—“Something was thereby done which rendered God inclined to + pardon the sinner. God is made inclined to forgive sinners by the + sacrifice, because his righteousness was exhibited by the + infliction of the penalty of sin; but not because he needed to be + inclined in heart to love the sinner or to exercise his mercy. In + fact, it was he himself who ‘_set forth_’ Jesus as ‘_a + propitiation_’ (_Rom. 3:25, 26_).” Paul never merges the objective + atonement in its subjective effects, although no writer of the New + Testament has more fully recognized these subjective effects. With + him Christ for us upon the Cross is the necessary preparation for + Christ _in_ us by his Spirit. Gould, Bib. Theol. N. T., 74, 75, + 89, 172, unwarrantably contrasts Paul’s representation of Christ + as priest with what he calls the representation of Christ as + prophet in the Epistle to the Hebrews: “The priest says: Man’s + return to God is not enough,—there must be an expiation of man’s + sin. This is Paul’s doctrine. The prophet says: There never was a + divine provision for sacrifice. Man’s return to God is the thing + wanted. But this return must be completed. Jesus is the perfect + prophet who gives us an example of restored obedience, and who + comes in to perfect man’s imperfect work. This is the doctrine of + the Epistle to the Hebrews.” This recognition of expiation in + Paul’s teaching, together with denial of its validity and + interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews as prophetic rather + than priestly, is a curiosity of modern exegesis. + + Lyman Abbott, Theology of an Evolutionist, 107-127, goes still + further and affirms: “In the N. T. God is never said to be + propitiated, nor is it ever said that Jesus Christ propitiates God + or satisfies God’s wrath.” Yet Dr. Abbott adds that in the N. T. + God is represented as self-propitiated: “Christianity is + distinguished from paganism by representing God as appeasing his + own wrath and satisfying his own justice by the forth-putting of + his own love.” This self-propitiation however must not be thought + of as a bearing of penalty: “Nowhere in the O. T. is the idea of a + sacrifice coupled with the idea of penalty,—it is always coupled + with purification—‘_with his stripes we are healed_’ (_Is. 53:5_). + And in the N. T., ‘_the Lamb of God ... taketh away the sin of the + world_’ (_John 1:29_); ‘_the blood of Jesus ... cleanseth_’ (_1 + John 1:7_).... What humanity needs is not the removal of the + penalty, but removal of the sin.” This seems to us a distinct + contradiction of both Paul and John, with whom propitiation is an + essential of Christian doctrine (see _Rom. 3:25_; _1 John 2:2_), + while we grant that the propitiation is made, not by sinful man, + but by God himself in the person of his Son. See George B. Gow, on + The Place of Expiation in Human Redemption, Am. Jour. Theol., + 1900:734-756. + + _A substitution_: _Luke 22:37_—“_he was reckoned with + transgressors_”; _cf._ _Lev. 16:21, 22_—“_and Aaron shall lay both + his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all + the iniquities of the children of Israel ... he shall put them + upon the head of the goat ... and the goat shall bear upon him all + their iniquities unto a solitary land_”; _Is. 53:5, 6_—“_he was + wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; + the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes + we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned + every one to his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on him the + iniquity of us all._” _John 10:11_—“_the good shepherd layeth down + his life for the sheep_”; _Rom. 5:6-8_—“_while we were yet weak, + in due season Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a + righteous man will one die: for peradventure for the good man some + one would even dare to die. But God commendeth his own love toward + us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us_”; _1 + Pet. 3:18_—“_Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for + the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God._” + + To these texts we must add all those mentioned under (_b_) above, + in which Christ’s death is described as a ransom. Besides Meyer’s + comment, there quoted, on _Mat. 20:28_—“_to give his life a ransom + for many,_” λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν—Meyer also says: “ἀντί denotes + substitution. That which is given as a ransom takes the place of, + is given instead of, those who are to be set free in consideration + thereof. Ἀντί can only be understood in the sense of substitution + in the act of which the ransom is presented as an equivalent, to + secure the deliverance of those on whose behalf the ransom is + paid,—a view which is only confirmed by the fact that, in other + parts of the N. T., this ransom is usually spoken of as an + expiatory sacrifice. That which they [those for whom the ransom is + paid] are redeemed from, is the eternal ἀπώλεια in which, as + having the wrath of God abiding upon them, they would remain + imprisoned, as in a state of hopeless bondage, unless the guilt of + their sins were expiated.” + + Cremer, N. T. Lex., says that “in both the N. T. texts, _Mat. + 16:26_ and _Mark 8:37_, the word ἀντάλλαγμα, like λύτρον, is akin + to the conception of atonement: _cf._ _Is. 43:3, 4_; _51:11_; + _Amos 5:12_. This is a confirmation of the fact that satisfaction + and substitution essentially belong to the idea of atonement.” + Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:515 (Syst. Doct., 3:414)—“_Mat. 20:28_ + contains the thought of a substitution. While the whole world is + not of equal worth with the soul, and could not purchase it, + Christ’s death and work are so valuable, that they can serve as a + ransom.” + + The sufferings of the righteous were recognized in Rabbinical + Judaism as having a substitutionary significance for the sins of + others; see Weber, Altsynagog. Palestin. Theologie, 314; Schürer, + Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, 2:466 (translation, div. II, vol. + 2:186). But Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 2:225-262, says this idea of + vicarious satisfaction was an addition of Paul to the teaching of + Jesus. Wendt grants that both Paul and John taught substitution, + but he denies that Jesus did. He claims that ἀντί in _Mat. 20:28_ + means simply that Jesus gave his life as a means whereby he + obtains the deliverance of many. But this interpretation is a + non-natural one, and violates linguistic usage. It holds that Paul + and John misunderstood or misrepresented the words of our Lord. We + prefer the frank acknowledgment by Pfleiderer that Jesus, as well + as Paul and John, taught substitution, but that neither one of + them was correct. Colestock, on Substitution as a Stage in + Theological Thought, similarly holds that the idea of substitution + must be abandoned. We grant that the idea of substitution needs to + be supplemented by the idea of sharing, and so relieved of its + external and mechanical implications, but that to abandon the + conception itself is to abandon faith in the evangelists and in + Jesus himself. + + Dr. W. N. Clarke, in his Christian Theology, rejects the doctrine + of retribution for sin, and denies the possibility of penal + suffering for another. A proper view of penalty, and of Christ’s + vital connection with humanity, would make these rejected ideas + not only credible but inevitable. Dr. Alvah Hovey reviews Dr. + Clarke’s Theology, Am. Jour. Theology, Jan. 1899:205—“If we do not + import into the endurance of penalty some degree of sinful feeling + or volition, there is no ground for denying that a holy being may + bear it in place of a sinner. For nothing but wrong-doing, or + approval of wrong-doing, is impossible to a holy being. Indeed, + for one to bear for another the just penalty of his sin, provided + that other may thereby be saved from it and made a friend of God, + is perhaps the highest conceivable function of love or good-will.” + Denney, Studies, 126, 127, shows that “substitution means simply + that man is dependent for his acceptance with God upon something + which Christ has done for him, and which he could never have done + and never needs to do for himself.... The forfeiting of his free + life has freed our forfeited lives. This substitution can be + preached, and it binds men to Christ by making them forever + dependent on him. The condemnation of our sins in Christ upon his + cross is the barb on the hook,—without it your bait will be taken, + but you will not catch men; you will not annihilate pride, and + make Christ the Alpha and Omega in man’s redemption.” On the + Scripture proofs, see Crawford, Atonement, 1:1-193; Dale, + Atonement, 65-256; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, iv. 2:243-342; + Smeaton, Our Lord’s and the Apostles’ Doctrine of Atonement. + + +An examination of the passages referred to shows that, while the forms in +which the atoning work of Christ is described are in part derived from +moral, commercial, and legal relations, the prevailing language is that of +sacrifice. A correct view of the atonement must therefore be grounded upon +a proper interpretation of the institution of sacrifice, especially as +found in the Mosaic system. + + + The question is sometimes asked: Why is there so little in Jesus’ + own words about atonement? Dr. R. W. Dale replies: Because Christ + did not come to preach the gospel,—he came that there might be a + gospel to preach. The Cross had to be endured, before it could be + explained. Jesus came to be the sacrifice, not to _speak_ about + it. But his reticence is just what he told us we should find in + his words. He proclaimed their incompleteness, and referred us to + a subsequent Teacher—the Holy Spirit. The testimony of the Holy + Spirit we have in the words of the apostles. We must remember that + the gospels were supplementary to the epistles, not the epistles + to the gospels. The gospels merely fill out our knowledge of + Christ. It is not for the Redeemer to magnify the cost of + salvation, but for the redeemed. “None of the ransomed ever knew.” + The doer of a great deed has the least to say about it. + + Harnack: “There is an inner law which compels the sinner to look + upon God as a wrathful Judge.... Yet no other feeling is + possible.” We regard this confession as a demonstration of the + psychological correctness of Paul’s doctrine of a vicarious + atonement. Human nature has been so constituted by God that it + reflects the demand of his holiness. That conscience needs to be + appeased is proof that God needs to be appeased. When Whiton + declares that propitiation is offered only to our conscience, + which is the wrath of that which is of God within us, and that + Christ bore our sins, not in substitution for us, but in + fellowship with us, to rouse our consciences to hatred of them, he + forgets that God is not only immanent in the conscience but also + transcendent, and that the verdicts of conscience are only + indications of the higher verdicts of God: _1 John 3:20_—“_if our + heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all + things._” Lyman Abbott, Theology of an Evolutionist, 57—“A people + half emancipated from the paganism that imagines that God must be + placated by sacrifice before he can forgive sins gave to the + sacrificial system that Israel had borrowed from paganism the same + divine authority which they gave to those revolutionary elements + in the system which were destined eventually to sweep it entirely + out of existence.” So Bowne, Atonement, 74—“The essential moral + fact is that, if God is to forgive unrighteous men, some way must + be found of making them righteous. The difficulty is not forensic, + but moral.” Both Abbott and Bowne regard righteousness as a mere + form of benevolence, and the atonement as only a means to a + utilitarian end, namely, the restoration and happiness of the + creature. A more correct view of God’s righteousness as the + fundamental attribute of his being, as inwrought into the + constitution of the universe, and as infallibly connecting + suffering with sin, would have led these writers to see a divine + wisdom and inspiration in the institution of sacrifice, and a + divine necessity that God should suffer if man is to go free. + + +B. The Institution of Sacrifice, more especially as found in the Mosaic +system. + + +(_a_) We may dismiss as untenable, on the one hand, the theory that +sacrifice is essentially the presentation of a gift (Hofmann, +Baring-Gould) or a feast (Spencer) to the Deity; and on the other hand the +theory that sacrifice is a symbol of renewed fellowship (Keil), or of the +grateful offering to God of the whole life and being of the worshiper +(Bähr). Neither of these theories can explain the fact that the sacrifice +is a bloody offering, involving the suffering and death of the victim, and +brought, not by the simply grateful, but by the conscience-stricken soul. + + + For the views of sacrifice here mentioned, see Hofmann, + Schriftbeweis, II, 1:214-294; Baring-Gould, Origin and Devel. of + Relig. Belief, 368-390; Spencer, De Legibus Hebræorum; Keil, Bib. + Archäologie, sec. 43, 47; Bähr, Symbolik des Mosaischen Cultus, + 2:196, 269; also synopsis of Bähr’s view, in Bib. Sac., Oct. + 1870:593; Jan. 1871:171. _Per contra_, see Crawford, Atonement, + 228-240; Lange, Introd. to Com. on Exodus, 38—“The heathen change + God’s symbols into myths (rationalism), as the Jews change God’s + sacrifices into meritorious service (ritualism).” Westcott, + Hebrews, 281-294, seems to hold with Spencer that sacrifice is + essentially a feast made as an offering to God. So Philo: “God + receives the faithful offerer to his own table, giving him back + part of the sacrifice.” Compare with this the ghosts in Homer’s + Odyssey, who receive strength from drinking the blood of the + sacrifices. Bähr’s view is only half of the truth. Reunion + presupposes Expiation. Lyttleton, in Lux Mundi, 281—“The sinner + must first expiate his sin by suffering,—then only can he give to + God the life thus purified by an expiatory death.” Jahn, Bib. + Archæology, sec. 373, 378—“It is of the very idea of the sacrifice + that the victim shall be presented directly to God, and in the + presentation shall be destroyed.” Bowne, Philos. of Theism, 253, + speaks of the delicate feeling of the Biblical critic who, with + his mouth full of beef or mutton, professes to be shocked at the + cruelty to animals involved in the temple sacrifices. Lord Bacon: + “Hieroglyphics came before letters, and parables before + arguments.” “The old dispensation was God’s great parable to man. + The Theocracy was graven all over with divine hieroglyphics. Does + there exist the Rosetta stone by which we can read these + hieroglyphics? The shadows, that have been shortening up into + definiteness of outline, pass away and vanish utterly under the + full meridian splendor of the Sun of Righteousness.” On _Eph. + 1:7_—“_the blood of Christ,_” as an expiatory sacrifice which + secures our justification, see Salmond, in Expositor’s Greek + Testament. + + +(_b_) The true import of the sacrifice, as is abundantly evident from both +heathen and Jewish sources, embraced three elements,—first, that of +satisfaction to offended Deity, or propitiation offered to violated +holiness; secondly, that of substitution of suffering and death on the +part of the innocent, for the deserved punishment of the guilty; and, +thirdly, community of life between the offerer and the victim. Combining +these three ideas, we have as the total import of the sacrifice: +Satisfaction by substitution, and substitution by incorporation. The +bloody sacrifice among the heathen expressed the consciousness that sin +involves guilt; that guilt exposes man to the righteous wrath of God; that +without expiation of that guilt there is no forgiveness; and that through +the suffering of another who shares his life the sinner may expiate his +sin. + + + Luthardt, Compendium der Dogmatik, 170, quotes from Nägelsbach, + Nachhomerische Theologie, 338 _sq._—“The essence of punishment is + retribution (Vergeltung), and retribution is a fundamental law of + the world-order. In retribution lies the atoning power of + punishment. This consciousness that the nature of sin demands + retribution, in other words, this certainty that there is in Deity + a righteousness that punishes sin, taken in connection with the + consciousness of personal transgression, awakens the longing for + atonement,”—which is expressed in the sacrifice of a slaughtered + beast. The Greeks recognized representative expiation, not only in + the sacrifice of beasts, but in human sacrifices. See examples in + Tyler, Theol. Gk. Poets, 196, 197, 245-253; see also Virgil, + Æneid, 5:815—“Unum pro multis dabitur caput”; Ovid, Fasti, vi—“Cor + pro corde, precor; pro fibris sumite fibras. Hanc animam vobis pro + meliore damus.” + + Stahl, Christliche Philosophie, 146—“Every unperverted conscience + declares the eternal law of righteousness that punishment shall + follow inevitably on sin. In the moral realm, there is another way + of satisfying righteousness—that of atonement. This differs from + punishment in its effect, that is, reconciliation,—the moral + authority asserting itself, not by the destruction of the + offender, but by taking him up into itself and uniting itself to + him. But the offender cannot offer his own sacrifice,—that must be + done by the priest.” In the Prometheus Bound, of Æschylus, Hermes + says to Prometheus: “Hope not for an end to such oppression, until + a god appears as thy substitute in torment, ready to descend for + thee into the unillumined realm of Hades and the dark abyss of + Tartarus.” And this is done by Chiron, the wisest and most just of + the Centaurs, the son of Chronos, sacrificing himself for + Prometheus, while Hercules kills the eagle at his breast and so + delivers him from torment. This legend of Æschylus is almost a + prediction of the true Redeemer. See article on Sacrifice, by + Paterson, in Hastings, Bible Dictionary. + + Westcott, Hebrews, 282, maintains that the idea of expiatory + offerings, answering to the consciousness of sin, does not belong + to the early religion of Greece. We reply that Homer’s Iliad, in + its first book, describes just such an expiatory offering made to + Phœbus Apollo, so turning away his wrath and causing the plague + that wastes the Greeks to cease. E. G. Robinson held that there is + “no evidence that the Jews had any idea of the efficacy of + sacrifice for the expiation of moral guilt.” But in approaching + either the tabernacle or the temple the altar always presented + itself before the laver. H. Clay Trumbull, S. S. Times, Nov. 30, + 1901:801—“The Passover was not a passing by of the houses of + Israelites, but a passing over or crossing over by Jehovah to + enter the homes of those who would welcome him and who had entered + into covenant with him by sacrifice. The Oriental sovereign was + accompanied by his executioner, who entered to smite the + first-born of the house only when there was no covenanting at the + door.” We regard this explanation as substituting an incidental + result and effect of sacrifice for the sacrifice itself. This + always had in it the idea of reparation for wrong-doing by + substitutionary suffering. + + Curtis, Primitive Semitic Religion of To-day, on the Significance + of Sacrifice, 218-237, tells us that he went to Palestine + prepossessed by Robertson Smith’s explanation that sacrifice was a + feast symbolizing friendly communion between man and his God. He + came to the conclusion that the sacrificial meal was not the + primary element, but that there was a substitutionary value in the + offering. Gift and feast are not excluded; but these are sequences + and incidentals. Misfortune is evidence of sin; sin needs to be + expiated; the anger of God needs to be removed. The sacrifice + consisted principally in the shedding of the blood of the victim. + The “bursting forth of the blood” satisfied and bought off the + Deity. George Adam Smith on _Isaiah 53_ (2:364)—“Innocent as he + is, he gives his life as a satisfaction to the divine law for the + guilt of his people. His death was no mere martyrdom or + miscarriage of human justice: in God’s intent and purpose, but + also by its own voluntary offering, it was an expiatory sacrifice. + There is no exegete but agrees to this. 353—The substitution of + the servant of Jehovah for the guilty people and the redemptive + force of that substitution are no arbitrary doctrine.” + + _Satisfaction_ means simply that there is a principle in God’s + being which not simply refuses sin passively, but also opposes it + actively. The judge, if he be upright, must repel a bribe with + indignation, and the pure woman must flame out in anger against an + infamous proposal. R. W. Emerson: “Your goodness must have some + edge to it,—else it is none.” But the judge and the woman do not + enjoy this repelling,—they suffer rather. So God’s satisfaction is + no gloating over the pain or loss which he is compelled to + inflict. God has a wrath which is calm, judicial, inevitable—the + natural reaction of holiness against unholiness. Christ suffers + both as one with the inflicter and as one with those on whom + punishment is inflicted: “_For Christ also pleased not himself; + but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee + fell on me_” (_Rom. 15:3_; _cf._ _Ps. 69:9_). + + +(_c_) In considering the exact purport and efficacy of the Mosaic +sacrifices, we must distinguish between their theocratical, and their +spiritual, offices. They were, on the one hand, the appointed means +whereby the offender could be restored to the outward place and +privileges, as member of the theocracy, which he had forfeited by neglect +or transgression; and they accomplished this purpose irrespectively of the +temper and spirit with which they were offered. On the other hand, they +were symbolic of the vicarious sufferings and death of Christ, and +obtained forgiveness and acceptance with God only as they were offered in +true penitence, and with faith in God’s method of salvation. + + + _Heb. 9:13, 14_—“_For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the + ashes of a heifer sprinkling them that have been defiled, sanctify + unto the cleanness of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of + Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without + blemish unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve + the living God?_” _10:3, 4_—“_But in those sacrifices there is a + remembrance made of sins year by year. For it is impossible that + the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins._” Christ’s + death also, like the O. T. sacrifices, works temporal benefit even + to those who have no faith; see pages 771, 772. + + Robertson, Early Religion of Israel, 441, 448, answers the + contention of the higher critics that, in the days of Isaiah, + Micah, Hosea, Jeremiah, no Levitical code existed; that these + prophets expressed disapproval of the whole sacrificial system, as + a thing of mere human device and destitute of divine sanction. But + the Book of the Covenant surely existed in their day, with its + command: “_An altar of earth shalt thou make unto me, and shalt + sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings_” (_Ex. 20:24_). Or, if it + is maintained that Isaiah condemned even that early piece of + legislation, it proves too much, for it would make the prophet + also condemn the Sabbath as a piece of will-worship, and even + reject prayer as displeasing to God, since in the same connection + he says: “_new moon and Sabbath ... I cannot away with ... when ye + spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you_” (_Is. + 1:13-15_). Isaiah was condemning simply _heartless_ sacrifice; + else we make him condemn all that went on at the temple. _Micah + 6:8_—“_what doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do justly?_” This + does not exclude the offering of sacrifice, for Micah anticipates + the time when “_the mountain of Jehovah’s house shall be + established on the top of the mountains, ... And many nations + shall go and say, Come ye and let us go up to the mountain of + Jehovah_” (_Micah 4:1, 2_). _Hos. 6:6_—“_I desire goodness, and + not sacrifice,_” is interpreted by what follows, “_and the + knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings_.” Compare _Prov. 8:10; + 17:12_; and Samuel’s words: “_to obey is better than sacrifice_” + (_1 Sam. 15:22_). What was the altar from which Isaiah drew his + description of God’s theophany and from which was taken the live + coal that touched his lips and prepared him to be a prophet? (_Is. + 6:1-8). Jer. 7:22_—“_I spake not ... concerning burnt-offerings or + sacrifices ... but this thing ... Hearken unto my voice._” + Jeremiah insists only on the worthlessness of sacrifice where + there is no heart. + + +(_d_) Thus the Old Testament sacrifices, when rightly offered, involved a +consciousness of sin on the part of the worshiper, the bringing of a +victim to atone for the sin, the laying of the hand of the offerer upon +the victim’s head, the confession of sin by the offerer, the slaying of +the beast, the sprinkling or pouring-out of the blood upon the altar, and +the consequent forgiveness of the sin and acceptance of the worshiper. The +sin-offering and the scape-goat of the great day of atonement symbolized +yet more distinctly the two elementary ideas of sacrifice, namely, +satisfaction and substitution, together with the consequent removal of +guilt from those on whose behalf the sacrifice was offered. + + + _Lev. 1:4_—“_And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the + burnt-offering; and it shall be accepted for him, to make + atonement for him_”; _4:20_—“_Thus shall he do with the bullock; + as he did with the bullock of the sin-offering, so shall he do + with this; and the priest shall make atonement for them, and they + shall be forgiven_”; so _31_ and _35_—“_and the priest shall make + atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned, and he + shall be forgiven_”; so _5:10, 16_; _6:7_. _Lev. 17:11_—“_For the + life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon + the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood + that maketh atonement by reason of the life._” + + The patriarchal sacrifices were sin-offerings, as the sacrifice of + Job for his friends witnesses: _Job 42:7-9_—“_My wrath is kindled + against thee_ [Eliphaz] _... therefore, take unto you seven + bullocks ... and offer up for yourselves a burnt-offering_”; _cf._ + _33:24_—“_Then God is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him + from going down to the pit, I have found a ransom_”; _1:5_—Job + offered burnt-offerings for his sons, for he said, “_It may be + that my sons have sinned, and renounced God in their hearts_”; + _Gen. 8:20_—Noah “_offered burnt-offerings on the altar_”; + _21_—“_and Jehovah smelled the sweet savor; and Jehovah said in + his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s + sake._” + + That vicarious suffering is intended in all these sacrifices, is + plain from _Lev. 16:1-34_—the account of the sin-offering and the + scape-goat of the great day of atonement, the full meaning of + which we give below; also from _Gen. 22:13_—“_Abraham went and + took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt-offering in the stead + of his son_”; _Ex. 32:30-32_—where Moses says: “_Ye have sinned a + great sin: and now I will go up unto Jehovah; peradventure I shall + make atonement for your sin. And Moses returned unto Jehovah, and + said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them + gods of gold. Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin—; and if + not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast + written._” See also _Deut. 21:1-9_—the expiation of an uncertain + murder, by the sacrifice of a heifer,—where Oehler, O. T. + Theology, 1:389, says: “Evidently the punishment of death incurred + by the manslayer is executed symbolically upon the heifer.” In + _Is. 53:1-12_—“_All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned + every one to his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on him the + iniquity of us all ... stripes ... offering for sin_”—the ideas of + both satisfaction and substitution are still more plain. + + Wallace, Representative Responsibility: “The animals offered in + sacrifice must be animals brought into direct relation to man, + subject to him, his property. They could not be spoils of the + chase. They must bear the mark and impress of humanity. Upon the + sacrifice human hands must be laid—the hands of the offerer and + the hands of the priest. The offering is the substitute of the + offerer. The priest is the substitute of the offerer. The priest + and the sacrifice were _one symbol_. [Hence, in the new + dispensation, the priest and the sacrifice are one—both are found + in Christ.] The high priest must enter the holy of holies with his + own finger dipped in blood: the blood must be in contact with his + own person,—another indication of the identification of the two. + Life is nourished and sustained by life. All life lower than man + may be sacrificed for the good of man. The blood must be spilled + on the ground. ‘_In the blood is the life._’ The life is reserved + by God. It is given _for_ man, but not _to_ him. Life for life is + the law of the creation. So the life of Christ, also, for _our_ + life.—Adam was originally priest of the family and of the race. + But he lost his representative character by the one act of + disobedience, and his redemption was that of the individual, not + that of the race. The race ceased to have a representative. The + subjects of the divine government were henceforth to be, not the + natural offspring of Adam as such, but the redeemed. That the body + and the blood are both required, indicates the demand that the + death should be by a violence that sheds blood. The sacrifices + showed forth, not Christ himself [his character, his life], but + Christ’s death.” + + This following is a tentative scheme of the JEWISH SACRIFICES. The + general reason for sacrifice is expressed in _Lev. 17:11_ (quoted + above). I. _For the individual_: 1. The sin-offering = sacrifice + to expiate sins of ignorance (thoughtlessness and plausible + temptation): _Lev. 4:14, 20, 31_. 2. The trespass-offering = + sacrifice to expiate sins of omission: _Lev. 5:5, 6_. 3. The + burnt-offering = sacrifice to expiate general sinfulness: _Lev. + 1:3_ (the offering of Mary, _Luke 2:24_). II. _For the family_: + The Passover: _Ex. 12:27_. III. _For the people_: 1. The daily + morning and evening sacrifice: _Ex. 29:38-46_. 2. The offering of + the great day of atonement: _Lev. 16:6-10_. In this last, two + victims were employed, one to represent the means—death, and the + other to represent the result—forgiveness. One victim could not + represent both the atonement—by shedding of blood, and the + justification—by putting away sin. + + Jesus died for our sins at the Passover feast and at the hour of + daily sacrifice. McLaren, in S. S. Times, Nov. 30, + 1901:801—“Shedding of blood and consequent safety were only a part + of the teaching of the Passover. There is a double identification + of the person offering with his sacrifice: first, in that he + offers it as his representative, laying his hand on its head, or + otherwise transferring his personality, as it were, to it; and + secondly, in that, receiving it back again from God to whom he + gave it, he feeds on it, so making it part of his life and + nourishing himself thereby: ‘_My flesh ... which I will give ... + for the life of the world ... he that eateth me, he also shall + live because of me_’ (_John 6:51, 57_).” + + Chambers, in Presb. and Ref. Rev., Jan. 1892:22-34—On the great + day of atonement “the double offering—one for Jehovah and the + other for Azazel—typified not only the removing of the guilt of + the people, but its transfer to the odious and detestable being + who was the first cause of its existence,” _i. e._, Satan. + Lidgett, Spir. Principle of the Atonement, 112, 113—“It was not + the punishment which the goat bore away into the wilderness, for + the idea of punishment is not directly associated with the + scapegoat. It bears the sin—the whole unfaithfulness of the + community which had defiled the holy places—out from them, so that + henceforth they may be pure.... The sin-offering—representing the + sinner by receiving the burden of his sin—makes expiation by + yielding up and yielding back its life to God, under conditions + which represent at once the wrath and the placability of God.” + + On the Jewish sacrifices, see Fairbairn, Typology, 1:209-223; + Wünsche, Die Leiden des Messias; Jukes, O. T. Sacrifices; Smeaton, + Apostle’s Doctrine of Atonement, 25-53; Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship + of O. T., 120; Bible Com., 1:502-508, and Introd. to Leviticus; + Candlish on Atonement, 123-142; Weber, Vom Zorne Gottes, 161-180. + On passages in Leviticus, see Com. of Knobel, in Exeg. Handb. d. + Alt. Test. + + +(_e_) It is not essential to this view to maintain that a formal divine +institution of the rite of sacrifice, at man’s expulsion from Eden, can be +proved from Scripture. Like the family and the state, sacrifice may, +without such formal inculcation, possess divine sanction, and be ordained +of God. The well-nigh universal prevalence of sacrifice, however, together +with the fact that its nature, as a bloody offering, seems to preclude +man’s own invention of it, combines with certain Scripture intimations to +favor the view that it was a primitive divine appointment. From the time +of Moses, there can be no question as to its divine authority. + + + Compare the origin of prayer and worship, for which we find no + formal divine injunctions at the beginnings of history. _Heb. + 11:4_—“_By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice + than Cain, through which he had witness borne to him that he was + righteous, God bearing witness in respect of his gifts_”—here it + may be argued that since Abel’s faith was not presumption, it must + have had some injunction and promise of God to base itself upon. + _Gen. 4:3, 4_—“_Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an + offering unto Jehovah. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings + of his flock and of the fat thereof. And Jehovah had respect unto + Abel and to his offering: but unto Cain and to his offering he had + not respect._” + + It has been urged, in corroboration of this view, that the + previous existence of sacrifice is intimated in _Gen. 3:21_—“_And + Jehovah God made for Adam and for his wife coats of skins, and + clothed them._” Since the killing of animals for food was not + permitted until long afterwards (_Gen. 9:3_—to Noah: “_Every + moving thing that liveth shall be food for you_”), the inference + has been drawn, that the skins with which God clothed our first + parents were the skins of animals slain for sacrifice,—this + clothing furnishing a type of the righteousness of Christ which + secures our restoration to God’s favor, as the death of the + victims furnished a type of the suffering of Christ which secures + for us remission of punishment. We must regard this, however, as a + pleasing and possibly correct hypothesis, rather than as a + demonstrated truth of Scripture. Since the unperverted instincts + of human nature are an expression of God’s will, Abel’s faith may + have consisted in trusting these, rather than the promptings of + selfishness and self-righteousness. The death of animals in + sacrifice, like the death of Christ which it signified, was only + the hastening of what belonged to them because of their connection + with human sin. Faith recognized this connection. On the divine + appointment of sacrifice, see Park, in Bib. Sac., Jan. + 1876:102-132. Westcott, Hebrews, 281—“There is no reason to think + that sacrifice was instituted in obedience to a direct + revelation.... It is mentioned in Scripture at first as natural + and known. It was practically universal in prechristian times.... + In due time the popular practice of sacrifice was regulated by + revelation as disciplinary, and also used as a vehicle for typical + teaching.” We prefer to say that sacrifice probably originated in + a fundamental instinct of humanity, and was therefore a divine + ordinance as much as were marriage and government. + + On _Gen. 4:3, 4_, see C. H. M.—“The entire difference between Cain + and Abel lay, not in their natures, but in their sacrifices. Cain + brought to God the sin-stained fruit of a cursed earth. Here was + no recognition of the fact that he was a sinner, condemned to + death. All his toil could not satisfy God’s holiness, or remove + the penalty. But Abel recognized his sin, condemnation, + helplessness, death, and brought the bloody sacrifice—the + sacrifice of another—the sacrifice provided by God, to meet the + claims of God. He found a substitute, and he presented it in + faith—the faith that looks away from self to Christ, or God’s + appointed way of salvation. The difference was not in their + persons, but in their gifts. Of Abel it is said, that God ‘_bore + witness in respect of his gifts_’ (_Heb. 11:4_). To Cain it is + said, ‘_if thou doest well_ (LXX.: ὀρθῶς προσενένκης—_if thou + offerest correctly_) _shalt thou not be accepted?_’ But Cain + desired to get away from God and from God’s way, and to lose + himself in the world. This is ‘_the way of Cain_’ (_Jude 11_).” + _Per contra_, see Crawford, Atonement, 259—“Both in Levitical and + patriarchal times, we have no formal institution of sacrifice, but + the regulation of sacrifice already existing. But Abel’s faith may + have had respect, not to a revelation with regard to sacrificial + worship, but with regard to the promised Redeemer; and his + sacrifice may have expressed that faith. If so, God’s acceptance + of it gave a divine warrant to future sacrifices. It was not + will-worship, because it was not substituted for some other + worship which God had previously instituted. It is not necessary + to suppose that God gave an expressed command. Abel may have been + moved by some inward divine monition. Thus Adam said to Eve, + ‘_This is now bone of my bones...._’ (_Gen. 2:23_), before any + divine command of marriage. No fruits were presented during the + patriarchal dispensation. Heathen sacrifices were corruptions of + primitive sacrifice.” Von Lasaulx, Die Sühnopfer der Griechen und + Römer, und ihr Verhältniss zu dem einen auf Golgotha, 1—“The first + word of the _original_ man was probably a prayer, the first action + of _fallen_ man a sacrifice”; see translation in Bib. Sac., 1: + 368-408. Bishop Butler: “By the general prevalence of propitiatory + sacrifices over the heathen world, the notion of repentance alone + being sufficient to expiate guilt appears to be contrary to the + general sense of mankind.” + + +(_f_) The New Testament assumes and presupposes the Old Testament doctrine +of sacrifice. The sacrificial language in which its descriptions of +Christ’s work are clothed cannot be explained as an accommodation to +Jewish methods of thought, since this terminology was in large part in +common use among the heathen, and Paul used it more than any other of the +apostles in dealing with the Gentiles. To deny to it its Old Testament +meaning, when used by New Testament writers to describe the work of +Christ, is to deny any proper inspiration both in the Mosaic appointment +of sacrifices and in the apostolic interpretations of them. We must +therefore maintain, as the result of a simple induction of Scripture +facts, that the death of Christ is a vicarious offering, provided by God’s +love for the purpose of satisfying an internal demand of the divine +holiness, and of removing an obstacle in the divine mind to the renewal +and pardon of sinners. + + + “The epistle of James makes no allusion to sacrifice. But he would + not have failed to allude to it, if he had held the moral view of + the atonement; for it would then have been an obvious help to his + argument against merely formal service. Christ protested against + washing hands and keeping Sabbath days. If sacrifice had been a + piece of human formality, how indignantly would he have inveighed + against it! But instead of this he received from John the Baptist, + without rebuke, the words: ‘_Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh + away the sin of the world_’ (_John 1:29_).” + + A. A. Hodge, Popular Lectures, 247—“The sacrifices of bulls and + goats were like token-money, as our paper-promises to pay, + accepted at their face-value till the day of settlement. But the + sacrifice of Christ was the gold which absolutely extinguished all + debt by its intrinsic value. Hence, when Christ died, the veil + that separated man from God was rent from the top to the bottom by + supernatural hands. When the real expiation was finished, the + whole symbolical system representing it became _functum officio_, + and was abolished. Soon after this, the temple was razed to the + ground, and the ritual was rendered forever impossible.” + + For denial that Christ’s death is to be interpreted by heathen or + Jewish sacrifices, see Maurice on Sac., 154—“The heathen + signification of words, when applied to a Christian use, must be + not merely modified, but inverted”; Jowett, Epistles of St. Paul, + 2:479—“The heathen and Jewish sacrifices rather show us what the + sacrifice of Christ was not, than what it was.” Bushnell and Young + do not doubt the expiatory nature of heathen sacrifices. But the + main terms which the N. T. uses to describe Christ’s sacrifice are + borrowed from the Greek sacrificial ritual, _e. g._, θυσία, + προσφορά, ἰλασμός, ἁγιάζω, καθαίρω, ἰλάσκομαι. To deny that these + terms, when applied to Christ, imply expiation and substitution, + is to deny the inspiration of those who used them. See Cave, + Scripture Doctrine of Sacrifice; art. on Sacrifice, in Smith’s + Bible Dictionary. + + With all these indications of our dissent from the modern denial + of expiatory sacrifice, we deem it desirable by way of contrast to + present the clearest possible statement of the view from which we + dissent. This may be found in Pfleiderer, Philosophy of Religion, + 1:238, 260, 261—“The gradual distinction of the moral from the + ceremonial, the repression and ultimate replacement of ceremonial + expiation by the moral purification of the sense and life, and + consequently the transformation of the mystical conception of + redemption into the corresponding ethical conception of education, + may be designated as the kernel and the teleological principle of + the development of the history of religion.... But to Paul the + question in what sense the death of the Cross could be the means + of the Messianic redemption found its answer simply from the + presuppositions of the Pharisaic theology, which beheld in the + innocent suffering, and especially in the martyr-death, of the + righteous, an expiatory means compensating for the sins of the + whole people. What would be more natural than that Paul should + contemplate the death on the Cross in the same way, as an + expiatory means of salvation for the redemption of the sinful + world? + + “We are thus led to see in this theory the symbolical presentment + of the truth that the new man suffers, as it were, vicariously, + for the old man; for he takes upon himself the daily pain of + self-subjugation, and bears guiltlessly in patience the evils + which the old man could not but necessarily impute to himself as + punishment. Therefore as Christ is the exemplification of the + moral idea of man, so his death is the symbol of that moral + process of painful self-subjugation in obedience and patience, in + which the true inner redemption of man consists.... In like manner + Fichte said that the only proper means of salvation is the death + of selfhood, death _with_ Jesus, regeneration. + + “The defect in the Kant-Fichtean doctrine of redemption consisted + in this, that it limited the process of ethical transformation to + the individual, and endeavored to explain it from his subjective + reason and freedom alone. How could the individual deliver himself + from his powerlessness and become free? This question was + unsolved. The Christian doctrine of redemption is that the moral + liberation of the individual is not the effect of his own natural + power, but the effect of the divine Spirit, who, from the + beginning of human history, put forth his activity as the power + educating to the good, and especially has created for himself in + the Christian community a permanent organ for the education of the + people and of individuals. It was the moral individualism of Kant + which prevented him from finding in the historically realized + common spirit of the good the real force available for the + individual becoming good.” + + +C. Theories of the Atonement. + + +1st. The Socinian, or Example Theory of the Atonement. + + +This theory holds that subjective sinfulness is the sole barrier between +man and God. Not God, but only man, needs to be reconciled. The only +method of reconciliation is to better man’s moral condition. This can be +effected by man’s own will, through repentance and reformation. The death +of Christ is but the death of a noble martyr. He redeems us, only as his +human example of faithfulness to truth and duty has a powerful influence +upon our moral improvement. This fact the apostles, either consciously or +unconsciously, clothed in the language of the Greek and Jewish sacrifices. +This theory was fully elaborated by Lælius Socinus and Faustus Socinus of +Poland, in the 16th century. Its modern advocates are found in the +Unitarian body. + + + The Socinian theory may be found stated, and advocated, in + Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, 1:566-600; Martineau, Studies of + Christianity, 83-176; J. F. Clarke, Orthodoxy, Its Truths and + Errors, 235-265; Ellis, Unitarianism and Orthodoxy; Sheldon, Sin + and Redemption, 146-210. The text which at first sight most seems + to favor this view is _1 Pet 2:21_—“_Christ also suffered for you, + leaving you an example, that ye should follow his steps._” But see + under (_e_) below. When Correggio saw Raphael’s picture of St. + Cecilia, he exclaimed: “I too am a painter.” So Socinus held that + Christ’s example roused our humanity to imitation. He regarded + expiation as heathenish and impossible; every one must receive + according to his deeds; God is ready to grant forgiveness on + simple repentance. + + E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 277—“The theory first insists + on the inviolability of moral sequences in the conduct of every + moral agent; and then insists that, on a given condition, the + consequences of transgression may be arrested by almighty fiat.... + Unitarianism errs in giving a transforming power to that which + works beneficently only after the transformation has been + wrought.” In ascribing to human nature a power of + self-reformation, it ignores man’s need of regeneration by the + Holy Spirit. But even this renewing work of the Holy Spirit + presupposes the atoning work of Christ. “_Ye must be born anew_” + (_John 3:7_) necessitates “_Even so must the Son of man be lifted + up_” (_John 3:14_). It is only the Cross that satisfies man’s + instinct of reparation. Harnack, Das Wesen des Christenthums, + 99—“Those who regarded Christ’s death soon ceased to bring any + other bloody offering to God. This is true both in Judaism and in + heathenism. Christ’s death put an end to all bloody offerings in + religious history. The impulse to sacrifice found its satisfaction + in the Cross of Christ.” We regard this as proof that the Cross is + essentially a satisfaction to the divine justice, and not a mere + example of faithfulness to duty. The Socinian theory is the first + of six theories of the Atonement, which roughly correspond with + our six previously treated theories of sin, and this first theory + includes most of the false doctrine which appears in mitigated + forms in several of the theories following. + + +To this theory we make the following objections: + +(_a_) It is based upon false philosophical principles,—as, for example, +that will is merely the faculty of volitions; that the foundation of +virtue is in utility; that law is an expression of arbitrary will; that +penalty is a means of reforming the offender; that righteousness, in +either God or man, is only a manifestation of benevolence. + + + If the will is simply the faculty of volitions, and not also the + fundamental determination of the being to an ultimate end, then + man can, by a single volition, effect his own reformation and + reconciliation to God. If the foundation of virtue is in utility, + then there is nothing in the divine being that prevents pardon, + the good of the creature, and not the demands of God’s holiness, + being the reason for Christ’s suffering. If law is an expression + of arbitrary will, instead of being a transcript of the divine + nature, it may at any time be dispensed with, and the sinner may + be pardoned on mere repentance. If penalty is merely a means of + reforming the offender, then sin does not involve objective guilt, + or obligation to suffer, and sin may be forgiven, at any moment, + to all who forsake it,—indeed, _must_ be forgiven, since + punishment is out of place when the sinner is reformed. If + righteousness is only a form or manifestation of benevolence, then + God can show his benevolence as easily through pardon as through + penalty, and Christ’s death is only intended to attract us toward + the good by the force of a noble example. + + Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 2:218-264, is essentially Socinian in + his view of Jesus’ death. Yet he ascribes to Jesus the idea that + suffering is _necessary_, even for one who stands in perfect love + and blessed fellowship with God, since earthly blessedness is not + the true blessedness, and since a true piety is impossible without + renunciation and stooping to minister to others. The earthly + life-sacrifice of the Messiah was his necessary and greatest act, + and was the culminating point of his teaching. Suffering made him + a perfect example, and so ensured the success of his work. But why + God should have made it necessary that the holiest must suffer, + Wendt does not explain. This constitution of things we can + understand only as a revelation of the holiness of God, and of his + punitive relation to human sin. Simon, Reconciliation, 357, shows + well that example might have sufficed for a race that merely + needed leadership. But what the race needed most was energizing, + the fulfilment of the conditions of restoration to God on their + behalf by one of themselves, by one whose very essence they + shared, who created them, in whom they consisted, and whose work + was therefore their work. Christ condemned with the divine + condemnation the thoughts and impulses arising from his + subconscious life. Before the sin, which for the moment seemed to + be his, could become his, he condemned it. He sympathized with, + nay, he revealed, the very justice and sorrow of God. _Hebrews + 2:16-18_—“_For verily not to angels doth he give help, but he + giveth help to the seed of Abraham. Wherefore it behooved him in + all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might become + a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, + to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that he + himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them + that are tempted._” + + +(_b_) It is a natural outgrowth from the Pelagian view of sin, and +logically necessitates a curtailment or surrender of every other +characteristic doctrine of Christianity—inspiration, sin, the deity of +Christ, justification, regeneration, and eternal retribution. + + + The Socinian theory requires a surrender of the doctrine of + inspiration; for the idea of vicarious and expiatory sacrifice is + woven into the very warp and woof of the Old and New Testaments. + It requires an abandonment of the Scripture doctrine of sin; for + in it all idea of sin as perversion of nature rendering the sinner + unable to save himself, and as objective guilt demanding + satisfaction to the divine holiness, is denied. It requires us to + give up the deity of Christ; for if sin is a slight evil, and man + can save himself from its penalty and power, then there is no + longer need of either an infinite suffering or an infinite Savior, + and a human Christ is as good as a divine. It requires us to give + up the Scripture doctrine of justification, as God’s act of + declaring the sinner just in the eye of the law, solely on account + of the righteousness and death of Christ to whom he is united by + faith; for the Socinian theory cannot permit the counting to a man + of any other righteousness than his own. It requires a denial of + the doctrine of regeneration; for this is no longer the work of + God, but the work of the sinner; it is no longer a change of the + affections below consciousness, but a self-reforming volition of + the sinner himself. It requires a denial of eternal retribution; + for this is no longer appropriate to finite transgression of + arbitrary law, and to superficial sinning that does not involve + nature. + + +(_c_) It contradicts the Scripture teachings, that sin involves objective +guilt as well as subjective defilement; that the holiness of God must +punish sin; that the atonement was a bearing of the punishment of sin for +men; and that this vicarious bearing of punishment was necessary, on the +part of God, to make possible the showing of favor to the guilty. + + + The Scriptures do not make the main object of the atonement to be + man’s subjective moral improvement. It is to God that the + sacrifice is offered, and the object of it is to satisfy the + divine holiness, and to remove from the divine mind an obstacle to + the showing of favor to the guilty. It was something external to + man and his happiness or virtue, that required that Christ should + suffer. What Emerson has said of the martyr is yet more true of + Christ: “Though love repine, and reason chafe, There comes a voice + without reply, ’Tis man’s perdition to be safe, When for the truth + he ought to die.” The truth for which Christ died was truth + internal to the nature of God; not simply truth externalized and + published among men. What the truth of God required, that Christ + rendered—full satisfaction to violated justice. “Jesus paid it + all”; and no obedience or righteousness of ours can be added to + his work, as a ground of our salvation. + + E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 276—“This theory fails of a + due recognition of that deep-seated, universal and innate sense of + ill-desert, which in all times and everywhere has prompted men to + aim at some expiation of their guilt. For this sense of guilt and + its requirements the moral influence theory makes no adequate + provision, either in Christ or in those whom Christ saves. + Supposing Christ’s redemptive work to consist merely in winning + men to the practice of righteousness, it takes no account of + penalty, either as the sanction of the law, as the reaction of the + divine holiness against sin, or as the upbraiding of the + individual conscience.... The Socinian theory overlooks the fact + that there must be some objective manifestation of God’s wrath and + displeasure against sin.” + + +(_d_) It furnishes no proper explanation of the sufferings and death of +Christ. The unmartyrlike anguish cannot be accounted for, and the +forsaking by the Father cannot be justified, upon the hypothesis that +Christ died as a mere witness to truth. If Christ’s sufferings were not +propitiatory, they neither furnish us with a perfect example, nor +constitute a manifestation of the love of God. + + + Compare Jesus’ feeling, in view of death, with that of Paul: + “_having the desire to depart_” (_Phil 1:23_). Jesus was filled + with anguish: “_Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? + Father, save me from this hour_” (_John 12:27_). If Christ was + simply a martyr, then he is not a perfect example; for many a + martyr has shown greater courage in prospect of death, and in the + final agony has been able to say that the fire that consumed him + was “a bed of roses.” Gethsemane, with its mental anguish, is + apparently recorded in order to indicate that Christ’s sufferings + even on the cross were not mainly physical sufferings. The Roman + Catholic Church unduly emphasizes the physical side of our Lord’s + passion, but loses sight of its spiritual element. The Christ of + Rome indeed is either a babe or dead, and the crucifix presents to + us not a risen and living Redeemer, but a mangled and lifeless + body. + + Stroud, in his Physical Cause of our Lord’s Death, has made it + probable that Jesus died of a broken heart, and that this alone + explains _John 19:34_—“_one of the soldiers with a spear pierced + his side, and straightway there came out blood and water_”—_i. + e._, the heart had already been ruptured by grief. That grief was + grief at the forsaking of the Father (_Mat. 27:46_—“_My God, my + God, why hast thou forsaken me?_”), and the resulting death shows + that that forsaking was no imaginary one. Did God make the holiest + man of all to be the greatest sufferer of all the ages? This heart + broken by the forsaking of the Father means more than martyrdom. + If Christ’s death is not propitiatory, it fills me with terror and + despair; for it presents me not only with a very imperfect example + in Christ, but with a proof of measureless injustice on the part + of God. _Luke 23:28_—“_weep not for me, but weep for + yourselves_”—Jesus rejects all pity that forgets his suffering for + others. + + To the above view of Stroud, Westcott objects that blood does not + readily flow from an ordinary corpse. The separation of the red + corpuscles of the blood from the serum, or water, would be the + beginning of decomposition, and would be inconsistent with the + statement in _Acts 2:31_—“_neither did his flesh see corruption._” + But Dr. W. W. Keen of Philadelphia, in his article on The Bloody + Sweat of our Lord (Bib. Sac., July, 1897:469-484) endorses + Stroud’s view as to the physical cause of our Lord’s death. + Christ’s being forsaken by the Father was only the culmination of + that relative withdrawal which constituted the source of Christ’s + loneliness through life. Through life he was a servant of the + Spirit. On the cross the Spirit left him to the weakness of + unassisted humanity, destitute of conscious divine resources. + Compare the curious reading of _Heb. 2:9_—“_that he apart from + God_ (χωρὶς Θεοῦ) _should taste death for every man._” + + If Christ merely supposed himself to be deserted by God, “not only + does Christ become an erring man, and, so far as the predicate + deity is applicable to him, an erring God; but, if he cherished + unfounded distrust of God, how can it be possible still to + maintain that his will was in abiding, perfect agreement and + identity with the will of God?” See Kant, Lotze, and Ritschl, by + Stählin, 219. Charles C. Everett, Gospel of Paul, says Jesus was + not crucified because he was accursed, but he was accursed because + he was crucified, so that, in wreaking vengeance upon him, Jewish + law abrogated itself. This interpretation however contradicts _2 + Cor. 5:21_—“_Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our + behalf_”—where the divine identification of Christ with the race + of sinners antedates and explains his sufferings. _John + 1:29_—“_the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the + world_”—does not refer to Jesus as a lamb for gentleness, but as a + lamb for sacrifice. Maclaren: “How does Christ’s death prove God’s + love? Only on one supposition, namely, that Christ is the + incarnate Son of God, sent by the Father’s love and being his + express image”; and, we may add, suffering vicariously for us and + removing the obstacle in God’s mind to our pardon. + + +(_e_) The influence of Christ’s example is neither declared in Scripture, +nor found in Christian experience, to be the chief result secured by his +death. Mere example is but a new preaching of the law, which repels and +condemns. The cross has power to lead men to holiness, only as it first +shows a satisfaction made for their sins. Accordingly, most of the +passages which represent Christ as an example also contain references to +his propitiatory work. + + + There is no virtue in simply setting an example. Christ did + nothing, simply for the sake of example. Even his baptism was the + symbol of his propitiatory death; see pages 761, 762. The + apostle’s exhortation is not “abstain from all _appearance_ of + evil” (_1 Thess. 5:22_, A. Vers.), but “_abstain from every form + of evil_” (Rev. Vers.). Christ’s death is the payment of a real + debt due to God; and the convicted sinner needs first to see the + debt which he owes to the divine justice paid by Christ, before he + can think hopefully of reforming his life. The hymns of the + church: “I lay my sins on Jesus,” and “Not all the blood of + beasts,” represent the view of Christ’s sufferings which + Christians have derived from the Scriptures. When the sinner sees + that the mortgage is cancelled, that the penalty has been borne, + he can devote himself freely to the service of his Redeemer. _Rev. + 12:11_—“_they overcame him_ [Satan] _because of the blood of the + Lamb_”—as Christ overcame Satan by his propitiatory sacrifice, so + we overcome by appropriating to ourselves Christ’s atonement and + his Spirit; _cf._ _1 John 5:4_—“_this is the victory that hath + overcome the world, even our faith._” The very text upon which + Socinians most rely, when it is taken in connection with the + context, proves their theory to be a misrepresentation of + Scripture, _1 Pet. 2:21_—“_Christ also suffered for you, leaving + you an example, that ye should follow his steps_”—is succeeded by + _verse 24_—“_who his own self bare our sins in his body upon the + tree, that we, having died unto sins, might live unto + righteousness; by whose stripes ye were healed_”—the latter words + being a direct quotation from Isaiah’s description of the + substitutionary sufferings of the Messiah (_Is. 53:5_). + + When a deeply convicted sinner was told that God could cleanse his + heart and make him over anew, he replied with righteous + impatience: “That is not what I want,—I have a debt to pay first!” + A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 28, 89—“Nowhere in + tabernacle or temple shall we ever find the laver placed before + the altar. The altar is Calvary, and the laver is Pentecost,—one + stands for the sacrificial blood, the other for the sanctifying + Spirit.... So the oil which symbolised the sanctifying Spirit was + always put ‘_upon the blood of the trespass-offering_’ (_Lev. + 14:17_).” The extremity of Christ’s suffering on the Cross was + coincident with the extremest manifestation of the guilt of the + race. The greatness of this he theoretically knew from the + beginning of his ministry. His baptism was not intended merely to + set an example. It was a recognition that sin deserved death; that + he was numbered with the transgressors; that he was sent to die + for the sin of the world. He was not so much a teacher, as he was + the subject of all teaching. In him the great suffering of the + holy God on account of sin is exhibited to the universe. The pain + of a few brief hours saves a world, only because it sets forth an + eternal fact in God’s being and opens to us God’s very heart. + + Shakespeare, Henry V, 4:1—“There is some soul of goodness in + things evil. Would men observingly distil it out.” It is well to + preach on Christ as an example. Lyman Abbott says that Jesus’ + blood purchases our pardon and redeems us to God, just as a + patriot’s blood redeems his country from servitude and purchases + its liberty. But even Ritschl, Just. and Recon., 2, goes beyond + this, when he says: “Those who advocate the example theory should + remember that Jesus withdraws himself from imitation when he sets + himself over against his disciples as the Author of forgiveness. + And they perceive that pardon must first be appropriated, before + it is possible for them to imitate his piety and moral + achievement.” This is a partial recognition of the truth that the + removal of objective guilt by Christ’s atonement must precede the + removal of subjective defilement by Christ’s regenerating and + sanctifying Spirit. Lidgett, Spir. Princ. of Atonement, 265-280, + shows that there is a fatherly demand for satisfaction, which must + be met by the filial response of the child. Thomas Chalmers at the + beginning of his ministry urged on his people the reformation of + their lives. But he confesses: “I never heard of any such + reformations being effected amongst them.” Only when he preached + the alienation of men from God, and forgiveness through the blood + of Christ, did he hear of their betterment. + + Gordon, Christ of To-day, 129—“The consciousness of sin is largely + the creation of Christ.” Men like Paul, Luther, and Edwards show + this impressively. Foster, Christian life and Theology, + 198-201—“There is of course a sense in which the Christian must + imitate Christ’s death, for he is to ‘_take up his cross daily_’ + (_Luke 9:23_) and follow his Master; but in its highest meaning + and fullest scope the death of Christ is no more an object set for + our imitation than is the creation of the world.... Christ does + for man in his sacrifice what man could not do for himself. We see + in the Cross: 1. the magnitude of the guilt of sin; 2. our own + self-condemnation; 3. the adequate remedy,—for the object of law + is gained in the display of righteousness; 4. the objective ground + of forgiveness.” Maclaren: “Christianity without a dying Christ is + a dying Christianity.” + + +(_f_) This theory contradicts the whole tenor of the New Testament, in +making the life, and not the death, of Christ the most significant and +important feature of his work. The constant allusions to the death of +Christ as the source of our salvation, as well as the symbolism of the +ordinances, cannot be explained upon a theory which regards Christ as a +mere example, and considers his sufferings as incidents, rather than +essentials, of his work. + + + Dr. H. B. Hackett frequently called attention to the fact that the + recording in the gospels of only three years of Jesus’ life, and + the prominence given in the record to the closing scenes of that + life, are evidence that not his life, but his death, was the great + work of our Lord. Christ’s death, and not his life, is the central + truth of Christianity. The cross is _par excellence_ the Christian + symbol. In both the ordinances—in Baptism as well as in the Lord’s + Supper—it is the death of Christ that is primarily set forth. + Neither Christ’s example, nor his teaching, reveals God as does + his death. It is the death of Christ that links together all + Christian doctrines. The mark of Christ’s blood is upon them all, + as the scarlet thread running through every cord and rope of the + British navy gives sign that it is the property of the crown. + + Did Jesus’ death have no other relation to our salvation than + Paul’s death had? Paul was a martyr, but his death is not even + recorded. Gould, Bib. Theol. N. T., 92—“Paul does not dwell in any + way upon the life or work of our Lord, except as they are involved + in his death and resurrection.” What did Jesus’ words: “_It is + finished_” (_John 19:30_) mean? What was finished on the Socinian + theory? The Socinian salvation had not yet begun. Why did not + Jesus make the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper to be + memorials of his birth, rather than of his death? Why was not the + veil of the temple rent at his baptism, or at the Sermon on the + Mount? It was because only his death opened the way to God. In + talking with Nicodemus, Jesus brushed aside the complimentary: + “_we know that thou art a teacher come from God_” (_John 3:2_). + Recognizing Jesus as teacher is not enough. There must be a + renewal by the Spirit of God, so that one recognizes also the + lifting up of the Son of man as atoning Savior (_John 3:14, 15_). + And to Peter, Jesus said: “_If I wash thee not, thou hast no part + with me_” (_John 13:8_). One cannot have part with Christ as + Teacher, while one rejects him as Redeemer from sin. On the + Socinian doctrine of the Atonement, see Crawford, Atonement, + 279-296; Shedd, History of Doctrine, 2:376-386; Doctrines of the + Early Socinians, in Princeton Essays, 1:194-211; Philippi, + Glaubenslehre, IV, 2:156-180; Fock, Socinianismus. + + +2nd. The Bushnellian, or Moral Influence Theory of the Atonement. + + +This holds, like the Socinian, that there is no principle of the divine +nature which is propitiated by Christ’s death; but that this death is a +manifestation of the love of God, suffering in and with the sins of his +creatures. Christ’s atonement, therefore, is the merely natural +consequence of his taking human nature upon him; and is a suffering, not +of penalty in man’s stead, but of the combined woes and griefs which the +living of a human life involves. This atonement has effect, not to satisfy +divine justice, but so to reveal divine love as to soften human hearts and +to lead them to repentance; in other words, Christ’s sufferings were +necessary, not in order to remove an obstacle to the pardon of sinners +which exists in the mind of God, but in order to convince sinners that +there exists no such obstacle. This theory, for substance, has been +advocated by Bushnell, in America; by Robertson, Maurice, Campbell, and +Young, in Great Britain; by Schleiermacher and Ritschl, in Germany. + + + Origen and Abelard are earlier representatives of this view. It + may be found stated in Bushnell’s Vicarious Sacrifice. Bushnell’s + later work, Forgiveness and Law, contains a modification of his + earlier doctrine, to which he was driven by the criticisms upon + his Vicarious Sacrifice. In the later work, he acknowledges what + he had so strenuously denied in the earlier, namely, that Christ’s + death has effect upon God as well as upon man, and that God cannot + forgive without thus “making cost to himself.” He makes open + confession of the impotence of his former teaching to convert + sinners, and, as the only efficient homiletic, he recommends the + preaching of the very doctrine of propitiatory sacrifice which he + had written his book to supersede. Even in Forgiveness and Law, + however, there is no recognition of the true principle and ground + of the Atonement in God’s punitive holiness. Since the original + form of Bushnell’s doctrine is the only one which has met with + wide acceptance, we direct our objections mainly to this. + + F. W. Robertson, Sermons, 1:163-178, holds that Christ’s + sufferings were the necessary result of the position in which he + had placed himself of conflict or collision with the evil that is + in the world. He came in contact with the whirling wheel, and was + crushed by it; he planted his heel upon the cockatrice’s den, and + was pierced by its fang. Maurice, on Sacrifice, 209, and Theol. + Essays, 141, 228, regards Christ’s sufferings as an illustration, + given by the ideal man, of the self-sacrifice due to God from the + humanity of which he is the root and head, all men being redeemed + in him, irrespective of their faith, and needing only to have + brought to them the news of this redemption. Young, Life and Light + of Men, holds a view essentially the same with Robertson’s. + Christ’s death is the necessary result of his collision with evil, + and his sufferings extirpate sin, simply by manifesting God’s + self-sacrificing love, + + Campbell, Atonement, 129-191, quotes from Edwards, to show that + infinite justice might be satisfied in either one of two ways: (1) + by an infinite punishment; (2) by an adequate repentance. This + last, which Edwards passed by as impracticable, Campbell declares + to have been the real atonement offered by Christ, who stands as + the great Penitent, confessing the sin of the world. Mason, Faith + of the Gospel, 160-210, takes substantially the view of Campbell, + denying substitution, and emphasizing Christ’s oneness with the + race and his confession of human sin. He grants indeed that our + Lord bore penalty, but only in the sense that he realized how + great was the condemnation and penalty of the race. + + Schleiermacher denies any satisfaction to God by substitution. He + puts in its place an influence of Christ’s personality on men, so + that they feel themselves reconciled and redeemed. The atonement + is purely subjective. Yet it is the work of Christ, in that only + _Christ’s_ oneness with God has taught men that _they_ can be one + with God. Christ’s consciousness of his being in God and knowing + God, and his power to impart this consciousness to others, make + him a Mediator and Savior. The idea of reparation, compensation, + satisfaction, substitution, is wholly Jewish. He regarded it as + possible only to a narrow-minded people. He tells us that he hates + in religion that kind of historic relation. He had no such sense + of the holiness of God, or of the guilt of man, as would make + necessary any suffering of punishment or offering to God for human + sin. He desires to replace external and historical Christianity by + a Christianity that is internal and subjective. See + Schleiermacher, Der Christliche Glaube, 2:94-161. + + Ritschl however is the most recent and influential representative + of the Moral Influence theory in Germany. His view is to be found + in his Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung, or in English translation, + Justification and Reconciliation. Ritschl is anti-Hegelian and + libertarian, but like Schleiermacher he does not treat sin with + seriousness; he regards the sense of guilt as an illusion which it + is the part of Christ to dispel; there is an inadequate conception + of Christ’s person, a practical denial of his pre-existence and + work of objective atonement; indeed, the work of Christ is hardly + put into any precise relation to sin at all; see Denney, Studies + in Theology, 136-151. E. H. Johnson: “Many Ritschlians deny both + the miraculous conception and the bodily resurrection of Jesus. + Sin does not particularly concern God; Christ is Savior only as + Buddha was, achieving lordship over the world by indifference to + it; he is the Word of God, only as he reveals this divine + indifference to things. All this does not agree with the N. T. + teaching that Christ is the only begotten Son of God, that he was + with the Father before the world was, that he made expiation of + sins to God, and that sin is that abominable thing that God + hates.” For a general survey of the Ritschlian theology, see Orr, + Ritschlian Theology, 231-271; Presb. and Ref. Rev., July, + 1891:443-458 (art. by Zahn), and Jan. 1892:1-21 (art. by C. M. + Mead); Andover Review, July, 1893:440-461; Am. Jour. Theology, + Jan. 1899:22-44 (art. by H. R. Mackintosh); Lidgett, Spir. Prin. + of Atonement, 190-207; Foster, Christ. Life and Theology; and the + work of Garvie on Ritschl. For statement and criticism of other + forms of the Moral Influence theory, see Crawford, Atonement, + 297-366; Watts, New Apologetic, 210-247. + + +To this theory we object as follows: + +(_a_) While it embraces a valuable element of truth, namely, the moral +influence upon men _of_ the sufferings of the God-man, it is false by +defect, in that it substitutes a subordinate effect of the atonement for +its chief aim, and yet unfairly appropriates the name “vicarious,” which +belongs only to the latter. Suffering _with_ the sinner is by no means +suffering _in his stead_. + + + Dale, Atonement, 137, illustrates Bushnell’s view by the loyal + wife, who suffers exile or imprisonment with her husband; by the + philanthropist, who suffers the privations and hardships of a + savage people, whom he can civilize only by enduring the miseries + from which he would rescue them; by the Moravian missionary, who + enters for life the lepers’ enclosure, that he may convert its + inmates. So Potwin says that suffering and death are the cost of + the atonement, not the atonement _itself_. + + But we reply that such sufferings as these do not make Christ’s + sacrifice _vicarious_. The word “vicarious” (from _vicis_) implies + substitution, which this theory denies. The vicar of a parish is + not necessarily one who performs service with, and in sympathy + with, the rector,—he is rather one who stands in the rector’s + place. A vice-president is one who acts in place of the president; + “A. B., appointed consul, _vice_ C. D., resigned,” implies that A. + B. is now to serve in the stead of C. D. If Christ is a “vicarious + sacrifice,” then he makes atonement to God _in the place and + stead_ of sinners. Christ’s suffering _in and with sinners_, + though it is a most important and affecting fact, is not the + suffering in their stead in which the atonement consists. Though + suffering in and with sinners may be in part the _medium_ through + which Christ was enabled to endure God’s wrath against sin, it is + not to be confounded with the _reason_ why God lays this suffering + upon him; nor should it blind us to the fact that this reason is + his standing in the sinner’s place to answer for sin to the + retributive holiness of God. + + +(_b_) It rests upon false philosophical principles,—as, that righteousness +is identical with benevolence, instead of conditioning it; that God is +subject to an eternal law of love, instead of being himself the source of +all law; that the aim of penalty is the reformation of the offender. + + + Hovey, God with Us, 181-271, has given one of the best replies to + Bushnell. He shows that if God is subject to an eternal law of + love, then God is necessarily a Savior; that he must have created + man as soon as he could; that he makes men holy as fast as + possible; that he does all the good he can; that he is no better + than he should be. But this is to deny the transcendence of God, + and reduce omnipotence to a mere nature-power. The conception of + God as subject to law imperils God’s self-sufficiency and freedom. + For Bushnell’s statements with regard to the identity of + righteousness and love, and for criticisms upon them, see our + treatment of the attribute of Holiness, vol. I, pages 268-275. + + Watts, New Apologetic, 277-280, points out that, upon Bushnell’s + principles, there must be an atonement for fallen angels. God was + bound to assume the angelic nature and to do for angels all that + he has done for us. There is also no reason for restricting either + the atonement or the offer of salvation to the present life. B. B. + Warfield, in Princeton Review, 1903:81-92, shows well that all the + forms of the Moral Influence theory rest upon the assumption that, + God is only love, and that all that is required as ground of the + sinner’s forgiveness is penitence, either Christ’s, or his own, or + both together. + + Ignoring the divine holiness and minimizing the guilt of sin, many + modern writers make atonement to be a mere incident of Christ’s + incarnation. Phillips Brooks, Life, 2:350, 351—“Atonement by + suffering is the result of the Incarnation; atonement being the + necessary, and suffering the incidental element of that result. + But sacrifice is an essential element, for sacrifice truly + signifies here the consecration of human nature to its highest use + and utterance, and does not necessarily involve the thought of + pain. It is not the destruction but the fulfilment of human life. + Inasmuch as the human life thus consecrated and fulfilled is the + same in us as in Jesus, and inasmuch as his consecration and + fulfilment makes morally possible for us the same consecration and + fulfilment of it which he achieved, therefore his atonement and + his sacrifice, and incidentally his suffering, become vicarious. + It is not that they make unnecessary, but that they make possible + and successful in us, the same processes which were perfect in + him.” + + +(_c_) The theory furnishes no proper reason for Christ’s suffering. While +it shows that the Savior necessarily suffers from his contact with human +sin and sorrow, it gives no explanation of that constitution of the +universe which makes suffering the consequence of sin, not only to the +sinner, but also to the innocent being who comes into connection with sin. +The holiness of God, which is manifested in this constitution of things +and which requires this atonement, is entirely ignored. + + + B. W. Lockhart, in a recent statement of the doctrine of the + atonement, shows this defect of apprehension: “God in Christ + reconciled the world to himself; Christ did not reconcile God to + man, but man to God. Christ did not enable God to save men; God + enabled Christ to save men. The sufferings of Christ were + vicarious as the highest illustration of that spiritual law by + which the good soul is impelled to suffer that others may not + suffer, to die that others may not die. The vicarious sufferings + of Jesus were also the great revelation to man of the vicarious + nature of God; a revelation of the cross as eternal in his nature; + that it is in the heart of God to bear the sin and sorrow of his + creatures in his eternal love and pity; a revelation moreover that + the law which saves the lost through the vicarious labors of + godlike souls prevails wherever the godlike and the lost soul can + influence each other.” + + While there is much in the above statement with which we agree, we + charge it with misapprehending the reason for Christ’s suffering. + That reason is to be found only in that holiness of God which + expresses itself in the very constitution of the universe. Not + love but holiness has made suffering invariably to follow sin, so + that penalty falls not only upon the transgressor but upon him who + is the life and sponsor of the transgressor. God’s holiness brings + suffering to God, and to Christ who manifests God. Love bears the + suffering, but it is holiness that necessitates it. The statement + of Lockhart above gives account of the effect—reconciliation; but + it fails to recognize the cause—propitiation. The words of E. G. + Robinson furnish the needed complement: “The work of Christ has + two sides, propitiatory and reconciling. Christ felt the pang of + association with a guilty race. The divine displeasure rested on + him as possessing the guilty nature. In his own person he redeems + this nature by bearing its penalty. Propitiation must precede + reconciliation. The Moral Influence theory recognizes the + necessity of a subjective change in man, but makes no provision of + an objective agency to secure it.” + + +(_d_) It contradicts the plain teachings of Scripture, that the atonement +is necessary, not simply to reveal God’s love, but to satisfy his justice; +that Christ’s sufferings are propitiatory and penal; and that the human +conscience needs to be propitiated by Christ’s sacrifice, before it can +feel the moral influence of his sufferings. + + + That the atonement is primarily an offering to God, and not to the + sinner, appears from _Eph. 5:2_—“_gave himself up for us, an + offering and a sacrifice to God_”; _Heb. 9:14,_—“_offered himself + without blemish unto God._” Conscience, the reflection of God’s + holiness, can be propitiated only by propitiating holiness itself. + Mere love and sympathy are maudlin, and powerless to move, unless + there is a background of righteousness. Spear: “An appeal to man, + without anything back of it to emphasize and enforce the appeal, + will never touch the heart. The mere _appearance_ of an atonement + has no moral influence.” Crawford, Atonement, 358-367—“Instead of + delivering us from penalty, in order to deliver us from sin, this + theory made Christ to deliver us from sin, in order that he may + deliver us from penalty. But this reverses the order of Scripture. + And Dr. Bushnell concedes, in the end, that the moral view of the + atonement is morally powerless; and that the Objective view he + condemns is, after all, indispensable to the salvation of + sinners.” + + Some men are quite ready to forgive those whom they have offended. + The Ritschlian school sees no guilt to be atoned for, and no + propitiation to be necessary. Only man needs to be reconciled. + Ritschlians are quite ready to forgive God. The only atonement is + an atonement, made by repentance, to the human conscience. Shedd + says well: “All that is requisite in order to satisfaction and + peace of conscience in the sinful soul is also requisite in order + to the satisfaction of God himself.” Walter Besant: “It is not + enough to be forgiven,—one has also to forgive one’s self.” The + converse proposition is yet more true: It is not enough to forgive + one’s self,—one has also to be forgiven; indeed, one cannot + rightly forgive one’s self, unless one has been first forgiven; _1 + John 3:20_—“_if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our + heart, and knoweth all things._” A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the + Spirit, 201—“As the high priest carried the blood into the Holy of + Holies under the old dispensation, so does the Spirit take the + blood of Christ into the inner sanctuary of our spirit in the new + dispensation, in order that he may ‘_cleanse your conscience from + dead works to serve the living God_’ (_Heb. 9:14_).” + + +(_e_) It can be maintained, only by wresting from their obvious meaning +those passages of Scripture which speak of Christ as suffering for our +sins; which represent his blood as accomplishing something for us in +heaven, when presented there by our intercessor; which declare forgiveness +to be a remitting of past offences upon the ground of Christ’s death; and +which describe justification as a pronouncing, not a making, just. + + + We have seen that the forms in which the Scriptures describe + Christ’s death are mainly drawn from sacrifice. Notice Bushnell’s + acknowledgment that these “altar-forms” are the most vivid and + effective methods of presenting Christ’s work, and that the + preacher cannot dispense with them. Why he should not dispense + with them, if the meaning has gone out of them, is not so clear. + + In his later work, entitled Forgiveness and Law, Bushnell appears + to recognize this inconsistency, and represents God as affected by + the atonement, after all; in other words, the atonement has an + objective as well as a subjective influence. God can forgive, only + by “making cost to himself.” He “works down his resentment, by + suffering for us.” This verges toward the true view, but it does + not recognize the demand of divine holiness for satisfaction; and + it attributes passion, weakness, and imperfection to God. Dorner, + Glaubenslehre, 2:591 (Syst. Doct., 4:59, 69), objects to this + modified Moral Influence theory, that the love that can do good to + an enemy is _already forgiving_ love; so that the benefit to the + enemy cannot be, as Bushnell supposes, a _condition of the + forgiveness_. + + To Campbell’s view, that Christ is the great Penitent, and that + his atonement consists essentially in his confessing the sins of + the world, we reply, that no confession or penitence is possible + without responsibility. If Christ had no substitutionary office, + the ordering of his sufferings on the part of God was manifest + injustice. Such sufferings, moreover, are impossible upon grounds + of mere sympathy. The Scripture explains them by declaring that he + bore our curse, and became a ransom in our place. There was more + therefore in the sufferings of Christ than “a perfect Amen in + humanity to the judgment of God on the sin of man.” Not Phinehas’s + zeal for God, but his execution of judgment, made an atonement + (_Ps. 106:30_—“_executed judgment_”—LXX.: ἐξιλάσατο, “_made + propitiation_”) and turned away the wrath of God. Observe here the + contrast between the _priestly_ atonement of Aaron, who stood + between the living and the dead, and the _judicial_ atonement of + Phinehas, who executed righteous judgment, and so turned away + wrath. In neither case did mere _confession_ suffice to take away + sin. On Campbell’s view see further, on page 760. + + Moberly, Atonement and Personality, 98, has the great merit of + pointing out that Christ shares our sufferings in virtue of the + fact that our personality has its ground in him; but that this + sharing of our penalty was necessitated by God’s righteousness he + has failed to indicate. He tells us that “Christ sanctified the + present and cancels the past. He offers to God a living holiness + in human conditions and character; he makes the awful sacrifice in + humanity of a perfect contrition. The one is the offering of + obedience, the other the offering of atonement; the one the + offering of the life, the other the offering of the death.” This + modification of Campbell’s view can be rationally maintained only + by connecting with it a prior declaration that the fundamental + attribute of God is holiness; that holiness is self-affirming + righteousness; that this righteousness necessarily expresses + itself in the punishment of sin; that Christ’s relation to the + race as its upholder and life made him the bearer of its guilt and + justly responsible for its sin. Scripture declares the ultimate + aim of the atonement to be that God “_might himself be just_” + (_Rom. 3:26_), and no theory of the atonement will meet the + demands of either reason or conscience that does not ground its + necessity in God’s righteousness, rather than in his love. + + E. Y. Mullins: “If Christ’s union with humanity made it possible + for him to be ‘the representative Penitent,’ and to be the Amen of + humanity to God’s just condemnation of sin, his union with God + made it also possible for him to be the representative of the + Judge, and to be the Amen of the divine nature to suffering, as + the expression of condemnation.” Denney, Studies in Theology, 102, + 103—“The serious element in sin is not man’s dislike, suspicion, + alienation from God, nor the debilitating, corrupting effects of + vice in human nature, but rather God’s condemnation of man. This + Christ endured, and died that the condemnation might be removed. + ‘Bearing shame and scoffing rude, In my place condemned he stood; + Sealed my pardon with his blood; Hallelujah!’ ” + + Bushnell regards _Mat. 8:17_—“_Himself took our infirmities, and + bare our diseases_”—as indicating the nature of Christ’s atoning + work. The meaning then would be, that he sympathized so fully with + all human ills that he made them his own. Hovey, however, has + given a more complete and correct explanation. The words mean + rather: “His deep sympathy with these effects of sin so moved him, + that it typified his final bearing of the sins themselves, or + constituted a preliminary and partial endurance of the suffering + which was to expiate the sins of men.” His sighing when he cured + the deaf man (_Mark 7:34_) and his weeping at the grave of Lazarus + (_John 11:35_) were caused by the anticipatory realization that he + was one with the humanity which was under the curse, and that he + too had “_become a curse for us_” (_Gal. 3:13_). The great error + of Bushnell is his denial of the objective necessity and effect of + Jesus’ death, and all Scripture which points to an influence of + the atonement outside of us is a refutation of his theory. + + +(_f_) This theory confounds God’s method of saving men with men’s +experience of being saved. It makes the atonement itself consist of its +effects in the believer’s union with Christ and the purifying influence of +that union upon the character and life. + + + Stevens, in his Doctrine of Salvation, makes this mistake. He + says: “The old forms of the doctrine of the atonement—that the + suffering of Christ was necessary to appease the wrath of God and + induce him to forgive; or to satisfy the law of God and enable him + to forgive; or to move upon man’s heart to induce him to accept + forgiveness; have all proved inadequate. Yet to reject the passion + of Christ is to reject the chief element of power in + Christianity.... To me the words ‘eternal atonement’ denote the + dateless passion of God on account of sin; they mean that God is, + by his very nature, a sin-bearer—that sin grieves and wounds his + heart, and that he sorrows and suffers in consequence of it. It + results from the divine love—alike from its holiness and from its + sympathy—that ‘in our affliction he is afflicted.’ Atonement on + its ‘Godward side’ is a name for the grief and pain inflicted by + sin upon the paternal heart of God. Of this divine sorrow for sin, + the afflictions of Christ are a revelation. In the bitter grief + and anguish which he experienced on account of sin we see + reflected the pain and sorrow which sin brings to the divine + love.” + + All this is well said, with the exception that holiness is + regarded as a form of love, and the primary offence of sin is + regarded as the grieving of the Father’s heart. Dr. Stevens fails + to consider that if love were supreme there would be nothing to + prevent unholy tolerance of sin. Because holiness is supreme, love + is conditioned thereby. It is holiness and not love that connects + suffering with sin, and requires that the Redeemer should suffer. + Dr. Stevens asserts that the theories hitherto current in + Protestant churches and the theory for which he pleads are + “forever irreconcilable”; they are “based on radically different + conceptions of God.” The British Weekly, Nov. 16, 1905—“The + doctrine of the atonement is not the doctrine that salvation is + deliverance from sin, and that this deliverance is the work of + God, a work the motive of which is God’s love for men; these are + truths which every one who writes on the Atonement assumes. The + doctrine of the Atonement has for its task to explain _how_ this + work is done.... Dr. Stevens makes no contribution whatever to its + fulfilment. He grants that we have in Paul ‘the theory of a + substitutionary expiation.’ But he finds something else in Paul + which he thinks a more adequate rendering of the apostle’s + Christian experience—the idea, namely, of dying with Christ and + rising with him; and on the strength of accepting this last he + feels at liberty to drop the substitutionary expiation overboard + as something to be explained from Paul’s controversial position, + or from his Pharisaic inheritance, something at all events which + has no permanent value for the Christian mind.... The experience + is dependent on the method. Paul did not die with Christ as an + alternative to having Christ die with him; he died with Christ + wholly and solely because Christ died for him. It was the meaning + carried by the last two words—the meaning unfolded in the theory + of substitutionary expiation—which had the moral motive in it to + draw Paul into union with his Lord in life and death.... On Dr. + Stevens’ own showing, Paul held the two ideas side by side; for + him the mystical union with Christ was only possible through the + acceptance of truths with which Dr. Stevens does not know what to + do.” + + +(_g_) This theory would confine the influence of the atonement to those +who have heard of it,—thus excluding patriarchs and heathen. But the +Scriptures represent Christ as being the Savior of all men, in the sense +of securing them grace, which, but for his atoning work, could never have +been bestowed consistently with the divine holiness. + + + Hovey: “The manward influence of the atonement is far more + extensive than the moral influence of it.” Christ is Advocate, not + with the sinner, but with the Father. While the Spirit’s work has + moral influence over the hearts of men, the Son secures, through + the presentation of his blood, in heaven, the pardon which can + come only from God (_1 John 2:1_—“_we have an advocate with the + Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for + our sins_”). Hence _1:9_—“_If we confess our sins, he_ [God] _is + faithful and righteous [faithful to his promise and righteous to + Christ] to forgive us our sins._” Hence the publican does not + first pray for change of heart, but for mercy upon the ground of + sacrifice (_Luke 18:13,_—“_God, be thou merciful to me a sinner,_” + but literally: “_God be propitiated toward me the sinner_”). See + Balfour, in Brit. and For. Ev. Rev., Apr. 1884:230-254; Martin, + Atonement, 216-237; Theol. Eclectic, 4:364-409. + + Gravitation kept the universe stable, long before it was + discovered by man. So the atonement of Christ was inuring to the + salvation of men, long before they suspected its existence. The + “_Light of the world_” (_John 8:12_) has many “X rays,” beyond the + visible spectrum, but able to impress the image of Christ upon + patriarchs or heathen. This light has been shining through all the + ages, but “_the darkness apprehended it not_” (_John 1:5_). Its + rays register themselves only where there is a sensitive heart to + receive them. Let them shine through a man, and how much unknown + sin, and unknown possibilities of good, they reveal! The Moral + Influence theory does not take account of the preëxistent Christ + and of his atoning work before his manifestation in the flesh. It + therefore leads logically to belief in a second probation for the + many imbeciles, outcasts, and heathen who in this world do not + hear of Christ’s atonement. The doctrine of Bushnell in this way + undermines the doctrine of future retribution. + + To Lyman Abbott, the atonement is the self-propitiation of God’s + love, and its influence is exerted through education. In his + Theology of an Evolutionist, 118, 190, he maintains that the + atonement is “a true reconciliation between God and man, making + them at one through the incarnation and passion of Jesus Christ, + who lived and suffered, not to redeem men from future torment, but + to purify and perfect them in God’s likeness by uniting them to + God.... Sacrifice is not a penalty borne by an innocent sufferer + for guilty men,—a doctrine for which there is no authority either + in Scripture or in life (_1 Peter 3:18?_)—but a laying down of + one’s life in love, that another may receive life.... Redemption + is not restoration to a lost state of innocence, impossible to be + restored, but a culmination of the long process when man shall be + presented before his Father ‘_not having spot or wrinkle or any + such thing_’ (_Eph. 5:27_).... We believe not in the propitiation + of an angry God by another suffering to appease the Father’s + wrath, but in the perpetual self-propitiation of the Father, whose + mercy, going forth to redeem from sin, satisfies as nothing else + could the divine indignation against sin, by abolishing it.... + Mercy is hate pitying; it is the pity of wrath. The pity conquers + the hate only by lifting the sinner up from his degradation and + restoring him to purity.” And yet in all this there is no mention + of the divine righteousness as the source of the indignation and + the object of the propitiation! + + It is interesting to note that some of the greatest advocates of + the Moral Influence theory have reverted to the older faith when + they came to die. In his dying moments, as L. W. Munhall tells us, + Horace Bushnell said: “I fear what I have written and said upon + the moral idea of the atonement is misleading and will do great + harm;” and, as he thought of it further, he cried: “Oh Lord Jesus, + I trust for mercy only in the shed blood that thou didst offer on + Calvary!” Schleiermacher, on his deathbed, assembled his family + and a few friends, and himself administered the Lord’s Supper. + After praying and blessing the bread, and after pronouncing the + words: “_This is my body, broken for you_,” he added: “This is our + foundation!” As he started to bless the cup, he cried: “Quick, + quick, bring the cup! I am so happy!” Then he sank quietly back, + and was no more; see life of Rothe, by Nippold, 2:53, 54. Ritschl, + in his History of Pietism, 2:65, had severely criticized Paul + Gerhardt’s hymn: “O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden,” as describing + physical suffering; but he begged his son to repeat the two last + verses of that hymn: “O sacred head now wounded!” when he came to + die. And in general, the convicted sinner finds peace most quickly + and surely when he is pointed to the Redeemer who died on the + Cross and endured the penalty of sin in his stead. + + +3d. The Grotian, or Governmental Theory of the Atonement. + + +This theory holds that the atonement is a satisfaction, not to any +internal principle of the divine nature, but to the necessities of +government. God’s government of the universe cannot be maintained, nor can +the divine law preserve its authority over its subjects, unless the pardon +of offenders is accompanied by some exhibition of the high estimate which +God sets upon his law, and the heinous guilt of violating it. Such an +exhibition of divine regard for the law is furnished in the sufferings and +death of Christ. Christ does not suffer the precise penalty of the law, +but God graciously accepts his suffering as a substitute for the penalty. +This bearing of substituted suffering on the part of Christ gives the +divine law such hold upon the consciences and hearts of men, that God can +pardon the guilty upon their repentance, without detriment to the +interests of his government. The author of this theory was Hugo Grotius, +the Dutch jurist and theologian (1583-1645). The theory is characteristic +of the New England theology, and is generally held by those who accept the +New School view of sin. + + + Grotius was a precocious genius. He wrote good Latin verses at + nine years of age; was ripe for the University at twelve: edited + the encyclopædic work of Marcianus Capella at fifteen. Even thus + early he went with an embassy to the court of France, where he + spent a year. Returning home, he took the degree of doctor of + laws. In literature he edited the remains of Aratus, and wrote + three dramas in Latin. At twenty he was appointed historiographer + of the United Provinces; then advocate-general of the fisc for + Holland and Zealand. He wrote on international law; was appointed + deputy to England; was imprisoned for his theological opinions; + escaped to Paris; became ambassador of Sweden to France. He wrote + commentaries on Scripture, also history, theology, and poetry. He + was indifferent to dogma, a lover of peace, a compromiser, an + unpartisan believer, dealing with doctrine more as a statesman + than as a theologian. Of Grotius, Dr. E. G. Robinson used to say: + “It is ordained of almighty God that the man who dips into + everything never gets to the bottom of anything.” + + Grotius, the jurist, conceived of law as a mere matter of + political expediency—a device to procure practical governmental + results. The text most frequently quoted in support of his theory, + is _Is. 42:21_—“_It pleased Jehovah, for his righteousness’ sake, + to magnify the law, and make it honorable._” Strangely enough, the + explanation is added: “even when its demands are unfulfilled.” + Park: “Christ satisfied the law, by making it desirable and + consistent for God not to come up to the demands of the law. + Christ suffers a divine chastisement in consequence of our sins. + Christ was cursed for Adam’s sin, just as the heavens and the + earth were cursed for Adam’s sin,—that is, he bore pains and + sufferings on account of it.” + + Grotius used the word _acceptilatio_, by which he meant God’s + sovereign provision of a suffering which was not itself penalty, + but which he had determined to accept as a substitute for penalty. + Here we have a virtual denial that there is anything in God’s + nature that requires Christ to suffer; for if penalty may be + remitted in part, it may be remitted in whole, and the reason why + Christ suffers at all is to be found, not in any demand of God’s + holiness, but solely in the beneficial influence of these + sufferings upon man; so that in principle this theory is allied to + the Example theory and the Moral Influence theory, already + mentioned. + + Notice the difference between holding to a _substitute for + penalty_, as Grotius did, and holding to an _equivalent + substituted penalty_, as the Scriptures do. Grotius’s own + statement of his view may be found in his Defensio Fidei Catholicæ + de Satisfactione (Works, 4:297-338). More modern statements of it + are those of Wardlaw, in his Systematic Theology, 2:358-395, and + of Albert Barnes, on the Atonement. The history of New England + thought upon the subject is given in Discourses and Treatises on + the Atonement, edited by Prof. Park, of Andover. President + Woolsey: “Christ’s suffering was due to a deep and awful sense of + responsibility, a conception of the supreme importance to man of + his standing firm at this crisis. He bore, not the wrath of God, + but suffering, as the only way of redemption so far as men’s own + feeling of sin was concerned, and so far as the government of God + was concerned.” This unites the Governmental and the Moral + Influence theories. + + Foster, Christian Life and Theology, 226, 227—“Grotius emphasized + the idea of law rather than that of justice, and made the + sufferings of Christ a legal example and the occasion of the + relaxation of the law, and not the strict penalty demanded by + justice. But this view, however it may have been considered and + have served in the clarification of the thinking of the times, met + with no general reception, and left little trace of itself among + those theologians who maintained the line of evangelical + theological descent.” + + +To this theory we urge the following objections: + +(_a_) While it contains a valuable element of truth, namely, that the +sufferings and death of Christ secure the interests of God’s government, +it is false by defect, in substituting for the chief aim of the atonement +one which is only subordinate and incidental. + + + In our discussion of Penalty (pages 655, 656), we have seen that + the object of punishment is not primarily the security of + government. It is not right to punish a man for the beneficial + effect on society. Ill-desert must go before punishment, or the + punishment can have no beneficial effect on society. No punishment + can work good to society, that is not just and right in itself. + + +(_b_) It rests upon false philosophical principles,—as, that utility is +the ground of moral obligation; that law is an expression of the will, +rather than of the nature, of God; that the aim of penalty is to deter +from the commission of offences; and that righteousness is resolvable into +benevolence. + + + Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:573-581; 3:188, 189—“For God to take that + as satisfaction which is not really such, is to say that there is + no truth in anything. God may take a part for the whole, error for + truth, wrong for right. The theory really denies the necessity for + the work of Christ. If every created thing offered to God is worth + just so much as God accepts it for, then the blood of bulls and + goats might take away sins, and Christ is dead in vain.” Dorner, + Glaubenslehre, 2:570, 571 (Syst. Doct., 4:38-40)—“_Acceptilatio_ + implies that nothing is good and right in itself. God is + indifferent to good or evil. Man is bound by authority and force + alone. There is no necessity of punishment or atonement. The + doctrine of indulgences and of supererogation logically follows.” + + +(_c_) It ignores and virtually denies that immanent holiness of God of +which the law with its threatened penalties, and the human conscience with +its demand for punishment, are only finite reflections. There is something +back of government; if the atonement satisfies government, it must be by +satisfying that justice of God of which government is an expression. + + + No deeply convicted sinner feels that his controversy is with + government. Undone and polluted, he feels himself in antagonism to + the purity of a personal God. Government is not greater than God, + but less. What satisfies God must satisfy government. Hence the + sinner prays: “_Against thee, thee only, have I sinned_” (_Ps. + 51:4_); “_God be propitiated toward me the sinner_” (literal + translation of _Luke 18:13_),—propitiated through God’s own + appointed sacrifice whose smoke is ascending in his behalf even + while he prays. + + In the divine government this theory recognizes no constitution, + but only legislative enactment; even this legislative enactment is + grounded in no necessity of God’s nature, but only in expediency + or in God’s arbitrary will; law may be abrogated for merely + economic reasons, if any incidental good may be gained thereby. J. + M. Campbell, Atonement, 81, 144—“No awakened sinner, into whose + spirit the terrors of the law have entered, ever thinks of + rectoral justice, but of absolute justice, and of absolute justice + only.... Rectoral justice so presupposes absolute justice, and so + throws the mind back on that absolute justice, that the idea of an + atonement that will satisfy the one, though it might not the + other, is a delusion.” + + N. W. Taylor’s Theology was entitled: “Moral Government,” and C. + G. Finney’s Systematic Theology was a treatise on Moral + Government, although it called itself by another name. But because + New England ideas of government were not sufficiently grounded in + God’s holiness, but were rather based upon utility, expediency, or + happiness, the very idea of government has dropped out of the New + School theology, and its advocates with well-nigh one accord have + gone over to the Moral Influence theory of the atonement, which is + only a modified Socinianism. Both the Andover atonement and that + of Oberlin have become purely subjective. For this reason the + Grotian or Governmental theory has lost its hold upon the + theological world and needs to have no large amount of space + devoted to it. + + +(_d_) It makes that to be an exhibition of justice which is not an +exercise of justice; the atonement being, according to this theory, not an +execution of law, but an exhibition of regard for law, which will make it +safe to pardon the violators of law. Such a merely scenic representation +can inspire respect for law, only so long as the essential unreality of it +is unsuspected. + + + To teach that sin will be punished, there must be punishment. + Potwin: “How the exhibition of what sin deserves, but does not + get, can satisfy justice, is hard to see.” The Socinian view of + Christ as an example of virtue is more intelligible than the + Grotian view of Christ as an example of chastisement. Lyman + Abbott: “If I thought that Jesus suffered and died to produce a + moral impression on me, it would not produce a moral impression on + me.” William Ashmore: “A stage tragedian commits a mock murder in + order to move people to tears. If Christ was in no sense a + substitute, or if he was not co-responsible with the sinner he + represents, then God and Christ are participants in a real tragedy + the most awful that ever darkened human history, simply for the + sake of its effect on men to move their callous sensibilities—a + stage-trick for the same effect.” + + The mother pretends to cry in order to induce her child to obey. + But the child will obey only while it thinks the mother’s grief a + reality, and the last state of that child is worse than the first. + Christ’s atonement is no passion-play. Hell cannot be cured by + homœopathy. The sacrifice of Calvary is no dramatic exhibition of + suffering for the purpose of producing a moral impression on + awe-stricken spectators. It is an object-lesson, only because it + is a reality. All God’s justice and all God’s love are focused in + the Cross, so that it teaches more of God and his truth than all + space and time beside. + + John Milton, Paradise Lost, book 5, speaks of “mist, the common + gloss of theologians.” Such mist is the legal fiction by which + Christ’s suffering is taken in place of legal penalty, while yet + it is not the legal penalty itself. B. G. Robinson: “Atonement is + not an arbitrary contrivance, so that if one person will endure a + certain amount of suffering, a certain number of others may go + scot-free.” Mercy never cheats justice. Yet the New School theory + of atonement admits that Christ cheated justice by a trick. It + substituted the penalty of Christ for the penalty of the redeemed, + and then substituted something else for the penalty of Christ. + + +(_e_) The intensity of Christ’s sufferings in the garden and on the cross +is inexplicable upon the theory that the atonement was a histrionic +exhibition of God’s regard for his government, and can be explained only +upon the view that Christ actually endured the wrath of God against human +sin. + + + Christ refused the “_wine mingled with myrrh_” (_Mark 15:23_), + that he might to the last have full possession of his powers and + speak no words but words of truth and soberness. His cry of agony: + “_My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?_” (_Mat. 27:46_), was + not an ejaculation of thoughtless or delirious suffering. It + expressed the deepest meaning of the crucifixion. The darkening of + the heavens was only the outward symbol of the hiding of the + countenance of God from him who was “_made to be sin on our + behalf_” (_2 Cor. 5:21_). In the case of Christ, above that of all + others, _finis coronat_, and dying words are undying words. “The + tongues of dying men Enforce attention like deep harmony; When + words are scarce they’re seldom spent in vain, For they breathe + truth that breathe their words in pain.” _Versus_ Park, + Discourses, 328-355. + + A pure woman needs to meet an infamous proposition with something + more than a mild refusal. She must flame up and be angry. _Ps. + 97:10_—“_O ye that love Jehovah, hate evil_”; _Eph. 4:26_—“_Be ye + angry, and sin not._” So it belongs to the holiness of God not to + let sin go unchallenged. God not only _shows_ anger, but he _is_ + angry. It is the wrath of God which sin must meet, and which + Christ must meet when he is numbered with the transgressors. Death + was the cup of which he was to drink (_Mat. 20:22_; _John 18:11_), + and which he drained to the dregs. Mason, Faith of the Gospel, + 196—“Jesus alone of all men truly ‘_tasted death_’ (_Heb. 2:9_). + Some men are too stolid and unimaginative to taste it. To + Christians the bitterness of death is gone, just because Christ + died and rose again. But to Jesus its terrors were as yet + undiminished. He resolutely set all his faculties to sound to the + depths the dreadfulness of dying.” + + We therefore cannot agree with either Wendt or Johnson in the + following quotations. Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 2:249, 250—“The + forsaking of the Father was not an absolute one, since Jesus still + called him ‘_My God_’ (_Mat. 27:46_). Jesus felt the failing of + that energy of spirit which had hitherto upheld him, and he + expresses simply his ardent desire and prayer that God would once + more grant him his power and assistance.” E. H. Johnson, The Holy + Spirit, 143, 144—“It is not even necessary to believe that God hid + his face from Christ at the last moment. It is necessary only to + admit that Christ no longer saw the Father’s face.... He felt that + it was so; but it was not so.” These explanations make Christ’s + sufferings and Christ’s words unreal, and to our mind they are + inconsistent with both his deity and his atonement. + + +(_f_) The actual power of the atonement over the human conscience and +heart is due, not to its exhibiting God’s regard for law, but to its +exhibiting an actual execution of law, and an actual satisfaction of +violated holiness made by Christ in the sinner’s stead. + + + Whiton, Gloria Patri, 143, 144, claims that Christ is the + propitiation for our sins only by bringing peace to the conscience + and satisfying the divine demand that is felt therein. Whiton + regards the atonement not as a governmental work outside of us, + but as an educational work within. Aside from the objection that + this view merges God’s transcendence in his immanence, we urge the + words of Matthew Henry: “Nothing can satisfy an offended + conscience but that which satisfied an offended God.” C. J. + Baldwin: “The lake spread out has no moving power; it turns the + mill-wheel only when contracted into the narrow stream and pouring + over the fall. So the wide love of God moves men, only when it is + concentrated into the sacrifice of the cross.” + + +(_g_) The theory contradicts all those passages of Scripture which +represent the atonement as necessary; as propitiating God himself; as +being a revelation of God’s righteousness; as being an execution of the +penalty of the law; as making salvation a matter of debt to the believer, +on the ground of what Christ has done; as actually purging our sins, +instead of making that purging possible; as not simply assuring the sinner +that God may now pardon him on account of what Christ has done, but that +Christ has actually wrought out a complete salvation, and will bestow it +upon all who come to him. + + + John Bunyan, Pilgrim’s Progress, chapter vi—“Upon that place stood + a Cross, and a little below, in the bottom, a Sepulchre. So I saw + in my dream, that just as Christian came up with the Cross, his + burden loosed from off his shoulders, and fell from off his back, + and began to tumble, and so continued to do, till it came to the + mouth of the Sepulchre, where it fell in, and I saw it no more. + Then was Christian glad and lightsome, and said with a merry + heart, He hath given me rest by his sorrow, and life by his death. + Then he stood still awhile to look and wonder; for it was very + surprising to him that the sight of the Cross should thus ease him + of his burden.” + + John Bunyan’s story is truer to Christian experience than is the + Governmental theory. The sinner finds peace, not by coming to God + with a distant respect to Christ, but by coming directly to the + “_Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world_” (_John + 1:29_). Christ’s words to every conscious sinner are simply: + “_Come unto me_” (_Mat. 11:28_). Upon the ground of what Christ + has done, salvation is a matter of debt to the believer. _1 John + 1:9_—“_If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to + forgive us our sins_”—faithful to his promise, and righteous to + Christ. The Governmental theory, on the other hand, tends to + discourage the sinner’s direct access to Christ, and to render the + way to conscious acceptance with God more circuitous and less + certain. + + When The Outlook says: “Not even to the Son of God must we come + instead of coming to God,” we can see only plain denial of the + validity of Christ’s demands and promises, for he demands + immediate submission when he bids the sinner follow him, and he + promises immediate salvation when he assures all who come to him + that he will not cast them out. The theory of Grotius is legal and + speculative, but it is not Scriptural, nor does it answer the + needs of human nature. For criticism of Albert Barnes’s doctrine, + see Watts, New Apologetic, 210-300. For criticism of the Grotian + theory in general, see Shedd, Hist. Doctrine, 2:347-369; Crawford, + Atonement, 367; Cunningham, Hist. Theology, 2:355; Princeton + Essays, 1:259-292; Essay on Atonement, by Abp. Thomson, in Aids to + Faith; McIlvaine, Wisdom of Holy Scripture, 194-196; S. H. Tyng, + Christian Pastor; Charles Hodge, Essays, 129-184; Lidgett, Spir. + Prin. of Atonement, 151-154. + + +4th. The Irvingian Theory, or Theory of Gradually Extirpated Depravity. + + +This holds that, in his incarnation, Christ took human nature as it was in +Adam, not before the Fall, but after the Fall,—human nature, therefore, +with its inborn corruption and predisposition to moral evil; that, +notwithstanding the possession of this tainted and depraved nature, +Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit, or of his divine nature, not +only kept his human nature from manifesting itself in any actual or +personal sin, but gradually purified it, through struggle and suffering, +until in his death he completely extirpated its original depravity, and +reunited it to God. This subjective purification of human nature in the +person of Jesus Christ constitutes his atonement, and men are saved, not +by any objective propitiation, but only by becoming through faith +partakers of Christ’s new humanity. This theory was elaborated by Edward +Irving, of London (1792-1834), and it has been held, in substance, by +Menken and Dippel in Germany. + + + Irving was in this preceded by Felix of Urgella, in Spain († 818), + whom Alcuin opposed. Felix said that the Logos united with human + nature, without sanctifying it beforehand. Edward Irving, in his + early life colleague of Dr. Chalmers, at Glasgow, was in his later + years a preacher, in London, of the National Church of Scotland. + For his own statement of his view of the Atonement, see his + Collected Works, 5:9-398. See also Life of Irving, by Mrs. + Oliphant; Menken, Schriften, 3:279-404; 6:351 _sq._; Guericke, in + Studien und Kritiken, 1843: Heft 2; David Brown, in Expositor, + Oct. 1887:264 _sq._, and letter of Irving to Marcus Dods, in + British Weekly, Mch. 25, 1887. For other references, see + Hagenbach, Hist. Doct., 2:496-498. + + Irving’s followers differ in their representation of his views. + Says Miller, Hist. and Doct. of Irvingism, 1:85—“If indeed we made + Christ a sinner, then indeed all creeds are at an end and we are + worthy to die the death of blasphemers.... The miraculous + conception depriveth him of human personality, and it also + depriveth him of original sin and guilt needing to be atoned for + by another, but it doth not deprive him of the substance of sinful + flesh and blood,—that is, flesh and blood the same with the flesh + and blood of his brethren.” 2:14—Freer says: “So that, despite it + was fallen flesh he had assumed, he was, through the Eternal + Spirit, born into the world ‘the Holy Thing’.” 11-15, + 282-305—“Unfallen humanity needed not redemption, therefore, Jesus + did not take it. He took fallen humanity, but purged it in the act + of taking it. The nature of which he took part was sinful in the + lump, but in his person most holy.” + + So, says an Irvingian tract, “Being part of the very nature that + had incurred the penalty of sin, though in his person never having + committed or even thought it, part of the common humanity could + suffer that penalty, and did so suffer, to make atonement for that + nature, though he who took it knew no sin.” Dr. Curry, quoted in + McClintock and Strong, Encyclopædia, 4:663, 664—“The Godhead came + into vital union with humanity fallen and under the law. The last + thought carried, to Irving’s realistic mode of thinking, the + notion of Christ’s participation in the fallen character of + humanity, which he designated by terms that implied a real + sinfulness in Christ. He attempted to get rid of the odiousness of + that idea, by saying that this was overborne, and at length wholly + expelled, by the indwelling Godhead.” + + We must regard the later expounders of Irvingian doctrine as + having softened down, if they have not wholly expunged, its most + characteristic feature, as the following notation from Irving’s + own words will show: Works, 5:115—“That Christ took our fallen + nature, is most manifest, because there was no other in existence + to take.” 123—“The human nature is thoroughly fallen; the mere + apprehension of it by the Son doth not make it holy.” 128—“His + soul did mourn and grieve and pray to God continually, that it + might be delivered from the mortality, corruption, and temptation + which it felt in its fleshly tabernacle.” 152—“These sufferings + came not by imputation merely, but by actual participation of the + sinful and cursed thing.” Irving frequently quoted _Heb. + 2:10_—“_make the author of their salvation perfect through + sufferings._” + + Irving’s followers deny Christ’s sinfulness, only by assuming that + inborn infirmity and congenital tendencies to evil are not sin,—in + other words, that not native depravity, but only actual + transgression, is to be denominated sin. Irving, in our judgment, + was rightly charged with asserting the sinfulness of Christ’s + human nature, and it was upon this charge that he was deposed from + the ministry by the Presbytery in Scotland. + + Irving was of commanding stature, powerful voice, natural and + graceful oratory. He loved the antique and the grand. For a time + in London he was the great popular sensation. But shortly after + the opening of his new church in Regent’s Square in 1827, he found + that fashion had taken its departure and that his church was no + longer crowded. He concluded that the world was under the reign of + Satan; he became a fanatical millennarian; he gave himself wholly + to the study of prophecy. In 1830 he thought the apostolic gifts + were revived, and he held to the hope of a restoration of the + primitive church, although he himself was relegated to a + comparatively subordinate position. He exhausted his energies, and + died at the age of forty-two. “If I had married Irving,” said Mrs. + Thomas Carlyle, “there would have been no tongues.” + + +To this theory we offer the following objections: + +(_a_) While it embraces an important element of truth, namely, the fact of +a new humanity in Christ of which all believers become partakers, it is +chargeable with serious error in denying the objective atonement which +makes the subjective application possible. + + + Bruce, in his Humiliation of Christ, calls this a theory of + “redemption by sample.” It is a purely subjective atonement which + Irving has in mind. Deliverance from sin, in order to deliverance + from penalty, is an exact reversal of the Scripture order. Yet + this deliverance from sin, to Irving’s view, was to be secured in + an external and mechanical way. He held that it was the Old + Testament economy which should abide, while the New Testament + economy should pass away. This is Sacramentarianism, or dependence + upon the external rite, rather than upon the internal grace, as + essential to salvation. The followers of Irving are + Sacramentarians. The crucifix and candles, incense and gorgeous + vestments, a highly complicated and symbolic ritual, they regard + as a necessary accompaniment of religion. They feel the need of + external authority, visible and permanent, but one that rests upon + inspiration and continual supernatural help. They do not find this + authority, as the Romanists do, in the Pope,—they find it in their + new Apostles and Prophets. The church can never be renewed, as + they think, except by the restoration of all the ministering + orders mentioned in _Eph. 4:11_—“_apostles ... prophets ... + evangelists ... pastors ... teachers._” But the N. T. mark of an + apostle is that Christ has appeared to him. Irving’s apostles + cannot stand this test. See Luthardt, Erinnerungen aus vergangenen + Tagen, 237. + + +(_b_) It rests upon false fundamental principles,—as, that law is +identical with the natural order of the universe, and as such, is an +exhaustive expression of the will and nature of God; that sin is merely a +power of moral evil within the soul, instead of also involving an +objective guilt and desert of punishment; that penalty is the mere +reaction of law against the transgressor, instead of being also the +revelation of a personal wrath against sin; that the evil taint of human +nature can be extirpated by suffering its natural consequences,—penalty in +this way reforming the transgressor. + + + Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:463 (Syst. Doct., 3:361, 362)—“On + Irving’s theory, evil inclinations are not sinful. Sinfulness + belongs only to evil acts. The loose connection between the Logos + and humanity savors of Nestorianism. It is the work of the + _person_ to rid itself of something in the humanity which does not + render it really sinful. If Jesus’ sinfulness of nature did not + render his person sinful, this must be true of us,—which is a + Pelagian element, revealed also in the denial that for our + redemption we need Christ as an atoning sacrifice. It is not + necessary to a complete incarnation for Christ to take a _sinful_ + nature, unless sin is _essential_ to human nature. In Irving’s + view, the death of Christ’s body works the regeneration of his + sinful nature. But this is to make sin a merely physical thing, + and the body the only part of man needing redemption.” Penalty + would thus become a reformer, and death a Savior. + + Irving held that there are two kinds of sin: 1. guiltless sin; 2. + guilty sin. Passive depravity is not guilty; it is a part of man’s + sensual nature; without it we would not be human. But the moment + this fallen nature expresses itself in action, it becomes guilty. + Irving near the close of his life claimed a sort of sinless + perfection; for so long as he could keep this sinful nature + inactive, and be guided by the Holy Spirit, he was free from sin + and guilt. Christ took this passive sin, that he might be like + unto his brethren, and that he might be able to suffer. + + +(_c_) It contradicts the express and implicit representations of +Scripture, with regard to Christ’s freedom from all taint of hereditary +depravity; misrepresents his life as a growing consciousness of the +underlying corruption of his human nature, which culminated at Gethsemane +and Calvary; and denies the truth of his own statements, when it declares +that he must have died on account of his own depravity, even though none +were to be saved thereby. + + + “I shall maintain until death,” said Irving, “that the flesh of + Christ was as rebellious as ours, as fallen as ours.... Human + nature was corrupt to the core and black as hell, and this is the + human nature the Son of God took upon himself and was clothed + with.” The Rescuer must stand as deep in the mire as the one he + rescues. There was no substitution. Christ waged war with the sin + of his own flesh and he expelled it. His glory was not in saving + others, but in saving himself, and so demonstrating the power of + man through the Holy Spirit to cast out sin from his heart and + life. Irving held that his theory was the only one taught in + Scripture and held from the first by the church. + + Nicoll, Life of Christ, 183—“All others, as they grow in holiness, + grow in their sense of sin. But when Christ is forsaken of the + Father, he asks ‘Why?’ well knowing that the reason is not in his + sin. He never makes confession of sin. In his longest prayer, the + preface is an assertion of righteousness: ‘_I glorified thee_’ + (_John 17:4_). His last utterance from the cross is a quotation + from _Ps. 31:5_—‘_Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit_’ + (_Luke 23:46_), but he does not add, as the Psalm does, ‘_thou + hast redeemed me, O Lord God of truth_,’ for he needed no + redemption, being himself the Redeemer.” + + +(_d_) It makes the active obedience of Christ, and the subjective +purification of his human nature, to be the chief features of his work, +while the Scriptures make his death and passive bearing of penalty the +centre of all, and ever regard him as one who is personally pure and who +vicariously bears the punishment of the guilty. + + + In Irving’s theory there is no imputation, or representation, or + substitution. His only idea of sacrifice is that sin itself shall + be sacrificed, or annihilated. The many subjective theories of the + atonement show that the offence of the cross has not ceased (_Gal. + 5:11_—“_then hath the stumbling-block of the cross been done + away_”). Christ crucified is still a stumbling-block to modern + speculation. Yet it is, as of old, “_the power of God unto + salvation_” (_Rom. 1:16_; _cf._ _1 Cor. 1:23, 24_—“_we preach + Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumbling-block and unto Gentiles + foolishness; but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, + Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God_”). + + As the ocean receives the impurities of the rivers and purges + them, so Irving represented Christ as receiving into himself the + impurities of humanity and purging the race from its sin. Here is + the sense of defilement, but no sense of guilt; subjective + pollution, but no objective condemnation. We take precisely + opposite ground from that of Irving, namely, that Christ had, not + hereditary depravity, but hereditary guilt; that he was under + obligation to suffer for the sins of the race to which he had + historically united himself, and of which he was the creator, the + upholder, and the life. He was “_made to be sin on our behalf_” + (_2 Cor. 5:21_), not in the sense of one defiled, as Irving + thought, but in the sense of one condemned to bear our iniquities + and to suffer their penal consequences. The test of a theory of + the atonement, as the test of a religion, is its power to “cleanse + that red right hand” of Lady Macbeth; in other words, its power to + satisfy the divine justice of which our condemning conscience is + only the reflection. The theory of Irving has no such power. Dr. + E. G. Robinson verged toward Irving’s view, when he claimed that + “Christ took human nature as he found it.” + + +(_e_) It necessitates the surrender of the doctrine of justification as a +merely declaratory act of God; and requires such a view of the divine +holiness, expressed only through the order of nature, as can be maintained +only upon principles of pantheism. + + + Thomas Aquinas inquired whether Christ was slain by himself, or by + another. The question suggests a larger one—whether God has + constituted other forces than his own, personal and impersonal, in + the universe, over against which he stands in his transcendence; + or whether all his activity is merged in, and identical with, the + activity of the creature. The theory of a merely subjective + atonement is more consistent with the latter view than the former. + For criticism of Irvingian doctrine, see Studien und Kritiken. + 1845:319; 1877:354-374; Princeton Rev., April 1863:207; Christian + Rev., 28:234 sq.; Ullmann, Sinlessness of Jesus, 219-232. + + +5th. The Anselmic, or Commercial Theory of the Atonement. + + +This theory holds that sin is a violation of the divine honor or majesty, +and, as committed against an infinite being, deserves an infinite +punishment; that the majesty of God requires him to execute punishment, +while the love of God pleads for the sparing of the guilty; that this +conflict of divine attributes is eternally reconciled by the voluntary +sacrifice of the God-man, who bears in virtue of the dignity of his person +the intensively infinite punishment of sin, which must otherwise have been +suffered extensively and eternally by sinners; that this suffering of the +God-man presents to the divine majesty an exact equivalent for the +deserved sufferings of the elect; and that, as the result of this +satisfaction of the divine claims, the elect sinners are pardoned and +regenerated. This view was first broached by Anselm of Canterbury +(1033-1109) as a substitute for the earlier patristic view that Christ’s +death was a ransom paid to Satan, to deliver sinners from his power. It is +held by many Scotch theologians, and, in this country, by the Princeton +School. + + + The old patristic theory, which the Anselmic view superseded, has + been called the Military theory of the Atonement. Satan, as a + captor in war, had a right to his captives, which could be bought + off only by ransom. It was Justin Martyr who first propounded this + view that Christ paid a ransom to Satan. Gregory of Nyssa added + that Christ’s humanity was the bait with which Satan was attracted + to the hidden hook of Christ’s deity, and so was caught by + artifice. Peter Lombard, Sent., 3:19—“What did the Redeemer to our + captor? He held out to him his cross as a mouse-trap; in it he + set, as a bait, his blood.” Even Luther compares Satan to the + crocodile which swallows the ichneumon, only to find that the + little animal eats its insides out. + + These metaphors show this, at least, that no age of the church has + believed in a merely subjective atonement. Nor was this relation + to Satan the only aspect in which the atonement was regarded even + by the early church. So early as the fourth century, we find a + great church Father maintaining that the death of Christ was + required by the truth and goodness of God. See Crippen, History of + Christian Doctrine, 129—“Athanasius (325-373) held that the death + of Christ was the payment of a debt due to God. His argument is + briefly this: God, having threatened death as the punishment of + sin, would be untrue if he did not fulfil his threatening. But it + would be equally unworthy of the divine goodness to permit + rational beings, to whom he had imparted his own Spirit, to incur + this death in consequence of an imposition practiced on them by + the devil. Seeing then that nothing but death could solve this + dilemma, the Word, who could not die, assumed a mortal body, and, + offering his human nature a sacrifice for all, fulfilled the law + by his death.” Gregory Nazianzen (390) “retained the figure of a + ransom, but, clearly perceiving that the analogy was incomplete, + he explained the death of Christ as an expedient to reconcile the + divine attributes.” + + But, although many theologians had recognized a relation of + atonement to God, none before Anselm had given any clear account + of the nature of this relation. Anselm’s acute, brief, and + beautiful treatise entitled “Cur Deus Homo” constitutes the + greatest single contribution to the discussion of this doctrine. + He shows that “whatever man owes, he owes to God, not to the + devil.... He who does not yield due honor to God, withholds from + him what is his, and dishonors him; and this is sin.... It is + necessary that either the stolen honor be restored, or that + punishment follow.” Man, because of original sin, cannot make + satisfaction for the dishonor done to God,—“a sinner cannot + justify a sinner.” Neither could an angel make this satisfaction. + None can make it but God. “If then none can make it but God, and + none owes it but man, it must needs be wrought out by God, made + man.” The God-man, to make satisfaction for the sins of all + mankind, must “give to God, of his own, something that is more + valuable than all that is under God.” Such a gift of infinite + value was his death. The reward of his sacrifice turns to the + advantage of man, and thus the justice and love of God are + reconciled. + + The foregoing synopsis is mainly taken from Crippen, Hist. Christ. + Doct., 134, 135. The Cur Deus Homo of Anselm is translated in Bib. + Sac., 11:729; 12:52. A synopsis of it is given in Lichtenberger’s + Encyclopédie des Sciences Religieuses, vol. 1, art.: Anselm. The + treatises on the Atonement by Symington, Candlish, Martin, + Smeaton, in Great Britain, advocate for substance the view of + Anselm, as indeed it was held by Calvin before them. In America, + the theory is represented by Nathanael Emmons, A. Alexander, and + Charles Hodge (Syst. Theol., 2:470-540). + + +To this theory we make the following objections: + +(_a_) While it contains a valuable element of truth, in its representation +of the atonement as satisfying a principle of the divine nature, it +conceives of this principle in too formal and external a manner,—making +the idea of the divine honor or majesty more prominent than that of the +divine holiness, in which the divine honor and majesty are grounded. + + + The theory has been called the “Criminal theory” of the Atonement, + as the old patristic theory of a ransom paid to Satan has been + called the “Military theory.” It had its origin in a time when + exaggerated ideas prevailed respecting the authority of popes and + emperors, and when dishonor done to their majesty (_crimen læsæ + majestatis_) was the highest offence known to law. See article by + Cramer, in Studien und Kritiken, 1880:7, on Wurzeln des + Anselm’schen Satisfactionsbegriffes. + + Allen, Jonathan Edwards, 88, 89—“From the point of view of + Sovereignty, there could be no necessity for atonement. In + Mohammedanism, where sovereignty is the supreme and sole + theological principle, no need is felt for satisfying the divine + justice. God may pardon whom he will, on whatever grounds his + sovereign will may dictate. It therefore constituted a great + advance in Latin theology, as also an evidence of its immeasurable + superiority to Mohammedanism, when Anselm for the first time, in a + clear and emphatic manner, had asserted an inward necessity in the + being of God that his justice should receive satisfaction for the + affront which had been offered to it by human sinfulness.” + + Henry George, Progress and Poverty, 481—“In the days of feudalism, + men thought of heaven as organized on a feudal basis, and ranked + the first and second Persons of the Trinity as Suzerain and + Tenant-in-Chief.” William James, Varieties of Religious + Experience, 329, 830—“The monarchical type of sovereignty was, for + example, so ineradicably planted in the mind of our forefathers, + that a dose of cruelty and arbitrariness in their Deity seems + positively to have been required by their imagination. They called + the cruelty ‘retributive justice,’ and a God without it would + certainly not have struck them as sovereign enough. But to-day we + abhor the very notion of eternal suffering inflicted; and that + arbitrary dealing out of salvation and damnation to selected + individuals, of which Jonathan Edwards could persuade himself that + he had not only a conviction, but a ‘delightful conviction,’ as of + a doctrine ‘exceeding pleasant, bright, and sweet,’ appears to us, + if sovereignly anything, sovereignly irrational and mean.” + + +(_b_) In its eagerness to maintain the atoning efficacy of Christ’s +passive obedience, the active obedience, quite as clearly expressed in +Scripture, is insufficiently emphasized and well nigh lost sight of. + + + Neither Christ’s active obedience alone, nor Christ’s obedient + passion alone, can save us. As we shall see hereafter, in our + examination of the doctrine of Justification, the latter was + needed as the ground upon which our penalty could be remitted; the + former as the ground upon which we might be admitted to the divine + favor. Calvin has reflected the passive element in Anselm’s view, + in the following passages of his Institutes: II, 17:3—“God, to + whom we were hateful through sin, was appeased by the death of his + Son, and was made propitious to us.”... II, 16:7—“It is necessary + to consider how he substituted himself in order to pay the price + of our redemption. Death held us under its yoke, but he, in our + place, delivered himself into its power, that he might exempt us + from it.”... II, 16:2—“Christ interposed and bore what, by the + just judgment of God, was impending over sinners; with his own + blood expiated the sin which rendered them hateful to God; by this + expiation satisfied and duly propitiated the Father; by this + intercession appeased his anger; on this basis founded peace + between God and men; and by this tie secured the divine + benevolence toward them.” + + It has been said that Anselm regarded Christ’s death not as a + vicarious punishment, but as a voluntary sacrifice in compensation + for which the guilty were released and justified. So Neander, + Hist. Christ. Dogmas (Bohn), 2:517, understands Anselm to teach + “the necessity of a satisfactio vicaria activa,” and says: “We do + not find in his writings the doctrine of a satisfactio passiva: he + nowhere says that Christ had endured the punishment of men.” + Shedd, Hist. Christ. Doctrine, 2:282, thinks this a + misunderstanding of Anselm. The Encyclopædia Britannica takes the + view of Shedd, when it speaks of Christ’s sufferings as penalty: + “The justice of man demands satisfaction; and as an insult to + infinite honor is itself infinite, the satisfaction must be + infinite, _i. e._, it must outweigh all that is not God. Such a + penalty can only be paid by God himself, and, as a penalty for + man, must be paid under the form of man. Satisfaction is only + possible through the God-man. Now this God-man, as sinless, is + exempt from the punishment of sin; his passion is therefore + voluntary, not given as due. The merit of it is therefore + infinite; God’s justice is thus appeased, and his mercy may extend + to man.” The truth then appears to be that Anselm held Christ’s + obedience to be passive, in that he satisfied God’s justice by + enduring punishment which the sinner deserved; but that he held + this same obedience of Christ to be active, in that he endured + this penalty voluntarily, when there was no obligation upon him so + to do. + + Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2:431, 461, 462—“Christ not only + suffered the penalty, but obeyed the precept, of the law. In this + case law and justice get their whole dues. But when lost man only + suffers the penalty, but does not obey the precept, the law is + defrauded of a part of its dues. No law is completely obeyed, if + only its penalty is endured.... Consequently, a sinner can never + completely and exhaustively satisfy the divine law, however much + or long he may suffer, because he cannot at one and the same time + endure the penalty and obey the precept. He owes ‘_ten thousand + talents_’ and has ‘_not wherewith to pay_’ (_Mat. 18:24, 25_), But + Christ did both, and therefore he ‘_magnified the law and made it + honorable_’ (_Is. 42:21_), in an infinitely higher degree than the + whole human family would have done, had they all personally + suffered for their sins.” _Cf._ Edwards, Works, 1:406. + + +(_c_) It allows disproportionate weight to those passages of Scripture +which represent the atonement under commercial analogies, as the payment +of a debt or ransom, to the exclusion of those which describe it as an +ethical fact, whose value is to be estimated not quantitatively, but +qualitatively. + + + Milton, Paradise Lost, 3:209-212—“Die he, or justice must, unless + for him Some other, able and as willing, pay The rigid + satisfaction, death for death.” The main text relied upon by the + advocates of the Commercial theory is _Mat. 20:28_—“_give his life + a ransom for many._” Pfleiderer, Philosophy of Religion, + 1:257—“The work of Christ, as Anselm construed it, was in fact + nothing else than the prototype of the meritorious performances + and satisfactions of the ecclesiastical saints, and was therefore, + from the point of view of the mediæval church, thought out quite + logically. All the more remarkable is it that the churches of the + Reformation could be satisfied with this theory, notwithstanding + that it stood in complete contradiction to their deeper moral + consciousness. If, according to Protestant principles generally, + there are no supererogatory meritorious works, then one would + suppose that such cannot be accepted even in the case of Jesus.” + + E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 258—“The Anselmic theory was + rejected by Abelard for grounding the atonement in justice instead + of benevolence, and for taking insufficient account of the power + of Christ’s sufferings and death in procuring a subjective change + in man.” Encyc. Brit., 2:93 (art.: Anselm)—“This theory has + exercised immense influence on the form of church doctrine. It is + certainly an advance on the older patristic theory, in so far as + it substitutes for a contest between God and Satan, a contest + between the goodness and justice of God; but it puts the whole + relation on a merely legal footing, gives it no ethical bearing, + and neglects altogether the consciousness of the individual to be + redeemed. In this respect it contrasts unfavorably with the later + theory of Abelard.” + + +(_d_) It represents the atonement as having reference only to the elect, +and ignores the Scripture declarations that Christ died for all. + + + Anselm, like Augustine, limited the atonement to the elect. Yet + Leo the Great, in 461, had affirmed that “so precious is the + shedding of Christ’s blood for the unjust, that if the whole + universe of captives would believe in the Redeemer, no chain of + the devil could hold them” (Crippen, 132). Bishop Gailor, of the + Episcopal Church, heard General Booth at Memphis say in 1903: + “Friends, Jesus shed his blood to pay the price, and he bought + from God enough salvation to go round.” The Bishop says: “I felt + that his view of salvation was different from mine. Yet such + teaching, partial as it is, lifts men by the thousand from the + mire and vice of sin into the power and purity of a new life in + Jesus Christ.” + + Foster, Christian Life and Theology, 221—“Anselm does not clearly + connect the death of Christ with the punishment of sin, since he + makes it a supererogatory work voluntarily done, in consequence of + which it is ‘fitting’ that forgiveness should be bestowed on + sinners.... Yet his theory served to hand down to later + theologians the great idea of the objective atonement.” + + +(_e_) It is defective in holding to a merely external transfer of the +merit of Christ’s work, while it does not clearly state the internal +ground of that transfer, in the union of the believer with Christ. + + + This needed supplement, namely, the doctrine of the Union of the + Believer with Christ, was furnished by Thomas Aquinas, Summa, pars + 3, quæs. 8. The Anselmic theory is Romanist in its tendency, as + the theory next to be mentioned is Protestant in its tendency. P. + S. Moxom asserts that salvation is not by substitution, but by + incorporation. We prefer to say that salvation is by substitution, + but that the substitution is by incorporation. Incorporation + involves substitution, and another’s pain inures to my account. + Christ being incorporate with humanity, all the exposures and + liabilities of humanity fell upon him. Simon, Reconciliation by + Incarnation, is an attempt to unite the two elements of the + doctrine. + + Lidgett, Spir. Prin. of Atonement, 182-189—“As Anselm represents + it, Christ’s death is not ours in any such sense that we can enter + into it. Bushnell justly charges that it leaves no moral dynamic + in the Cross.” For criticism of Anselm, see John Caird, Fund. + Ideas of Christianity, 2:172-193: Thomasius, Christi Person und + Werk, III, 2:230-241; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, IV, 2:70 sq.; Baur, + Dogmengeschichte, 2:416 _sq._; Shedd, Hist. Doct., 2:273-286; + Dale, Atonement, 279-292; McIlvaine, Wisdom of Holy Scripture, + 196-199; Kreibig, Versöhnungslehre, 176-178. + + +6th. The Ethical Theory of the Atonement. + + +In propounding what we conceive to be the true theory of the atonement, it +seems desirable to divide our treatment into two parts. No theory can be +satisfactory which does not furnish a solution of the two problems: 1. +What did the atonement accomplish? or, in other words, what was the object +of Christ’s death? The answer to this question must be a description of +the atonement in its relation to holiness in God. 2. What were the means +used? or, in other words, how could Christ justly die? The answer to this +question must be a description of the atonement as arising from Christ’s +relation to humanity. We take up these two parts of the subject in order. + + + Edwards, Works, 1:609, says that two things make Christ’s + sufferings a satisfaction for human guilt: (1) their equality or + equivalence to the punishment that the sinner deserves; (2) the + union between him and them, or the propriety of his being + accepted, in suffering, as the representative of the sinner. + Christ bore God’s wrath: (1) by the sight of sin and punishment; + (2) by enduring the effects of wrath ordered by God. See also + Edwards, Sermon on the Satisfaction of Christ. These statements of + Edwards suggest the two points of view from which we regard the + atonement; but they come short of the Scriptural declarations, in + that they do not distinctly assert Christ’s endurance of penalty + itself. Thus they leave the way open for the New School theories + of the atonement, propounded by the successors of Edwards. + + Adolphe Monod said well: “Save first the holy law of my God,—after + that you shall save me.” Edwards felt the first of these needs, + for he says, in his Mysteries of Scripture, Works, 3:542—“The + necessity of Christ’s satisfaction to divine justice is, as it + were, the centre and hinge of all doctrines of pure revelation. + Other doctrines are comparatively of little importance, except as + they have respect to this.” And in his Work of Redemption, Works, + 1:412—“Christ was born to the end that he might die; and therefore + he did, as it were, begin to die as soon as he was born.” See + _John 12:32_—“_And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw + all men unto myself. But this he said, signifying by what manner + of death he should die._” Christ was “_lifted up_”: 1. as a + propitiation to the holiness of God, which makes suffering to + follow sin, so affording the only ground for pardon without and + peace within; 2. as a power to purify the hearts and lives of men, + Jesus being as “_the serpent lifted up in the wilderness_” (_John + 3:14_), and we overcoming “_because of the blood of the Lamb_” + (_Rev. 12:11_). + + +_First_,—the Atonement as related to Holiness in God. + +The Ethical theory holds that the necessity of the atonement is grounded +in the holiness of God, of which conscience in man is a finite reflection. +There is an ethical principle in the divine nature, which demands that sin +shall be punished. Aside from its results, sin is essentially +ill-deserving. As we who are made in God’s image mark our growth in purity +by the increasing quickness with which we detect impurity, and the +increasing hatred which we feel toward it, so infinite purity is a +consuming fire to all iniquity. As there is an ethical demand in our +natures that not only others’ wickedness, but our own wickedness, be +visited with punishment, and a keen conscience cannot rest till it has +made satisfaction to justice for its misdeeds, so there is an ethical +demand of God’s nature that penalty follow sin. + + + The holiness of God has conscience and penalty for its correlates + and consequences. Gordon, Christ of To-day, 216—“In old Athens, + the rock on whose top sat the Court of the Areopagus, representing + the highest reason and the best character of the Athenian state, + had underneath it the Cave of the Furies.” Shakespeare knew human + nature and he bears witness to its need of atonement. In his last + Will and Testament he writes: “First, I commend my soul into the + hands of God, my Creator, hoping and assuredly believing, through + the only merits of Jesus Christ my Savior, to be made partaker of + life everlasting.” Richard III, 1:4—“I charge you, as you hope to + have redemption By Christ’s dear blood shed for our grievous sins, + That you depart and lay no hands on me.” Richard II, 4:1—“The + world’s Ransom, blessed Mary’s Son.” Henry VI, 2d part, 3:2—“That + dread King took our state upon him, To free us from his Father’s + wrathful curse.” Henry IV, 1st part, 1:1—“Those holy fields, Over + whose acres walked those blessed feet, Which fourteen hundred + years ago were nailed For our advantage on the bitter Cross.” + Measure for Measure, 2:2—“Why, all the souls that are were forfeit + once; And he that might the vantage best have took Found out the + remedy.” Henry VI, 2d part, 1:1—“Now, by the death of him that + died for all!” All’s Well that Ends Well, 3:4—“What angel shall + Bless this unworthy husband? He cannot thrive Unless her prayers, + whom heaven delights to hear And loves to grant, reprieve him from + the wrath Of greatest justice.” See a good statement of the + Ethical theory of the Atonement in its relation to God’s holiness, + in Denney, Studies in Theology, 100-124. + + +Punishment is the constitutional reaction of God’s being against moral +evil—the self-assertion of infinite holiness against its antagonist and +would-be destroyer. In God this demand is devoid of all passion, and is +consistent with infinite benevolence. It is a demand that cannot be +evaded, since the holiness from which it springs is unchanging. The +atonement is therefore a satisfaction of the ethical demand of the divine +nature, by the substitution of Christ’s penal sufferings for the +punishment of the guilty. + + + John Wessel, a Reformer before the Reformation (1419-1489): “Ipse + deus, ipse sacerdos, ipse hostia, pro se, de se, sibi + satisfecit”—“Himself being at the same time God, priest, and + sacrificial victim, he made satisfaction to himself, for himself + [_i. e._, for the sins of men to whom he had united himself], and + by himself [by his own sinless sufferings].” Quarles’s Emblems: “O + groundless deeps! O love beyond degree! The Offended dies, to set + the offender free!” + + Spurgeon, Autobiography, 1:98—“When I was in the hand of the Holy + Spirit, under conviction of sin, I had a clear and sharp sense of + the justice of God. Sin, whatever it might be to other people, + became to me an intolerable burden. It was not so much that I + feared hell, as that I feared sin; and all the while I had upon my + mind a deep concern for the honor of God’s name and the integrity + of his moral government. I felt that it would not satisfy my + conscience if I could be forgiven unjustly. But then there came + the question: ‘How could God be just, and yet justify me who had + been so guilty?’... The doctrine of the atonement is to my mind + one of the surest proofs of the inspiration of Holy Scripture. Who + would or could have thought of the just Ruler dying for the unjust + rebel?” + + +This substitution is unknown to mere law, and above and beyond the powers +of law. It is an operation of grace. Grace, however, does not violate or +suspend law, but takes it up into itself and fulfils it. The righteousness +of law is maintained, in that the source of all law, the judge and +punisher, himself voluntarily submits to bear the penalty, and bears it in +the human nature that has sinned. + + + Matheson, Moments on the Mount, 221—“In conscience, man condemns + and is condemned. Christ was God in the flesh, both priest and + sacrificial victim (_Heb. 9:12_). He is ‘_full of + grace_’—forgiving grace—but he is ‘_full of truth_’ also, and so + ‘_the only-begotten from the Father_’ (_John 1:14_). Not + forgiveness that ignores sin, not justice that has no mercy. He + forgave the sinner, because he bore the sin.” Kaftan, referring to + some modern theologians who have returned to the old doctrine but + who have said that the basis of the atonement is, not the + juridical idea of punishment, but the ethical idea of + propitiation, affirms as follows: “On the contrary the highest + ethical idea of propitiation is just that of punishment. Take this + away, and propitiation becomes nothing but the inferior and + unworthy idea of appeasing the wrath of an incensed deity. + Precisely the idea of the vicarious suffering of punishment is the + idea which must in some way be brought to a full expression for + the sake of the ethical consciousness. + + “The conscience awakened by God can accept no forgiveness which is + not experienced as at the same time a condemnation of sin.... + Jesus, though he was without sin and deserved no punishment, took + upon himself all the evils which have come into the world as the + consequence and punishment of sin, even to the shameful death on + the Cross at the hand of sinners.... Consequently for the good of + man he bore all that which man had deserved, and thereby has man + escaped the final eternal punishment and has become a child of + God.... This is not merely a subjective conclusion upon the + related facts, but it is as objective and real as anything which + faith recognizes and knows.” + + +Thus the atonement answers the ethical demand of the divine nature that +sin be punished if the offender is to go free. The interests of the divine +government are secured as a first subordinate result of this satisfaction +to God himself, of whose nature the government is an expression; while, as +a second subordinate result, provision is made for the needs of human +nature,—on the one hand the need of an objective satisfaction to its +ethical demand of punishment for sin, and on the other the need of a +manifestation of divine love and mercy that will affect the heart and move +it to repentance. + + + The great classical passage with reference to the atonement is + _Rom. 3:25, 26_—“_whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through + faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the + passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of + God; for the showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present + season: that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him + that hath faith is Jesus._” Or, somewhat more freely translated, + the passage would read:—“_whom God hath set forth in his blood as + a propitiatory sacrifice, through faith, to show forth his + righteousness on account of the pretermission of past offenses in + the forbearance of God; to declare his righteousness in the time + now present, so that he may be just and yet may justify him who + believeth in Jesus_.” + + EXPOSITION OF ROM. 3:25, 26.—These verses are an expanded + statement of the subject of the epistle—the revelation of the + “_righteousness of God_” (= the righteousness which God provides + and which God accepts)—which had been mentioned in _1:17_, but + which now has new light thrown upon it by the demonstration, in + _1:18-3:20_, that both Gentiles and Jews are under condemnation, + and are alike shut up for salvation to some other method than that + of works. We subjoin the substance of Meyer’s comments upon this + passage. + + “_Verse 25._ ‘_God has set forth Christ as an effectual + propitiatory offering, through faith, by means of his blood_,’ _i. + e._, in that he caused him to shed his blood. ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι + belongs to προέθετο, not to πίστεως. The purpose of this setting + forth in his blood is εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ, ‘_for + the display of his_ [judicial and punitive] _righteousness_,’ + which received its satisfaction in the death of Christ as a + propitiatory offering, and was thereby practically demonstrated + and exhibited. ‘_On account of the passing-by of sins that had + previously taken place_,’ _i. e._, because he had allowed the + pre-Christian sins to go without punishment, whereby his + righteousness had been lost sight of and obscured, and had come to + need an ἔνδειξις, or exhibition to men. Omittance is not + acquittance. πάρεσις, passing-by, is intermediate between pardon + and punishment. ‘_In virtue of the forbearance of God_’ expresses + the motive of the πάρεσις. Before Christ’s sacrifice, God’s + administration was a scandal,—it needed vindication. The atonement + is God’s answer to the charge of freeing the guilty. + + “_Verse 26._ εἰς τὸ εἶναι is not epexegetical of εἰς ἔνδειξιν, but + presents the teleology of the ἱλαστήριον, the final aim of the + whole affirmation from ὂν προέθετο to καιρῷ—namely, first, God’s + _being just_, and secondly, his _appearing just_ in consequence of + this. _Justus et justificans_, instead of _justus et condemnans_, + this is the _summum paradoxon evangelicum_. Of this revelation of + righteousness, not through condemnation, but through atonement, + grace is the determining ground.” + + We repeat what was said on pages 719, 720, with regard to the + teaching of the passage, namely, that it shows: (1) that Christ’s + death is a propitiatory sacrifice; (2) that its first and main + effect is upon God; (3) that the particular attribute in God which + demands the atonement in his justice, or holiness; (4) that the + satisfaction of this holiness is the necessary condition of God’s + justifying the believer. It is only incidentally and subordinately + that the atonement is a necessity to man; Paul speaks of it here + mainly as a necessity to God. Christ suffers, indeed, that God may + _appear_ righteous; but behind the appearance lies the reality; + the main object of Christ’s suffering is that God may _be_ + righteous, while he pardons the believing sinner; in other words, + the ground of the atonement is something internal to God himself. + See _Heb. 2:10_—it “_became_” God = it was morally fitting in God, + to make Christ suffer; _cf._ _Zech. 6:8_—“_they that go toward the + north country have quieted my spirit in the north country_”—the + judgments inflicted on Babylon have satisfied my justice. + + Charnock: “He who once ‘_quenched the violence of fire_’ for those + Hebrew children, has also quenched the fires of God’s anger + against the sinner, hotter than furnace heated seven times.” The + same God who is a God of holiness, and who in virtue of his + holiness must punish human sin, is also a God of mercy, and in + virtue of his mercy himself bears the punishment of human sin. + Dorner, Gesch. prot. Theologie, 98—“Christ is not only mediator + between God and man, but between the just God and the merciful + God”—_cf._ _Ps. 85:10_—“_Mercy and truth are met together; + righteousness and peace have kissed each other,_” “Conscience + demands vicariousness, for conscience declares that a gratuitous + pardon would not be just”; see Knight, Colloquia Peripatetica, 88. + + Lidgett, Spir. Principle of the Atonement, 219, 304—“The Atonement + 1. has Godward significance; 2. consists in our Lord’s endurance + of death on our behalf; 3. the spirit in which he endured death is + of vital importance to the efficacy of his sacrifice, namely, + obedience.... God gives repentance, yet requires it; he gives + atonement, yet requires it. ‘_Thanks be to God for his unspeakable + gift_’ (_2 Cor. 9:15_).” Simon, in Expositor, 6:321-334 (for + substance)—“As in prayer we ask God to energize us and enable us + to obey his law, and he answers by entering our hearts and obeying + in us and for us: as we pray for strength in affliction, and find + him helping us by putting his Spirit into us, and suffering in us + and for us; so in atonement, Christ, the manifested God, obeys and + suffers in our stead. Even the moral theory implies substitution + also. God in us obeys his own law and bears the sorrows that sin + has caused. Why can he not, in human nature, also endure the + penalty of sin? The possibility of this cannot be consistently + denied by any who believe in divine help granted in answer to + prayer. The doctrine of the atonement and the doctrine of prayer + stand or fall together.” + + See on the whole subject, Shedd, Discourses and Essays, 272-324, + Philosophy of History, 65-69, and Dogmatic Theology, 2:401-463; + Magee, Atonement and Sacrifice, 27, 53, 258; Edwards’s Works, + 4:140 sq.; Weber, Vom Zorne Gottes, 214-334; Owen, on Divine + Justice, in Works, 10:500-512; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, IV, + 2:27-114; Hopkins, Works, 1:319-368; Schöberlein, in Studien und + Kritiken, 1845:267-318, and 1847:7-70, also in Herzog, + Encyclopädie, art.: Versöhnung; Jahrbuch f. d. Theol., 3:713, and + 8:213; Macdonnell, Atonement, 115-214; Luthardt, Saving Truths, + 114-138; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 605-637; Lawrence, in Bib. Sac., + 20:332-339; Kreibig, Versöhnungslehre; Waffle, in Bap. Rev., + 1882:263-286; Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:641-662 (Syst. Doct., + 4:107-124); Remensnyder, The Atonement and Modern Thought. + + +_Secondly_,—the Atonement as related to Humanity in Christ. + +The Ethical theory of the atonement holds that Christ stands in such +relation to humanity, that what God’s holiness demands Christ is under +obligation to pay, longs to pay, inevitably does pay, and pays so fully, +in virtue of his two-fold nature, that every claim of justice is +satisfied, and the sinner who accepts what Christ has done in his behalf +is saved. + + + Dr. R. W. Dale, in his work on The Atonement, states the question + before us: “What must be Christ’s relation to men, in order to + make it possible that he should die for them?” We would change the + form of the question, so that it should read: “What must be + Christ’s relation to men, in order to make it not only possible, + but just and necessary, that he should die for them?” Dale + replies, for substance, that Christ must have had an original and + central relation to the human race and to every member of it; see + Denney, Death of Christ, 318. In our treatment of Ethical Monism, + of the Trinity, and of the Person of Christ, we have shown that + Christ, as Logos, as the immanent God, is the Life of humanity, + laden with responsibility for human sin, while yet he personally + knows no sin. Of this race-responsibility and race-guilt which + Christ assumed, and for which he suffered so soon as man had + sinned, Christ’s obedience and suffering in the flesh were the + visible reflection and revelation. Only in Christ’s organic union + with the race can we find the vital relation which will make his + vicarious sufferings either possible or just. Only when we regard + Calvary as revealing eternal principles of the divine nature, can + we see how the sufferings of those few hours upon the Cross could + suffice to save the millions of mankind. + + Dr. E. Y. Mullins has set forth the doctrine of the Atonement in + five propositions: “1. In order to atonement Christ became vitally + united to the human race. It was only by assuming the nature of + those he would redeem that he could break the power of their + captor.... The human race may be likened to many sparrows who had + been caught in the snare of the fowler, and were hopelessly + struggling against their fate. A great eagle swoops down from the + sky, becomes entangled with the sparrows in the net, and then + spreading his mighty wings he soars upward bearing the snare and + captives and breaking its meshes he delivers himself and them.... + Christ the fountain head of life imparting his own vitality to the + redeemed, and causing them to share in the experiences of + Gethsemane and Calvary, breaking thus for them the power of sin + and death—this is the atonement, by virtue of which sin is put + away and man is united to God.” + + Dr. Mullins properly regards this view of atonement as too narrow, + inasmuch as it disregards the differences between Christ and men + arising from his sinlessness and his deity. He adds therefore that + “2. Christ became the substitute for sinners; 3. became the + representative of men before God; 4. gained power over human + hearts to win them from sin and reconcile them to God; and 5. + became a propitiation and satisfaction, rendering the remission of + sins consistent with the divine holiness.” If Christ’s union with + the race be one which begins with creation and antedates the Fall, + all of the later points in the above scheme are only natural + correlates and consequences of the first,—substitution, + representation, reconciliation, propitiation, satisfaction, are + only different aspects of the work which Christ does for us, by + virtue of the fact that he is the immanent God, the Life of + humanity, priest and victim, condemning and condemned, atoning and + atoned. + + +We have seen how God can justly demand satisfaction; we now show how +Christ can justly make it; or, in other words, how the innocent can justly +suffer for the guilty. The solution of the problem lies in Christ’s union +with humanity. The first result of that union is obligation to suffer for +men; since, being one with the race, Christ had a share in the +responsibility of the race to the law and the justice of God. In him +humanity was created; at every stage of its existence humanity was upheld +by his power; as the immanent God he was the life of the race and of every +member of it. Christ’s sharing of man’s life justly and inevitably +subjected him to man’s exposures and liabilities, and especially to God’s +condemnation on account of sin. + + + In the seventh chapter of Elsie Venner, Oliver Wendell Holmes + makes the Reverend Mr. Honeywood lay aside an old sermon on Human + Nature, and write one on The Obligations of an infinite Creator to + a finite Creature. A. J. F. Behrends grounded our Lord’s + representative relation not in his human nature but in his divine + nature. “He is our representative not because he was in the loins + of Adam, but because we, Adam included, were in his loins. + Personal created existence is grounded in the Logos, so that God + must deal with him as well as with every individual sinner, and + sin and guilt and punishment must smite the Logos as well as the + sinner, and that, whether the sinner is saved or not. This is not, + as is often charged, a denial of grace or of freedom in grace, for + it is no denial of freedom or grace to show that they are + eternally rational and conformable to eternal law. In the ideal + sphere, necessity and freedom, law and grace, coalesce.” J. C. C. + Clarke, Man and his Divine Father, 387—“Vicarious atonement does + not consist in any single act.... No one act embraces it all, and + no one definition can compass it.” In this sense we may adopt the + words of Forsyth: “In the atonement the Holy Father dealt with a + world’s sin on (not _in_) a world-soul.” + + G. B. Foster, on _Mat. 26:53, 54_—“_Thinkest thou that I cannot + beseech my Father, and he shall even now send me more than twelve + legions of angels? How then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, + that thus it must be?_” “On this ‘_must be_’ the Scripture is + based, not this ‘_must be_’ on the Scripture. The ‘_must be_’ was + the ethical demand of his connection with the race. It would have + been immoral for him to break away from the organism. The law of + the organism is: From each according to ability; to each according + to need. David in song, Aristotle in logic, Darwin in science, are + under obligation to contribute to the organism the talent they + have. Shall they be under obligation, and Jesus go scot-free? But + Jesus can contribute atonement, and because he can, he must. + Moreover, he is a member, not only of the whole, but of each + part,—_Rom. 12:5_—‘_members one of another._’ As membership of the + whole makes him liable for the sin of the whole, so his being a + member of the part makes him liable for the sin of that part.” + + Fairbairn, Place of Christ in Modern Theology, 483, 484—“There is + a sense in which the Patripassian theory is right; the Father did + suffer; though it was not as the Son that he suffered, but in + modes distinct and different.... Through his pity the misery of + man became his sorrow.... There is a disclosure of his suffering + in the surrender of the Son. This surrender represented the + sacrifice and passion of the whole Godhead. Here degree and + proportion are out of place; were it not, we might say that the + Father suffered more in giving than the Son in being given. He who + gave to duty had not the reward of him who rejoiced to do it.... + One member of the Trinity could not suffer without all + suffering.... The visible sacrifice was that of the Son; the + invisible sacrifice was that of the Father.” The Andover Theory, + represented in Progressive Orthodoxy, 43-53, affirms not only the + Moral Influence of the Atonement, but also that the whole race of + mankind is naturally in Christ and was therefore punished in and + by his suffering and death; quoted in Hovey, Manual of Christian + Theology, 269; see Hovey’s own view, 270-276, though he does not + seem to recognize the atonement as existing before the + incarnation. + + +Christ’s share in the responsibility of the race to the law and justice of +God was not destroyed by his incarnation, nor by his purification in the +womb of the virgin. In virtue of the organic unity of the race, each +member of the race since Adam has been born into the same state into which +Adam fell. The consequences of Adam’s sin, both to himself and to his +posterity, are: (1) depravity, or the corruption of human nature; (2) +guilt, or obligation to make satisfaction for sin to the divine holiness; +(3) penalty, or actual endurance of loss or suffering visited by that +holiness upon the guilty. + + + Moberly, Atonement and Personality, 117—“Christ had taken upon + him, as the living expression of himself, a nature which was + weighed down, not merely by present incapacities, but by present + incapacities as part of the judicial necessary result of accepted + and inherent sinfulness. Human nature was not only disabled but + guilty, and the disabilities were themselves a consequence and + aspect of the guilt”; see review of Moberly by Rashdall, in Jour. + Theol. Studies, 3:198-211. Lidgett, Spir. Princ. of Atonement, + 166-168, criticizes Dr. Dale for neglecting the fatherly purpose + of the Atonement to serve the moral training of the + child—punishment marking ill-desert in order to bring this + ill-desert to the consciousness of the offender,—and for + neglecting also the positive assertion in the atonement that the + law is holy and just and good—something more than the negative + expression of sin’s ill-desert. See especially Lidgett’s chapter + on the relation of our Lord to the human race, 351-378, in which + he grounds the atonement in the solidarity of mankind, its organic + union with the Son of God, and Christ’s immanence in humanity. + + Bowne, The Atonement, 101—“Something like this work of grace was a + moral necessity with God. It was an awful responsibility that was + taken when our human race was launched with its fearful + possibilities of good and evil. God thereby put himself under + infinite obligation to care for his human family; and reflections + upon his position as Creator and Ruler, instead of removing only + make more manifest this obligation. So long as we conceive of God + as sitting apart in supreme ease and self-satisfaction, he is not + love at all, but only a reflex of our selfishness and vulgarity. + So long as we conceive him as bestowing upon us out of his + infinite fulness but at no real cost to himself, he sinks before + the moral heroes of the race. There is ever a higher thought + possible, until we see God taking the world upon his heart, + entering into the fellowship of our sorrow, and becoming the + supreme burdenbearer and leader in all self-sacrifice. Then only + are the possibilities of grace and love and moral heroism and + condescension filled up, so that nothing higher remains. And the + work of Christ himself, so far as it was an historical event, must + be viewed, not merely as a piece of history, but also as a + manifestation of that Cross which was hidden in the divine love + from the foundation of the world, and which is involved in the + existence of the human world at all.” + + John Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 2:90, 91—“Conceive of the + ideal of moral perfection incarnate in a human personality, and at + the same time one who loves us with a love so absolute that he + identifies himself with us and makes our good and evil his + own—bring together these elements in a living, conscious human + spirit, and you have in it a capacity of shame and anguish, a + possibility of bearing the burden of human guilt and wretchedness, + which lost and guilty humanity can never bear for itself.” + + +If Christ had been born into the world by ordinary generation, he too +would have had depravity, guilt, penalty. But he was not so born. In the +womb of the Virgin, the human nature which he took was purged from its +depravity. But this purging away of depravity did not take away guilt, or +penalty. There was still left the just exposure to the penalty of violated +law. Although Christ’s nature was purified, his obligation to suffer yet +remained. He might have declined to join himself to humanity, and then he +need not have suffered. He might have sundered his connection with the +race, and then he need not have suffered. But once born of the Virgin, +once possessed of the human nature that was under the curse, he was bound +to suffer. The whole mass and weight of God’s displeasure against the race +fell on him, when once he became a member of the race. + + + Because Christ is essential humanity, the universal man, the life + of the race, he is the central brain to which and through which + all ideas must pass. He is the central heart to which and through + which all pains must be communicated. You cannot telephone to your + friend across the town without first ringing up the central + office. You cannot injure your neighbor without first injuring + Christ. Each one of us can say of him: “_Against thee, thee only, + have I sinned_” (_Ps. 51:4_). Because of his central and + all-inclusive humanity, he must bear in his own person all the + burdens of humanity, and must be “_the Lamb of God, that_” taketh, + and so “_taketh away, the sin of the world_” (_John 1:29_). Simms + Reeves, the great English tenor, said that the passion-music was + too much for him; he was found completely overcome after singing + the prophet’s words in _Lam. 1:12_—“_Is it nothing to you, all ye + that pass by? Behold, and see if there be any sorrow like unto my + sorrow, which is brought upon me, Wherewith Jehovah hath afflicted + me in the day of his fierce anger._” + + Father Damien gave his life in ministry to the lepers’ colony of + the Hawaiian Islands. Though free from the disease when he + entered, he was at last himself stricken with the leprosy, and + then wrote: “I must now stay with my own people.” Once a leper, + there was no release. When Christ once joined himself to humanity, + all the exposures and liabilities of humanity fell upon him. + Through himself personally without sin, he was made sin for us. + Christ inherited guilt and penalty. _Heb. 2:14, 15_—“_Since then + the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself in + like manner partook of the same; that through death he might bring + to naught him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and + might deliver all them who through fear of death were all their + life-time subject to bondage._” + + Only God can forgive sin, because only God can feel it in its true + heinousness and rate it at its true worth. Christ could forgive + sin because he added to the divine feeling with regard to sin the + anguish of a pure humanity on account of it. Shelley, Julian and + Maddolo: “Me, whose heart a stranger’s tear might wear, As + water-drops the sandy fountain-stone; Me, who am as a nerve o’er + which do creep The Else unfelt oppressions of the earth.” S. W. + Culver: “We cannot be saved, as we are taught geometry, by lecture + and diagram. No person ever yet saved another from drowning by + standing coolly by and telling him the importance of rising to the + surface and the necessity of respiration. No, he must plunge into + the destructive element, and take upon himself the very condition + of the drowning man, and by the exertion of his own strength, by + the vigor of his own life, save him from the impending death. When + your child is encompassed by the flames that consume your + dwelling, you will not save him by calling to him from without. + You must make your way through the devouring flame, till you come + personally into the very conditions of his peril and danger, and, + thence returning, bear him forth to freedom and safety.” + + +Notice, however, that this guilt which Christ took upon himself by his +union with humanity was: (1) not the guilt of personal sin—such guilt as +belongs to every adult member of the race; (2) not even the guilt of +inherited depravity—such guilt as belongs to infants, and to those who +have not come to moral consciousness; but (3) solely the guilt of Adam’s +sin, which belongs, prior to personal transgression, and apart from +inherited depravity, to every member of the race who has derived his life +from Adam. This original sin and inherited guilt, but without the +depravity that ordinarily accompanies them, Christ takes, and so takes +away. He can justly bear penalty, because he inherits guilt. And since +this guilt is not his personal guilt, but the guilt of that one sin in +which “all sinned”—the guilt of the common transgression of the race in +Adam, the guilt of the root-sin from which all other sins have sprung—he +who is personally pure can vicariously bear the penalty due to the sin of +all. + + + Christ was conscious of innocence in his personal relations, but + not in his race relations. He gathered into himself all the + penalties of humanity, as Winkelried gathered into his own bosom + at Sempach the pikes of the Austrians and so made a way for the + victorious Swiss. Christ took to himself the shame of humanity, as + the mother takes upon her the daughter’s shame, repenting of it + and suffering on account of it. But this could not be in the case + of Christ unless there had been a tie uniting him to men far more + vital, organic, and profound than that which unites mother and + daughter. Christ is naturally the life of all men, before he + becomes spiritually the life of true believers. Matheson, Spir. + Devel. of St. Paul, 197-215, 244, speaks of Christ’s secular + priesthood, of an outer as well as an inner membership in the body + of Christ. He is sacrificial head of the world as well as + sacrificial head of the church. In Paul’s latest letters, he + declares of Christ that he is “_the Savior of all men, specially + of them that believe_” (_1 Tim. 4:10_). There is a grace that + “_hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men_” (_Tit. 2:11_). He + “_gave gifts unto men_” (_Eph. 4:8_), “_Yea, among the rebellious + also, that Jehovah God might dwell with them_” (_Ps. 68:18_). + “_Every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected_” + (_1 Tim. 4:4_). + + Royce, World and Individual, 2:408—“Our sorrows are identically + God’s own sorrows.... I sorrow, but the sorrow is not only mine. + This same sorrow, just as it is for me, is God’s sorrow.... The + divine fulfilment can be won only through the sorrows of time.... + Unless God knows sorrow, he knows not the highest good, which + consists in the overcoming of sorrow.” Godet, in The Atonement, + 331-351—“Jesus condemned sin as God condemned it. When he felt + forsaken on the Cross, he performed that act by which the offender + himself condemns his sin, and by that condemnation, so far as it + depends on himself, makes it to disappear. There is but one + conscience in all moral beings. This echo in Christ of God’s + judgment against sin was to re-echo in all other human + consciences. This has transformed God’s love of compassion into a + love of satisfaction. Holiness joins suffering to sin. But the + element of reparation in the Cross was not in the suffering but in + the submission. The child who revolts against its punishment has + made no reparation at all. We appropriate Christ’s work when we by + faith ourselves condemn sin and accept him.” + + +If it be asked whether this is not simply a suffering for his own sin, or +rather for his own share of the sin of the race, we reply that his own +share in the sin of the race is not the sole reason why he suffers; it +furnishes only the subjective reason and ground for the proper laying upon +him of the sin of all. Christ’s union with the race in his incarnation is +only the outward and visible expression of a prior union with the race +which began when he created the race. As “in him were all things created,” +and as “in him all things consist,” or hold together (Col. 1:16, 17), it +follows that he who is the life of humanity must, though personally pure, +be involved in responsibility for all human sin, and “it was necessary +that the Christ should suffer” (Acts 17:3). This suffering was an enduring +of the reaction of the divine holiness against sin and so was a bearing of +penalty (Is. 53:6; Gal. 3:13), but it was also the voluntary execution of +a plan that antedated creation (Phil. 2:6, 7), and Christ’s sacrifice in +time showed what had been in the heart of God from eternity (Heb. 9:14; +Rev. 13:8). + + + Our treatment is intended to meet the chief modern objection to + the atonement. Greg, Creed of Christendom, 2:222, speaks of “the + strangely inconsistent doctrine that God is so _just_ that he + could not let sin go unpunished, yet so _unjust_ that he could + punish it in the person of the innocent.... It is for orthodox + dialectics to explain how the divine justice can be _impugned_ by + pardoning the guilty, and yet _vindicated_ by punishing the + innocent” (quoted in Lias, Atonement, 16). In order to meet this + difficulty, the following accounts of Christ’s identification with + humanity have been given: + + 1. That of Isaac Watts (see Bib. Sac., 1875:421). This holds that + the humanity of Christ, both in body and soul, preëxisted before + the incarnation, and was manifested to the patriarchs. We reply + that Christ’s human nature is declared to be derived from the + Virgin. + + 2. That of R. W. Dale (Atonement, 265-440). This holds that Christ + is responsible for human sin because, as the Upholder and Life of + all, he is naturally one with all men, and is spiritually one with + all believers (_Acts 17:28_—“_in him we live, and move, and have + our being_”; _Col. 1:17_—“_in him all things consist_”; _John + 14:20_—“_I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you_”). If + Christ’s bearing our sins, however, is to be explained by the + union of the believer with Christ, the effect is made to explain + the cause, and Christ could have died only for the elect (see a + review of Dale, in Brit. Quar. Rev., Apr., 1876:221-225). The + union of Christ with the race by creation—a union which recognizes + Christ’s purity and man’s sin—still remains as a most valuable + element of truth in the theory of Dr. Dale. + + 3. That of Edward Irving. Christ has a corrupted nature, an inborn + infirmity and depravity, which he gradually overcomes. But the + Scriptures, on the contrary, assert his holiness and separateness + from sinners. (See references, on pages 744-747.) + + 4. That of John Miller, Theology, 114-128; also in his chapter: + Was Christ in Adam? in Questions Awakened by the Bible. Christ, as + to his human nature, although created pure, was yet, as one of + Adam’s posterity, conceived of as a sinner in Adam. To him + attached “the guilt of the act in which all men stood together in + a federal relation.... He was decreed to be guilty for the sins of + all mankind.” Although there is a truth contained in this + statement, it is vitiated by Miller’s federalism and creatianism. + Arbitrary imputation and legal fiction do not help us here. We + need such an actual union of Christ with humanity, and such a + derivation of the substance of his being, by natural generation + from Adam, as will make him not simply the constructive heir, but + the natural heir, of the guilt of the race. We come, therefore, to + what we regard as the true view, namely: + + 5. That the humanity of Christ was not a new creation, but was + derived from Adam, through Mary his mother; so that Christ, so far + as his humanity was concerned, was in Adam just as we were, and + had the same race-responsibility with ourselves. As Adam’s + descendant, he was responsible for Adam’s sin, like every other + member of the race; the chief difference being, that while we + inherit from Adam both guilt and depravity, he whom the Holy + Spirit purified, inherited not the depravity, but only the guilt. + Christ took to himself, not sin (depravity), but the consequences + of sin. In him there was abolition of sin, without abolition of + obligation to suffer for sin; while in the believer, there is + abolition of obligation to suffer, without abolition of sin + itself. + + The justice of Christ’s sufferings has been imperfectly + illustrated by the obligation of the silent partner of a business + firm to pay debts of the firm which he did not personally + contract; or by the obligation of the husband to pay the debts of + his wife; or by the obligation of a purchasing country to assume + the debts of the province which it purchases (Wm. Ashmore). There + have been men who have spent the strength of a lifetime in + clearing off the indebtedness of an insolvent father, long since + deceased. They recognized an organic unity of the family, which + morally, if not legally, made their father’s liabilities their + own. So, it is said, Christ recognized the organic unity of the + race, and saw that, having become one of that sinning race, he had + involved himself in all its liabilities, even to the suffering of + death, the great penalty of sin. + + The fault of all the analogies just mentioned is that they are + purely commercial. A transference of pecuniary obligation is + easier to understand than a transference of criminal liability. I + cannot justly bear another’s penalty, unless I can in some way + share his guilt. The theory we advocate shows how such a sharing + of our guilt on the part of Christ was possible. All believers in + substitution hold that Christ bore our guilt: “My soul looks back + to see The burdens thou didst bear When hanging on the accursed + tree, And hopes her guilt was there.” But we claim that, by virtue + of Christ’s union with humanity, that guilt was not only an + imputed, but also an imparted, guilt. + + With Christ’s obligation to suffer, there were connected two + other, though minor, results of his assumption of humanity: first, + the longing to suffer; and secondly, the inevitableness of his + suffering. He felt the longing to suffer which perfect love to God + must feel, in view of the demands upon the race, of that holiness + of God which he loved more than he loved the race itself; which + perfect love to man must feel, in view of the fact that bearing + the penalty of man’s sin was the only way to save him. Hence we + see Christ pressing forward to the cross with such majestic + determination that the disciples were amazed and afraid (_Mark + 10:32_). Hence we hear him saying: “_With desire have I desired to + eat this passover_” (_Luke 23:15_); “_I have a baptism to be + baptised with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!_” + (_Luke 12:50_). + + Here is the truth in Campbell’s theory of the atonement. Christ is + the great Penitent before God, making confession of the sin of the + race, which others of that race could neither see nor feel. But + the view we present is a larger and completer one than that of + Campbell, in that it makes this confession and reparation + obligatory upon Christ, as Campbell’s view does not, and + recognizes the penal nature of Christ’s sufferings, which + Campbell’s view denies. Lias, Atonement, 79—“The head of a clan, + himself intensely loyal to his king, finds that his clan have been + involved in rebellion. The more intense and perfect his loyalty, + the more thorough his nobleness of heart and affection for his + people, the more inexcusable and flagrant the rebellion of those + for whom he pleads,—the more acute would be his agony, as their + representative and head. Nothing would be more true to human + nature, in the best sense of those words, than that the conflict + between loyalty to his king and affection for his vassals should + induce him to offer his life for theirs, to ask that the + punishment they deserved should be inflicted on him.” + + The second minor consequence of Christ’s assumption of humanity + was, that, being such as he was, he could not help suffering; in + other words, the obligatory and the desired were also the + inevitable. Since he was a being of perfect purity, contact with + the sin of the race, of which he was a member, necessarily + involved an actual suffering, of an intenser kind than we can + conceive. Sin is self-isolating, but love and righteousness have + in them the instinct of human unity. In Christ all the nerves and + sensibilities of humanity met. He was the only healthy member of + the race. When life returns to a frozen limb, there is pain. So + Christ, as the only sensitive member of a benumbed and stupefied + humanity, felt all the pangs of shame and suffering which + rightfully belonged to sinners; but which they could not feel, + simply because of the depth of their depravity. Because Christ was + pure, yet had united himself to a sinful and guilty race, + therefore “_it must needs be that Christ should suffer_” (A. V.) + or, “_it behooved the Christ to suffer_” (Rev. Vers., _Acts + 17:3_); see also _John 3:14_—“_so must the Son of man be lifted + up_”—“The Incarnation, under the actual circumstances of humanity, + carried with it the necessity of the Passion” (Westcott, in Bib. + Com., _in loco_). + + Compare John Woolman’s Journal, 4, 5—“O Lord, my God, the amazing + horrors of darkness were gathered about me, and covered me all + over, and I saw no way to go forth; I felt the depth and extent of + the misery of my fellow creatures, separated from the divine + harmony, and it was greater than I could bear, and I was crushed + down under it; I lifted up my head, I stretched out my arm, but + there was none to help me; I looked round about, and was amazed. + In the depths of misery, I remembered that thou art omnipotent and + that I had called thee Father.” He had vision of a “dull, gloomy + mass,” darkening half the heavens, and he was told that it was + “human beings, in as great misery as they could be and live; and + he was mixed with them, and henceforth he might not consider + himself a distinct and separate being.” + + This suffering in and with the sins of men, which Dr. Bushnell + emphasized so strongly, though it is not, as he thought, the + principal element, is notwithstanding an indispensable element in + the atonement of Christ. Suffering in and with the sinner is one + way, though not the only way, in which Christ is enabled to bear + the wrath of God which constitutes the real penalty of sin. + + EXPOSITION OF 2 COR. 5:21.—It remains for us to adduce the + Scriptural proof of this natural assumption of human guilt by + Christ. We find it in _2 Cor. 5:21_—“_Him who knew no sin he made + to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of + God in him._” “_Righteousness_” here cannot mean subjective + purity, for then “_made to be sin_” would mean that God made + Christ to be subjectively depraved. As Christ was not made + _unholy_, the meaning cannot be that we are made _holy_ persons in + him. Meyer calls attention to this parallel between + “_righteousness_” and “_sin_”:—“_That we might become the + righteousness of God in him_” = that we might become justified + persons. Correspondingly, “_made to be sin on our behalf_” must = + made to be a condemned person. “_Him who knew no sin_” = Christ + had no experience of sin—this was the necessary postulate of his + work of atonement. “_Made sin for us_,” therefore, is the abstract + for the concrete, and = made a sinner, in the sense that the + penalty of sin fell upon him. So Meyer, for substance. + + We must, however, regard this interpretation of Meyer’s as coming + short of the full meaning of the apostle. As justification is not + simply remission of _actual_ punishment, but is also deliverance + from the _obligation_ to suffer punishment,—in other words, as + “_righteousness_” in the text = persons delivered from the _guilt_ + as well as from the _penalty_ of sin,—so the contrasted term + “_sin_,” in the text,—a person not only _actually_ punished, but + also under _obligation_ to suffer punishment;—in other words, + Christ is “_made sin_,” not only in the sense of being put under + _penalty_, but also in the sense of being put under _guilt_. + (_Cf._ Symington, Atonement, 17.) + + In a note to the last edition of Meyer, this is substantially + granted. “It is to be noted,” he says, “that ἁμαρτίαν, like κατάρα + in _Gal. 3:13_, necessarily includes in itself the notion of + guilt.” Meyer adds, however: “The guilt of which Christ appears as + bearer was not his own (μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν); hence the guilt of + men was transferred to him; consequently the justification of men + is imputative.” Here the implication that the guilt which Christ + bears is his simply by imputation seems to us contrary to the + analogy of faith. As Adam’s sin is ours only because we are + actually one with Adam, and as Christ’s righteousness is imputed + to us only as we are actually united to Christ, so our sins are + imputed to Christ only as Christ is actually one with the race. He + was “_made sin_” by being made one with the sinners; he took our + guilt by taking our nature. He who “_knew no sin_” came to be + “_sin for us_” by being born of a sinful stock; by inheritance the + common guilt of the race became his. Guilt was not simply + _imputed_ to Christ; it was _imparted_ also. + + This exposition may be made more clear by putting the two + contrasted thoughts in parallel columns, as follows: + + Made righteousness in him = Made sin for us = + righteous persons; a sinful person; + justified persons; a condemned person; + freed from guilt, or put under guilt, or obligation + obligation to suffer; to suffer; + by spiritual union with by natural union with the + Christ. race. + + For a good exposition of _2 Cor. 5:21_, _Gal. 3:13_, and _Rom. + 3:25, 26_, see Denney, Studies in Theology, 109-124. + + +The Atonement, then, on the part of God, has its ground (1) in the +holiness of God, which must visit sin with condemnation, even though this +condemnation brings death to his Son; and (2) in the love of God, which +itself provides the sacrifice, by suffering in and with his Son for the +sins of men, but through that suffering opening a way and means of +salvation. + +The Atonement, on the part of man, is accomplished through (1) the +solidarity of the race; of which (2) Christ is the life, and so its +representative and surety; (3) justly yet voluntarily bearing its guilt +and shame and condemnation as his own. + + + Melanchthon: “Christ was made sin for us, not only in respect to + punishment, but primarily by being chargeable with guilt also + (_culpæ et reatus_)”—quoted by Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, + 3:95, 102, 103, 107; also 1:307, 314 _sq._ Thomasius says that + “Christ bore the guilt of the race by imputation; but as in the + case of the imputation of Adam’s sin to us, imputation of our sins + to Christ presupposes a real relationship. Christ appropriated our + sin. He sank himself into our guilt.” Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:442 + (Syst. Doct., 3:350, 351), agrees with Thomasius, that “Christ + entered into our natural mortality, which for us is a penal + condition, and into the state of collective guilt, so far as it is + an evil, a burden to be borne; not that he had personal guilt, but + rather that he entered into our guilt-laden common life, not as a + stranger, but as one actually belonging to it—put under its law, + according to the will of the Father and of his own love.” + + When, and how, did Christ take this guilt and this penalty upon + him? With regard to penalty, we have no difficulty in answering + that, as his whole life of suffering was propitiatory, so penalty + rested upon him from the very beginning of his life. This penalty + was inherited, and was the consequence of Christ’s taking human + nature (_Gal. 4:4, 5_—“_born of a woman, born under the law_”). + But penalty and guilt are correlates; if Christ inherited penalty, + it must have been because he inherited guilt. This subjection to + the common guilt of the race was intimated in Jesus’ circumcision + (_Luke 2:21_); in his ritual purification (_Luke 2:22_—“_their + purification_”—_i. e._, the purification of Mary and the babe; see + Lange, Life of Christ; Commentaries of Alford, Webster and + Wilkinson; and An. Par. Bible); in his legal redemption (_Luke + 2:23, 24_; _cf._ _Ex. 13:2, 13_); and in his baptism (_Mat. + 3:15_—“_thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness_”). The + baptized person went down into the water, as one laden with sin + and guilt, in order that this sin and guilt might be buried + forever, and that he might rise from the typical grave to a new + and holy life. (Ebrard: “Baptism = death.”) So Christ’s submission + to John’s baptism of repentance was not only a consecration to + death, but also a recognition and confession of his implication in + that guilt of the race for which death was the appointed and + inevitable penalty (_cf._ _Mat. 10:38_; _Luke 12:50_; _Mat. + 26:39_); and, as his baptism was a prefiguration of his death, we + may learn from his baptism something with regard to the meaning of + his death. See further, under The Symbolism of Baptism. + + As one who had had guilt, Christ was “_justified in the spirit_” + (_1 Tim. 3:16_); and this justification appears to have taken + place after he “_was manifested in the flesh_” (_1 Tim. 3:16_), + and when “_he was raised for our justification_” (_Rom. 4:25_). + Compare _Rom. 1:4_—“_declared to be the Son of God with power, + according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the + dead_”; _6:7-10_—“_he that hath died is justified from sin. But if + we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him; + knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; + death no more hath dominion over him. For the death that he died, + he died unto sin once; but the life that he liveth, he liveth unto + God_”—here all Christians are conceived of as ideally justified in + the justification of Christ, when Christ died for our sins and + rose again. _8:3_—“_God, sending his own Son in the likeness of + sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh_”—here Meyer + says: “The sending does not precede the condemnation; but the + condemnation is effected in and with the sending.” _John + 16:10_—“_of righteousness, because I go to the Father_”; + _19:30_—“_It is finished._” On _1 Tim. 3:16_, see the Commentary + of Bengel. + + If it be asked whether Jesus, then, before his death, was an + unjustified person, we answer that, while personally pure and + well-pleasing to God (_Mat. 3:17_), he himself was conscious of a + race-responsibility and a race-guilt which must be atoned for + (_John 12:27_—“_Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? + Father, save me from this hour. But for this cause came I unto + this hour_”); and that guilty human nature in him endured at the + last the separation from God which constitutes the essence of + death, sin’s penalty (_Mat. 27:46_—“_My God, my God, why hast thou + forsaken me?_”). We must remember that, as even the believer must + “_be judged according to man in the flesh_” (_1 Pet. 4:6_), that + is, must suffer the death which to unbelievers is the penalty of + sin, although he “_live according to God in the Spirit_,” so + Christ, in order that we might be delivered from both guilt and + penalty, was “_put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the + spirit_” (_3:18_);—in other words, as Christ was man, the penalty + due to human guilt belonged to him to bear; but, as he was God, he + could exhaust that penalty, and could be a proper substitute for + others. + + If it be asked whether he, who from the moment of the conception + “_sanctified himself_” (_John 17:19_), did not from that moment + also justify himself, we reply that although, through the + retroactive efficacy of his atonement and upon the ground of it, + human nature in him was purged of its depravity from the moment + that he took that nature; and although, upon the ground of that + atonement, believers before his advent were both sanctified and + justified; yet his own justification could not have proceeded upon + the ground of his atonement, and also his atonement have proceeded + upon the ground of his justification. This would be a vicious + circle; somewhere we must have a beginning. That beginning was in + the cross, where guilt was first purged (_Heb. 1:3_—“_when he had + made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the + Majesty on high_”; _Mat. 27:42_—“_He saved others; himself he + cannot save_”; _cf._ _Rev. 13:8_—“_the Lamb that hath been slain + from the foundation of the world_”). + + If it be said that guilt and depravity are practically + inseparable, and that, if Christ had guilt, he must have had + depravity also, we reply that in civil law we distinguish between + them,—the conversion of a murderer would not remove his obligation + to suffer upon the gallows; and we reply further, that in + justification we distinguish between them,—depravity still + remaining, though guilt is removed. So we may say that Christ + takes guilt without depravity, in order that we may have depravity + without guilt. See page 645; also Böhl, Incarnation des göttlichen + Wortes; Pope, Higher Catechism, 118; A. H. Strong, on the + Necessity of the Atonement, in Philosophy and Religion, 213-219. + _Per contra_, see Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:59 note, 82. + + +Christ therefore, as incarnate, rather revealed the atonement than made +it. The historical work of atonement was finished upon the Cross, but that +historical work only revealed to men the atonement made both before and +since by the extra-mundane Logos. The eternal Love of God suffering the +necessary reaction of his own Holiness against the sin of his creatures +and with a view to their salvation—this is the essence of the Atonement. + + + Nash, Ethics and Revelation, 252, 253—“Christ, as God’s atonement, + is the revelation and discovery of the fact that sacrifice is as + deep in God as his being. He is a holy Creator.... He must take + upon himself the shame and pain of sin.” The earthly tabernacle + and its sacrifices were only the shadow of those in the heavens, + and Moses was bidden to make the earthly after the pattern which + he saw in the mount. So the historical atonement was but the + shadowing forth to dull and finite minds of an infinite demand of + the divine holiness and an infinite satisfaction rendered by the + divine love. Godet, S. S. Times, Oct. 16, 1886—“Christ so + identified himself with the race he came to save, by sharing its + life or its very blood, that when the race itself was redeemed + from the curse of sin, his resurrection followed as the first + fruits of that redemption”; _Rom. 4:25_—“_delivered up for our + trespasses ... raised for our justification._” + + Simon, Redemption of Man, 322—“If the Logos is generally the + Mediator of the divine immanence in Creation, especially in man; + if men are differentiations of the effluent divine energy; and if + the Logos is the immanent controlling principle of all + differentiation, _i. e._, the principle of all _form_—must not the + self-perversion of these human differentiations necessarily react + on him who is their constitutive principle? 339—Remember that men + have not first to engraft themselves into Christ, the living + whole.... They subsist naturally in him, and they have to separate + themselves, cut themselves off from him, if they are to be + separate. This is the mistake made in the ‘Life in Christ’ theory. + Men are treated as in some sense out of Christ, and as having to + get into connection with Christ.... It is not that we have to + create the relation,—we have simply to accept, to recognize, to + ratify it. Rejecting Christ is not so much refusal to _become_ one + with Christ, as it is refusal to _remain_ one with him, refusal to + let him be our life.” + + A. H. Strong, Christ in Creation, 33, 172—“When God breathed into + man’s nostrils the breath of life, he communicated freedom, and + made possible the creature’s self-chosen alienation from himself, + the giver of that life. While man could never break the natural + bond which united him to God, he could break the spiritual bond, + and could introduce even into the life of God a principle of + discord and evil. Tie a cord tightly about your finger; you + partially isolate the finger, diminish its nutrition, bring about + atrophy and disease. Yet the life of the whole system rouses + itself to put away the evil, to untie the cord, to free the + diseased and suffering member. The illustration is far from + adequate; but it helps at a single point. There has been given to + each intelligent and moral agent the power, spiritually, to + isolate himself from God, while yet he is naturally joined to God, + and is wholly dependent upon God for the removal of the sin which + has so separated him from his Maker. Sin is the act of the + creature, but salvation is the act of the Creator. + + “If you could imagine a finger endowed with free will and trying + to sunder its connection with the body by tying a string around + itself, you would have a picture of man trying to sunder his + connection with Christ. What is the result of such an attempt? + Why, pain, decay; possible, nay, incipient death, to the finger. + By what law? By the law of the organism, which is so constituted + as to maintain itself against its own disruption by the revolt of + the members. The pain and death of the finger is the reaction of + the whole against the treason of the part. The finger suffers + pain. But are there no results of pain to the body? Does not the + body feel pain also? How plain it is that no such pain can be + confined to the single part! The heart feels, aye, the whole + organism feels, because all the parts are members one of another. + It not only suffers, but that suffering tends to remedy the evil + and to remove its cause. The body summons its forces, pours new + tides of life into the dying member, strives to rid the finger of + the ligature that binds it. So through all the course of history, + Christ, the natural life of the race, has been afflicted in the + affliction of humanity and has suffered for human sin. This + suffering has been an atoning suffering, since it has been due to + righteousness. If God had not been holy, if God had not made all + nature express the holiness of his being, if God had not made pain + and loss the necessary consequences of sin, then Christ would not + have suffered. But since these things are sin’s penalty and Christ + is the life of the sinful race, it must needs be that Christ + should suffer. There is nothing arbitrary in laying upon him the + iniquities of us all. Original grace, like original sin, is only + the ethical interpretation of biological facts.” See also Ames, on + Biological Aspects of the Atonement, in Methodist Review, Nov. + 1905:943-953. + + +In favor of the Substitutionary or Ethical view of the atonement we may +urge the following considerations: + +(_a_) It rests upon correct philosophical principles with regard to the +nature of will, law, sin, penalty, righteousness. + + + This theory holds that there are permanent states, as well as + transient acts, of the will; and that the will is not simply the + faculty of volitions, but also the fundamental determination of + the being to an ultimate end. It regards law as having its basis, + not in arbitrary will or in governmental expediency, but rather in + the nature of God, and as being a necessary transcript of God’s + holiness. It considers sin to consist not simply in acts, but in + permanent evil states of the affections and will. It makes the + object of penalty to be, not the reformation of the offender, or + the prevention of evil doing, but the vindication of justice, + outraged by violation of law. It teaches that righteousness is not + benevolence or a form of benevolence, but a distinct and separate + attribute of the divine nature which demands that sin should be + visited with punishment, apart from any consideration of the + useful results that will flow therefrom. + + +(_b_) It combines in itself all the valuable elements in the theories +before mentioned, while it avoids their inconsistencies, by showing the +deeper principle upon which each of these elements is based. + + + The Ethical theory admits the indispensableness of Christ’s + example, advocated by the Socinian theory; the moral influence of + his suffering, urged by the Bushnellian theory; the securing of + the safety of government, insisted on by the Grotian theory; the + participation of the believer in Christ’s new humanity, taught by + the Irvingian theory; the satisfaction to God’s majesty for the + elect, made so much of by the Anselmic theory. But the Ethical + theory claims that all these other theories require, as a + presupposition for their effective working, that ethical + satisfaction to the holiness of God which is rendered in guilty + human nature by the Son of God who took that nature to redeem it. + + +(_c_) It most fully meets the requirements of Scripture, by holding that +the necessity of the atonement is absolute, since it rests upon the +demands of immanent holiness, the fundamental attribute of God. + + + _Acts 17:3_—“_it behooved the Christ to suffer, and to rise again + from the dead_”—lit.: “_it was necessary for the Christ to + suffer_”; _Luke 24:26_—“_Behooved it not the Christ to suffer + these things, and to enter into his glory?_”—lit.: “_Was it not + necessary that the Christ should suffer these things?_” It is not + enough to say that Christ must suffer in order that the prophecies + might be fulfilled. Why was it prophesied that he should suffer? + Why did God purpose that he should suffer? The ultimate necessity + is a necessity in the nature of God. + + Plato, Republic, 2:361—“The righteous man who is thought to be + unrighteous will be scourged, racked, bound; will have his eyes + put out; and finally, having endured all sorts of evil, will be + impaled.” This means that, as human society is at present + constituted, even a righteous person must suffer for the sins of + the world. “Mors mortis Morti mortem nisi morte dedisset, Æternæ + vitæ janua clausa foret”—“Had not the Death-of-death to Death his + death-blow given, Forever closed were the gate, the gate of life + and heaven.” + + +(_d_) It shows most satisfactorily how the demands of holiness are met; +namely, by the propitiatory offering of one who is personally pure, but +who by union with the human race has inherited its guilt and penalty. + + + “_Quo non ascendam?_”—“Whither shall I not rise?” exclaimed the + greatest minister of modern kings, in a moment of intoxication. + “Whither shall I not stoop?” says the Lord Jesus. King Humbert, + during the scourge of cholera in Italy: “In Castellammare they + make merry; in Naples they die: I go to Naples.” + + Wrightnour: “The illustration of Powhatan raising his club to slay + John Smith, while Pocahontas flings herself between the uplifted + club and the victim, is not a good one. God is not an angry being, + bound to strike something, no matter what. If Powhatan could have + taken the blow himself, out of a desire to spare the victim, it + would be better. The Father and the Son are one. Bronson Alcott, + in his school at Concord, when punishment was necessary, sometimes + placed the rod in the hand of the offender and bade him strike his + (Alcott’s) hand, rather than that the law of the school should be + broken without punishment following. The result was that very few + rules were broken. So God in Christ bore the sins of the world, + and endured the penalty for man’s violation of his law.” + + +(_e_) It furnishes the only proper explanation of the sacrificial language +of the New Testament, and of the sacrificial rites of the Old, considered +as prophetic of Christ’s atoning work. + + + Foster, Christian Life and Theology, 207-211—“The imposition of + hands on the head of the victim is entirely unexplained, except in + the account of the great day of Atonement, when by the same + gesture and by distinct confession the sins of the people were + ‘_put upon the head of the goat_’ (_Lev. 16:21_) to be borne away + into the wilderness. The blood was sacred and was to be poured out + before the Lord, evidently in place of the forfeited life of the + sinner which should have been rendered up.” Watts, New + Apologetics, 205—“ ‘_The Lord will provide_’ was the truth taught + when Abraham found a ram provided by God which he ‘_offered up as + a burnt offering in the stead of his son_’ (_Gen. 22:13, 14_). As + the ram was not Abraham’s ram, the sacrifice of it could not teach + that all Abraham had belonged to God, and should, with entire + faith in his goodness, be devoted to him; but it did teach that + ‘_apart from shedding of blood there is no remission_’ (_Heb. + 9:22_).” _2 Chron. 29:27_—“_when the burnt offering began, the + song of Jehovah began also._” + + +(_f_) It alone gives proper place to the death of Christ as the central +feature of his work,—set forth in the ordinances, and of chief power in +Christian experience. + + + Martin Luther, when he had realized the truth of the Atonement, + was found sobbing before a crucifix and moaning: “Für mich! für + mich!”—“For me! for me!” Elisha Kane, the Arctic explorer, while + searching for signs of Sir John Franklin and his party, sent out + eight or ten men to explore the surrounding region. After several + days three returned, almost crazed with the cold—thermometer fifty + degrees below zero—and reported that the other men were dying + miles away. Dr. Kane organized a company of ten, and though + suffering himself with an old heart-trouble, led them to the + rescue. Three times he fainted during the eighteen hours of + marching and suffering; but he found the men. “We knew you would + come! we knew you would come, brother!” whispered one of them, + hardly able to speak. Why was he sure Dr. Kane would come? Because + he knew the stuff Dr. Kane was made of, and knew that he would + risk his life for any one of them. It is a parable of Christ’s + relation to our salvation. He is our elder brother, bone of our + bone and flesh of our flesh, and he not only risks death, but he + endures death, in order to save us. + + +(_g_) It gives us the only means of understanding the sufferings of Christ +in the garden and on the cross, or of reconciling them with the divine +justice. + + + Kreibig, Versöhnungslehre: “Man has a guilt that demands the + punitive sufferings of a mediator. Christ shows a suffering that + cannot be justified except by reference to some other guilt than + his own. Combine these two facts, and you have the problem of the + atonement solved.” J. G. Whittier: “Through all the depths of sin + and loss Drops the plummet of the Cross; Never yet abyss was found + Deeper than the Cross could sound.” Alcestis purchased life for + Admetus her husband by dying in his stead; Marcus Curtius saved + Rome by leaping into the yawning chasm; the Russian servant threw + himself to the wolves to rescue his master. Berdoe, Robert + Browning, 47—“To know God as the theist knows him may suffice for + pure spirits, for those who have never sinned, suffered, nor felt + the need of a Savior; but for fallen and sinful men the Christ of + Christianity is an imperative necessity; and those who have never + surrendered themselves to him have never known what it is to + experience the rest he gives to the heavy-laden soul.” + + +(_h_) As no other theory does, this view satisfies the ethical demand of +human nature; pacifies the convicted conscience; assures the sinner that +he may find instant salvation in Christ; and so makes possible a new life +of holiness, while at the same time it furnishes the highest incentives to +such a life. + + + Shedd: “The offended party (1) permits a substitution; (2) + provides a substitute; (3) substitutes himself.” George Eliot: + “Justice is like the kingdom of God; it is not without us, as a + fact; it is ‘within us,’ as a great yearning.” But it is both + without and within, and the inward is only the reflection of the + outward; the subjective demands of conscience only reflect the + objective demands of holiness. + + And yet, while this view of the atonement exalts the holiness of + God, it surpasses every other view in its moving exhibition of + God’s love—a love that is not satisfied with suffering in and with + the sinner, or with making that suffering a demonstration of God’s + regard for law; but a love that sinks itself into the sinner’s + guilt and bears his penalty,—comes down so low as to make itself + one with him in all but his depravity—makes every sacrifice but + the sacrifice of God’s holiness—a sacrifice which God could not + make, without ceasing to be God; see _1 John 4:10_—“_Herein is + love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his + Son to be the propitiation for our sins._” The soldier who had + been thought reprobate was moved to complete reform when he was + once forgiven. William Huntington, in his Autobiography, says that + one of his sharpest sensations of pain, after he had been + quickened by divine grace, was that he felt such pity for God. + Never was man abused as God has been. _Rom. 2:4_—“_the goodness of + God leadeth thee to repentance_”; _12:1_—“_the mercies of God_” + lead you “_to present your bodies a living sacrifice_”; _2 Cor. + 5:14, 15_—“_the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus + judge, that one died for all, therefore all died; and he died for + all, that they that live should no longer live unto themselves, + but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again._” The effect + of Christ’s atonement on Christian character and life may be + illustrated from the proclamation of Garabaldi: “He that loves + Italy, let him follow me! I promise him hardship, I promise him + suffering, I promise him death. But he that loves Italy, let him + follow me!” + + +D. Objections to the Ethical Theory of the Atonement. + + + On the general subject of these objections, Philippi, + Glaubenslehre, iv, 2:156-180, remarks: (1) that it rests with God + alone to say whether he will pardon sin, and in what way he will + pardon it; (2) that human instincts are a very unsafe standard by + which to judge the procedure of the Governor of the universe; and + (3) that one plain declaration of God, with regard to the plan of + salvation, proves the fallacy and error of all reasonings against + it. We must correct our watches and clocks by astronomic + standards. + + +(_a_) That a God who does not pardon sin without atonement must lack +either omnipotence or love.—We answer, on the one hand, that God’s +omnipotence is the revelation of his nature, and not a matter of arbitrary +will; and, on the other hand, that God’s love is ever exercised +consistently with his fundamental attribute of holiness, so that while +holiness demands the sacrifice, love provides it. Mercy is shown, not by +trampling upon the claims of justice, but by vicariously satisfying them. + + + Because man does not need to avenge personal wrongs, it does not + follow that God must not. In fact, such avenging is forbidden to + us upon the ground that it belongs to God; _Rom. 12:19_—“_Avenge + not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto wrath: for it is + written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the + Lord._” But there are limits even to our passing over of offences. + Even the father must sometimes chastise; and although this + chastisement is not properly punishment, it becomes punishment, + when the father becomes a teacher or a governor. Then, other than + personal interests come in. “Because a father can forgive without + atonement, it does not follow that the state can do the same” + (Shedd). But God is more than Father, more than Teacher, more than + Governor. In him, person and right are identical. For him to let + sin go unpunished is to approve of it; which is the same as a + denial of holiness. + + Whatever pardon is granted, then, must be pardon through + punishment. Mere repentance never expiates crime, even under civil + government. The truly penitent man never feels that his repentance + constitutes a ground of acceptance; the more he repents, the more + he recognizes his need of reparation and expiation. Hence God + meets the demand of man’s conscience, as well as of his own + holiness, when he provides a substituted punishment. God shows his + love by meeting the demands of holiness, and by meeting them with + the sacrifice of himself. See Mozley on Predestination, 390. + + The publican prays, not that God may be merciful without + sacrifice, but: “_God be propitiated toward me, the sinner!_” + (_Luke 18:13_); in other words, he asks for mercy only through and + upon the ground of, sacrifice. We cannot atone to others for the + wrong we have done them, nor can we even atone to our own souls. A + third party, and an infinite being, must make atonement, as we + cannot. It is only upon the ground that God himself has made + provision for satisfying the claims of justice, that we are bidden + to forgive others. Should Othello then forgive Iago? Yes, if Iago + repents; _Luke 17:3_—“_If thy brother sin, rebuke him; and if he + repent, forgive him._” But if he does not repent? Yes, so far as + Othello’s own disposition is concerned. He must not hate Iago, but + must wish him well; _Luke 6:27_—“_Love your enemies, do good to + them that hate you, bless them that curse you, pray for them that + despitefully use you._” But he cannot receive Iago to his + fellowship till he repents. On the duty and ground of forgiving + one another, see Martineau, Seat of Authority, 613, 614; Straffen, + Hulsean Lectures on the Propitiation for Sin. + + +(_b_) That satisfaction and forgiveness are mutually exclusive.—We answer +that, since it is not a third party, but the Judge himself, who makes +satisfaction to his own violated holiness, forgiveness is still optional, +and may be offered upon terms agreeable to himself. Christ’s sacrifice is +not a pecuniary, but a penal, satisfaction. The objection is valid against +the merely commercial view of the atonement, not against the ethical view +of it. + + + Forgiveness is something beyond the mere taking away of penalty. + When a man bears the penalty of his crime, has the community no + right to be indignant with him? There is a distinction between + pecuniary and penal satisfaction. Pecuniary satisfaction has + respect only to the thing due; penal satisfaction has respect also + to the person of the offender. If pardon is a matter of justice in + God’s government, it is so only as respects Christ. To the + recipient it is only mercy. “_Faithful and righteous to forgive us + our sins_” (_1 John 1:9_)—faithful to his promise, and righteous + to Christ. Neither the atonement, nor the promise, gives the + offender any personal claim. + + Philemon must forgive Onesimus the pecuniary _debt_, when Paul + pays it; not so with the personal _injury_ Onesimus has done to + Philemon; there is no forgiveness of this, until Onesimus repents + and asks pardon. An amnesty may be offered to all, but upon + conditions. Instance Amos Lawrence’s offering to the forger the + forged paper he had bought up, upon condition that he would + confess himself bankrupt, and put all his affairs into the hands + of his benefactor. So the fact that Christ has paid our debts does + not preclude his offering to us the benefit of what he has done, + upon condition of our repentance and faith. The equivalent is not + furnished by man, but by God. God may therefore offer the results + of it upon his own terms. Did then the entire race fairly pay its + penalty when one suffered, just as all incurred the penalty when + one sinned? Yes,—all who receive their life from each—Adam on the + one hand, and Christ on the other. See under Union with Christ—its + Consequences; see also Shedd, Discourses and Essays, 295 note, + 321, and Dogm. Theol., 2:383-389; Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:614-615 + (Syst. Doct., 4:82, 83). _Versus_ Current Discussions in Theology, + 5:281. + + Hovey calls Christ’s relation to human sin a vice-penal one. Just + as vice-regal position carries with it all the responsibility, + care, and anxiety of regal authority, so does a vice-penal + relation to sin carry with it all the suffering and loss of the + original punishment. The person on whom it falls is different, but + his punishment is the same, at least in penal value. As vice-regal + authority may be superseded by regal, so vice-penal suffering, if + despised, may be superseded by the original penalty. Is there a + waste of vice-penal suffering when any are lost for whom it was + endured? On the same principle we might object to any suffering on + the part of Christ for those who refuse to be saved by him. Such + suffering may benefit others, if not those for whom it was in the + first instance endured. + + If compensation is made, it is said, there is nothing to forgive; + if forgiveness is granted, no compensation can be required. This + reminds us of Narvaez, who saw no reason for forgiving his enemies + until he had shot them all. When the offended party furnishes the + compensation, he can offer its benefits upon his own terms. Dr. + Pentecost: “A prisoner in Scotland was brought before the Judge. + As the culprit entered the box, he looked into the face of the + Judge to see if he could discover mercy there. The Judge and the + prisoner exchanged glances, and then there came a mutual + recognition. The prisoner said to himself: ‘It is all right this + time,’ for the Judge had been his classmate in Edinburgh + University twenty-five years before. When sentence was pronounced, + it was five pounds sterling, the limit of the law for the + misdemeanor charged, and the culprit was sorely disappointed as he + was led away to prison. But the Judge went at once and paid the + fine, telling the clerk to write the man’s discharge. This the + Judge delivered in person, explaining that the demands of the law + must be met, and having been met, the man was free.” + + +(_c_) That there can be no real propitiation, since the judge and the +sacrifice are one.—We answer that this objection ignores the existence of +personal relations within the divine nature, and the fact that the God-man +is distinguishable from God. The satisfaction is grounded in the +distinction of persons in the Godhead; while the love in which it +originates belongs to the unity of the divine essence. + + + The satisfaction is not rendered to a _part_ of the Godhead, for + the whole Godhead is in the Father, in a certain manner; as + omnipresence = _totus in omni parte_. So the offering is perfect, + because the whole Godhead is also in Christ (_2 Cor. 5:19_—“_God + was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself_”). Lyman Abbott + says that the word “propitiate” is used in the New Testament only + in the middle voice, to show that God propitiates himself. + Lyttelton, in Lux Mundi, 302—“The Atonement is undoubtedly a + mystery, but all forgiveness is a mystery. It avails to lift the + load of guilt that presses upon an offender. A change passes over + him that can only be described as regenerative, life-giving; and + thus the assurance of pardon, however conveyed, may be said to + obliterate in some degree the consequences of the past. 310—Christ + bore sufferings, not that we might be freed from them, for we have + deserved them, but that we might be enabled to bear them, as he + did, victoriously and in unbroken union with God.” + + +(_d_) That the suffering of the innocent for the guilty is not an +execution of justice, but an act of manifest injustice.—We answer, that +this is true only upon the supposition that the Son bears the penalty of +our sins, not voluntarily, but compulsorily; or upon the supposition that +one who is personally innocent can in no way become involved in the guilt +and penalty of others,—both of them hypotheses contrary to Scripture and +to fact. + + + The mystery of the atonement lies in the fact of unmerited + sufferings on the part of Christ. Over against this stands the + corresponding mystery of unmerited pardon to believers. We have + attempted to show that, while Christ was personally innocent, he + was so involved with others in the consequences of the Fall, that + the guilt and penalty of the race belonged to him to bear. When we + discuss the doctrine of Justification, we shall see that, by a + similar union of the believer with Christ, Christ’s justification + becomes ours. + + To one who believes in Christ as the immanent God, the life of + humanity, the Creator and Upholder of mankind, the bearing by + Christ of the just punishment of human sin seems inevitable. The + very laws of nature are only the manifestation of his holiness, + and he who thus reveals God is also subject to God’s law. The + historical process which culminated on Calvary was the + manifestation of an age-long suffering endured by Christ on + account of his connection with the race from the very first moment + of their sin. A. H. Strong, Christ in Creation, 80-83—“A God of + love and holiness must be a God of suffering just so certainly as + there is sin. Paul declares that he fills up ‘_that which is + lacking of the afflictions of Christ ... for his body’s sake, + which is the church_’ (_Col. 1:24_); in other words, Christ still + suffers in the believers who are his body. The historical + suffering indeed is ended; the agony of Golgotha is finished; the + days when joy was swallowed up in sorrow are past; death has no + more dominion over our Lord. But sorrow for sin is not ended; it + still continues and will continue so long as sin exists. But it + does not now militate against Christ’s blessedness, because the + sorrow is overbalanced and overborne by the infinite knowledge and + glory of his divine nature. Bushnell and Beecher were right when + they maintained that suffering for sin was the natural consequence + of Christ’s relation to the sinning creation. They were wrong in + mistaking the nature of that suffering and in not seeing that the + constitution of things which necessitates it, since it is the + expression of God’s holiness, gives that suffering a penal + character and makes Christ a substitutionary offering for the sins + of the world.” + + +(_e_) That there can be no transfer of punishment or merit, since these +are personal.—We answer that the idea of representation and suretyship is +common in human society and government; and that such representation and +suretyship are inevitable, wherever there is community of life between the +innocent and the guilty. When Christ took our nature, he could not do +otherwise than take our responsibilities also. + + + Christ became responsible for the humanity with which he was + organically one. Both poets and historians have recognized the + propriety of one member of a house, or a race, answering for + another. Antigone expiates the crime of her house. Marcus Curtius + holds himself ready to die for his nation. Louis XVI has been + called a “sacrificial lamb,” offered up for the crimes of his + race. So Christ’s sacrifice is of benefit to the whole family of + man, because he is one with that family. But here is the + limitation also. It does not extend to angels, because he took not + on him the nature of angels (_Heb. 2:16_—“_For verily not of the + angels doth he take hold, but he taketh hold of the seed of + Abraham_”). + + “A strange thing happened recently in one of our courts of + justice. A young man was asked why the extreme penalty should not + be passed upon him. At that moment, a gray-haired man, his face + furrowed with sorrow, stepped into the prisoner’s box unhindered, + placed his hand affectionately upon the culprit’s shoulder, and + said: ‘Your honor, we have nothing to say. The verdict which has + been found against us is just. We have only to ask for mercy.’ + ‘We!’ There was nothing against this old father. Yet, at that + moment he lost himself. He identified his very being with that of + his wayward boy. Do you not pity the criminal son because of your + pity for his aged and sorrowing father? Because he has so + suffered, is not your demand that the son suffer somewhat + mitigated? Will not the judge modify his sentence on that account? + Nature knows no forgiveness; but human nature does; and it is not + nature, but human nature, that is made in the image of God”; see + Prof. A. S. Coats, in The Examiner, Sept. 12, 1889. + + +(_f_) That remorse, as a part of the penalty of sin, could not have been +suffered by Christ.—We answer, on the one hand, that it may not be +essential to the idea of penalty that Christ should have borne the +identical pangs which the lost would have endured; and, on the other hand, +that we do not know how completely a perfectly holy being, possessed of +super-human knowledge and love, might have felt even the pangs of remorse +for the condition of that humanity of which he was the central conscience +and heart. + + + Instance the lawyer, mourning the fall of a star of his + profession; the woman, filled with shame by the degradation of one + of her own sex; the father, anguished by his daughter’s + waywardness; the Christian, crushed by the sins of the church and + the world. The self-isolating spirit cannot conceive how perfectly + love and holiness can make their own the sin of the race of which + they are a part. + + Simon, Reconciliation, 366—“Inasmuch as the sin of the human race + culminated in the crucifixion which crowned Christ’s own + sufferings, clearly the life of humanity entering him + subconsciously must have been most completely laden with sin and + with the fear of death which is its fruit, at the very moment when + he himself was enduring death in its most terrible form. Of + necessity therefore he felt as if he were the sinner of sinners, + and cried out in agony: ‘_My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken + me?_’ (_Mat. 27:46_).” + + Christ could realize our penal condition. Beings who have a like + spiritual nature can realize and bear the spiritual sufferings of + one another. David’s sorrow was not unjust, when he cried: “_Would + I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son!_” (_2 Sam. + 18:33_). Moberly, Atonement and Personality, 117—“Is penitence + possible in the personally sinless? We answer that only one who is + perfectly sinless can perfectly repent, and this identification of + the sinless with the sinner is vital to the gospel.” Lucy Larcom: + “There be sad women, sick and poor. And those who walk in garments + soiled; Their shame, their sorrow I endure; By their defeat my + hope is foiled; The blot they bear is on my name; Who sins, and I + am not to blame?” + + +(_g_) That the sufferings of Christ, as finite in time, do not constitute +a satisfaction to the infinite demands of the law.—We answer that the +infinite dignity of the sufferer constitutes his sufferings a full +equivalent, in the eye of infinite justice. Substitution excludes identity +of suffering; it does not exclude equivalence. Since justice aims its +penalties not so much at the person as at the sin, it may admit equivalent +suffering, when this is endured in the very nature that has sinned. + + + The sufferings of a dog, and of a man, have different values. + Death is the wages of sin; and Christ, in suffering death, + suffered our penalty. Eternity of suffering is unessential to the + idea of penalty. A finite being cannot exhaust an infinite curse; + but an infinite being can exhaust it, in a few brief hours. Shedd, + Discourses and Essays, 307—“A golden eagle is worth a thousand + copper cents. The penalty paid by Christ is strictly and literally + _equivalent_ to that which the sinner would have borne, although + it is not _identical_. The vicarious bearing of it excludes the + latter.” Andrew Fuller thought Christ would have had to suffer + just as much, if only one sinner were to have been saved thereby. + + The atonement is a unique fact, only partially illustrated by debt + and penalty. Yet the terms “purchase” and “ransom” are Scriptural, + and mean simply that the justice of God punishes sin as it + deserves; and that, having determined what is deserved, God cannot + change. See Owen, quoted in Campbell on Atonement, 58, 59. + Christ’s sacrifice, since it is absolutely infinite, can have + nothing added to it. If Christ’s sacrifice satisfies the Judge of + all, it may well satisfy us. + + +(_h_) That if Christ’s passive obedience made satisfaction to the divine +justice, then his active obedience was superfluous.—We answer that the +active obedience and the passive obedience are inseparable. The latter is +essential to the former; and both are needed to secure for the sinner, on +the one hand, pardon, and, on the other hand, that which goes beyond +pardon, namely, restoration to the divine favor. The objection holds only +against a superficial and external view of the atonement. + + + For more full exposition of this point, see our treatment of + Justification; and also, Owen, in Works, 5:175-204. Both the + active and the passive obedience of Christ are insisted on by the + apostle Paul. Opposition to the Pauline theology is opposition to + the gospel of Christ. Charles Cuthbert Hall, Universal Elements of + the Christian Religion, 140—“The effects of this are already + appearing in the impoverished religious values of the sermons + produced by the younger generation of preachers, and the + deplorable decline of spiritual life and knowledge in many + churches. Results open to observation show that the movement to + simplify the Christian essence by discarding the theology of St. + Paul easily carries the teaching of the Christian pulpit to a + position where, for those who submit to that teaching, the + characteristic experiences of the Christian life became + practically impossible. The Christian sense of sin; Christian + penitence at the foot of the Cross; Christian faith in an atoning + Savior; Christian peace with God through the mediation of Jesus + Christ—these and other experiences, which were the very life of + apostles and apostolic souls, fade from the view of the ministry, + have no meaning for the younger generation.” + + +(_i_) That the doctrine is immoral in its practical tendencies, since +Christ’s obedience takes the place of ours, and renders ours +unnecessary.—We answer that the objection ignores not only the method by +which the benefits of the atonement are appropriated, namely, repentance +and faith, but also the regenerating and sanctifying power bestowed upon +all who believe. Faith in the atonement does not induce license, but +“works by love” (Gal. 5:6) and “cleanses the heart” (Acts 15:9). + + + Water is of little use to a thirsty man, if he will not drink. The + faith which accepts Christ ratifies all that Christ has done, and + takes Christ as a new principle of life. Paul bids Philemon + receive Onesimus as himself,—not the old Onesimus, but a new + Onesimus into whom the spirit of Paul has entered (_Philemon 17_). + So God receives us as new creatures in Christ. Though we cannot + earn salvation, we must take it; and this taking it involves a + surrender of heart and life which ensures union with Christ and + moral progress. + + What shall be done to the convicted murderer who tears up the + pardon which his wife’s prayers and tears have secured from the + Governor? Nothing remains but to execute the sentence of the law. + Hon. George F. Danforth, Justice of the New York State Court of + Appeals, in a private letter says: “Although it may be stated in a + general way that a pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed + for the offence and the guilt of the offender, so that in the eye + of the law he is as innocent as if he had never committed the + offence, the pardon making him as it were a new man with a new + credit and capacity, yet a delivery of the pardon is essential to + its validity, and delivery is not complete without acceptance. It + cannot be forced upon him. In that respect it is like a deed. The + delivery may be in person to the offender or to his agent, and its + acceptance may be proved by circumstances like any other fact.” + + +(_j_) That if the atonement requires faith as its complement, then it does +not in itself furnish a complete satisfaction to God’s justice.—We answer +that faith is not the ground of our acceptance with God, as the atonement +is, and so is not a work at all; faith is only the medium of +appropriation. We are saved not by faith, or on account of faith, but only +through faith. It is not faith, but the atonement which faith accepts, +that satisfies the justice of God. + + + Illustrate by the amnesty granted to a city, upon conditions to be + accepted by each inhabitant. The acceptance is not the ground upon + which the amnesty is granted; it is the medium through which the + benefits of the amnesty are enjoyed. With regard to the + difficulties connected with the atonement, we may say, in + conclusion, with Bishop Butler: “If the Scripture has, as surely + it has, left this matter of the satisfaction of Christ mysterious, + left somewhat in it unrevealed, all conjectures about it must be, + if not evidently absurd, yet at least uncertain. Nor has any one + reason to complain for want of further information, unless he can + show his claim to it.” While we cannot say with President Stearns: + “Christ’s work removed the hindrances in the eternal justice of + the universe to the pardon of the sinner, but _how_ we cannot + tell”—cannot say this, because we believe the main outlines of the + plan of salvation to be revealed in Scripture—yet we grant that + many questions remain unsolved. But, as bread nourishes even those + who know nothing of its chemical constituents, or of the method of + its digestion and assimilation, so the atonement of Christ saves + those who accept it, even though they do not know _how_ it saves + them. Balfour, Foundations of Belief, 264-267—“Heat was once + thought to be a form of matter; now it is regarded as a mode of + motion. We can get the good of it, whichever theory we adopt, or + even if we have no theory. So we may get the good of + reconciliation with God, even though we differ as to our theory of + the Atonement.”—“One of the Roman Emperors commanded his fleet to + bring from Alexandria sand for the arena, although his people at + Rome were visited with famine. But a certain shipmaster declared + that, whatever the emperor commanded, his ship should bring wheat. + So, whatever sand others may bring to starving human souls, let us + bring to them the wheat of the gospel—the substitutionary + atonement of Jesus Christ.” For answers to objections, see + Philippi, Glaubenslehre, iv, 2:156-180; Crawford, Atonement, + 384-468; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:526-543; Baird, Elohim Revealed, + 623 sq.; Wm. Thomson, The Atoning Work of Christ; Hopkins, Works, + 1:321. + + +E. The Extent of the Atonement. + + +The Scriptures represent the atonement as having been made for all men, +and as sufficient for the salvation of all. Not the _atonement_ therefore +is limited, but the _application_ of the atonement through the work of the +Holy Spirit. + +Upon this principle of a universal atonement, but a special application of +it to the elect, we must interpret such passages as Eph. 1:4, 7; 2 Tim. +1:9, 10; John 17:9, 20, 24—asserting a special efficacy of the atonement +in the case of the elect; and also such passages as 2 Pet. 2:1; 1 John +2:2; Tim. 2:6; 4:10; Tit. 2:11—asserting that the death of Christ is for +all. + + + Passages asserting special efficacy of the atonement, in the case + of the elect, are the following: _Eph. 1:4_—“_chose us in him + before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and + without __ blemish before him in love_”; _7_—“_in whom we have our + redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, + according to the riches of his grace_”; _2 Tim. 1:9, 10_—God “_who + saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our + works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given + us in Christ Jesus before times eternal, but hath now been + manifested by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who + abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through + the gospel_”; _John 17:9_—“_I pray for them: I pray not for the + world, but for those whom thou hast given me_”; _20_—“_Neither for + these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through + their word_”; _24_—“_Father, that which thou hast given me, I + desire that where I am, they also may be with me; that they may + beheld my glory, which thou hast given me._” + + Passages asserting that the death of Christ is for all are the + following: _2 Pet 2:1_—“_false teachers, who shall privily bring + in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought + them_”; _1 John 2:2_—“_and he is the propitiation for our sins; + and not for ours only, but also for the whole world_”; _1 Tim. + 2:6_—Christ Jesus “_who gave himself a ransom for all_”; + _4:10_—“_the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially + of them that believe_”; _Tit. 2:11_—“_For the grace of God hath + appeared, bringing salvation to all men._” _Rom. 3:22_ (A. + V.)—“_unto all and upon all them that believe_”—has sometimes been + interpreted as meaning “unto all men, and upon all believers” (εἰς + = destination; ἐπί = extent). But the Rev. Vers. omits the words + “_and upon all_,” and Meyer, who retains the words, remarks that + τοῦς πιστεύοντας belongs to πάντας in both instances. + + Unconscious participation in the atonement of Christ, by virtue of + our common humanity in him, makes us the heirs of much temporal + blessing. Conscious participation in the atonement of Christ, by + virtue of our faith in him and his work for us, gives us + justification and eternal life. Matthew Henry said that the + Atonement is “sufficient for all; effectual for many.” J. M. + Whiton, in The Outlook, Sept. 25, 1897—“It was Samuel Hopkins of + Rhode Island (1721-1803) who first declared that Christ had made + atonement for all men, not for the elect part alone, as Calvinists + affirmed.” We should say “as some Calvinists affirmed”; for, as we + shall see, John Calvin himself declared that “Christ suffered for + the sins of the whole world.” Alfred Tennyson once asked an old + Methodist woman what was the news. “Why, Mr. Tennyson, there’s + only one piece of news that I know,—that Christ died for all men.” + And he said to her; “That is old news, and good news, and new + news.” + + +If it be asked in what sense Christ is the Savior of all men, we reply: + +(_a_) That the atonement of Christ secures for all men a delay in the +execution of the sentence against sin, and a space for repentance, +together with a continuance of the common blessings of life which have +been forfeited by transgression. + + + If strict justice had been executed, the race would have been cut + off at the first sin. That man lives after sinning, is due wholly + to the Cross. There is a pretermission, or “_passing over of the + sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God_” (_Rom. 3:25_), + the justification of which is found only in the sacrifice of + Calvary. This “_passing over_,” however, is limited in its + duration: see _Acts 17:30, 31_—“_The times of ignorance therefore + God overlooked; but now he commandeth men that they should all + everywhere repent: inasmuch as he hath appointed a day in which he + will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath + ordained._” + + One may get the benefit of the law of gravitation without + understanding much about its nature, and patriarchs and heathen + have doubtless been saved through Christ’s atonement, although + they have never heard his name, but have only cast themselves as + helpless sinners upon the mercy of God. That mercy of God was + Christ, though they did not know it. Our modern pious Jews will + experience a strange surprise when they find that not only + forgiveness of sin but every other blessing of life has come to + them through the crucified Jesus. _Matt. 8:11_—“_many shall come + from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and + Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven._” + + Dr. G.W. Northrop held that the work of Christ is universal in + three respects: 1. It reconciled God to the whole race, apart from + personal transgression; 2. It secured the bestowment upon all of + common grace, and the means of common grace; 3. It rendered + certain the bestowment of eternal life upon all who would so use + common grace and the means of common grace as to make it morally + possible for God as a wise and holy Governor to grant his special + and renewing grace. + + +(_b_) That the atonement of Christ has made objective provision for the +salvation of all, by removing from the divine mind every obstacle to the +pardon and restoration of sinners, except their wilful opposition to God +and refusal to turn to him. + + + Van Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 604—“On God’s side, all is now taken + away which could make a separation,—unless any should themselves + choose to remain separated from him.” The gospel message is not: + God will forgive if you return; but rather: God _has_ shown mercy; + only believe, and it is your portion in Christ. + + Ashmore, The New Trial of the Sinner, in Christian Review, + 26:245-264—“The atonement has come to all men and upon all men. + Its coëxtensiveness with the effects of Adam’s sin is seen in that + all creatures, such as infants and insane persons, incapable of + refusing it, are saved without their consent, just as they were + involved in the sin of Adam without their consent. The reason why + others are not saved is because when the atonement comes to them + and upon them, instead of consenting to be included in it, they + reject it. If they are born under the curse, so likewise they are + born under the atonement which is intended to remove that curse; + they remain under its shelter till they are old enough to + repudiate it; they shut out its influences as a man closes his + window-blind to shut out the beams of the sun; they ward them off + by direct opposition, as a man builds dykes around his field to + keep out the streams which would otherwise flow in and fertilize + the soil.” + + +(_c_) That the atonement of Christ has procured for all men the powerful +incentives to repentance presented in the Cross, and the combined agency +of the Christian church and of the Holy Spirit, by which these incentives +are brought to bear upon them. + + + Just as much sun and rain would be needed, if only one farmer on + earth were to be benefited. Christ would not need to suffer more, + if all were to be saved. His sufferings, as we have seen, were not + the payment of a pecuniary debt. Having endured the penalty of the + sinner, justice permits the sinner’s discharge, but does not + require it, except as the fulfilment of a promise to his + substitute, and then only upon the appointed condition of + repentance and faith. The _atonement_ is unlimited,—the whole + human race might be saved through it; the _application_ of the + atonement is limited,—only those who repent and believe are + actually saved by it. + + Robert G. Farley: “The prospective mother prepares a complete and + beautiful outfit for her expected child. But the child is + still-born. Yet the outfit was prepared just the same as if it had + lived. And Christ’s work is completed as much for one man as for + another, as much for the unbeliever as for the believer.” + + +Christ is specially the Savior of those who believe, in that he exerts a +special power of his Spirit to procure their acceptance of his salvation. +This is not, however, a part of his work of atonement; it is the +application of the atonement, and as such is hereafter to be considered. + + + Among those who hold to a limited atonement is Owen. Campbell + quotes him as saying: “Christ did not die for all the sins of all + men; for if this were so, why are not all freed from the + punishment of all their sins? You will say, ‘Because of their + unbelief,—they will not believe.’ But this unbelief is a sin, and + Christ was punished for it. Why then does this, more than other + sins, hinder them from partaking of the fruits of his death?” + + So also Turretin, loc. 4, quæs. 10 and 17; Symington, Atonement, + 184-234; Candlish on the Atonement; Cunningham, Hist. Theol., + 2:323-370; Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:464-489. For the view presented + in the text, see Andrew Fuller, Works, 2:373, 374; 689-698; + 706-709; Wardlaw, Syst. Theol., 2:485-549; Jenkyn, Extent of the + Atonement; E. P. Griffin, Extent of the Atonement; Woods, Works, + 2:490-521; Richards, Lectures on Theology, 302-327. + + +2. Christ’s Intercessory Work. + + +The Priesthood of Christ does not cease with his work of atonement, but +continues forever. In the presence of God he fulfils the second office of +the priest, namely that of intercession. + + + _Heb. 7:23-25_—“_priests many in number, because that by death + they are hindered from continuing: but he, because he abideth + forever, hath his priesthood unchangeable. Wherefore also he is + able to save to the uttermost them that draw near onto God through + him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them._” C. H. + M. on _Ex. 17:12_—“The hands of our great Intercessor never hang + down, as Moses’ did, nor does he need any one to hold them up. The + same rod of God’s power which was used by Moses to smite the rock + (Atonement) was in Moses’ hand on the hill (Intercession).” + + Denney’s Studies in Theology, 166—“If we see nothing unnatural in + the fact that Christ prayed for Peter on earth, we need not make + any difficulty about his praying for us in heaven. The relation is + the same; the only difference is that Christ is now exalted, and + prays, not with strong crying and tears, but in the sovereignty + and prevailing power of one who has achieved eternal redemption + for his people.” + + +A. Nature of Christ’s Intercession.—This is not to be conceived of either +as an external and vocal petitioning, nor as a mere figure of speech for +the natural and continuous influence of his sacrifice; but rather as a +special activity of Christ in securing, upon the ground of that sacrifice, +whatever of blessing comes to men, whether that blessing be temporal or +spiritual. + + + _1 John 2:1_—“_if any man sin, we have an advocate with the + Father, Jesus Christ the righteous_”; _Rom. 8:34_—“_It is Jesus + Christ that died, yea rather, that was raised from the dead, who + is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for + us_”—here Meyer seems to favor the meaning of external and vocal + petitioning, as of the glorified God-man: _Heb. 7:25_—“_ever + liveth to make intercession for them._” On the ground of this + effectual intercession he can pronounce the true sacerdotal + _benediction_; and all the benedictions of his ministers and + apostles are but fruits and emblems of this (see the Aaronic + benediction in _Num. 6:24-26_, and the apostolic benedictions in + _1 Cor. 1:3_ and _2 Cor. 13:14_). + + +B. Objects of Christ’s Intercession.—We may distinguish (_a_) that general +intercession which secures to all men certain temporal benefits of his +atoning work, and (_b_) that special intercession which secures the divine +acceptance of the persons of believers and the divine bestowment of all +gifts needful for their salvation. + + + (_a_) General intercession for all men: _Is. 53:12_—“_he bare the + sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors_”; _Luke + 23:34_—“_And Jesus said, Father, forgive them; for they know not + what they do_”—a beginning of his priestly intercession, even + while he was being nailed to the cross. + + (_b_) Special intercession for his saints: _Mat. 18:19, 20_—“_if + two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they + shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in + heaven. For when two or three are gathered together in my name, + there am I in the midst of them_”; _Luke 22:31, 32_—“_Simon, + Simon, behold, Satan asked to have you, that he might sift you as + wheat: but I made supplication for thee, that thy faith fail + not_”; _John 14:16_—“_I will pray the Father, and he shall give + you another Comforter_”; _17:9_—“_I pray for them; I pray not for + the world, but for those whom thou hast given me_”; _Acts + 2:33_—“_Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and + having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he + hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear_”; _Eph. 1:6_—“_the + glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the + Beloved_”; _2:18_—“_through him we both have our access in one + Spirit unto the Father_”; _3:12_—“_in whom we have boldness and + access in confidence through our faith in him_”; _Heb. 2:17, + 18_—“_Wherefore it behooved him in all things to be made like unto + his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high + priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the + sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being + tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted_”; _4:15, + 16_—“_For we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with + the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all + points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore + draw near with boldness unto the throne of grace, that we may + receive mercy, and may find grace to help as in time of need_”; _1 + Pet 2:5_—“_a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, + acceptable to God through Jesus Christ_”; _Rev. 5:6_—“_And I saw + in the midst of the throne ... a Lamb standing, as though it had + been slain, having seven horns, and seven eyes, which are the + seven Spirits of God, sent forth into all the earth_”; _7:16, + 17_—“_They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither + shall the sun strike upon them, nor any heat: for the lamb that is + in the midst of the throne shall be their shepherd, and shall + guide them unto fountains of waters of life: and God shall wipe + away every tear from their eyes._” + + +C. Relation of Christ’s Intercession to that of the Holy Spirit.—The Holy +Spirit is an advocate within us, teaching us how to pray as we ought; +Christ is an advocate in heaven, securing from the Father the answer of +our prayers. Thus the work of Christ and of the Holy Spirit are +complements to each other, and parts of one whole. + + + _John 14:26_—“_But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the + Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and + bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you_”; _Rom. + 8:26_—“_And in like manner the Spirit __ also helpeth our + infirmity: for we know not how to pray as we ought; but the Spirit + himself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be + uttered_”; _27_—“_and he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is + the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the + saints according to the will of God._” + + The intercession of the Holy Spirit may be illustrated by the work + of the mother, who teaches her child to pray by putting words into + his mouth or by suggesting subjects for prayer. “The whole Trinity + is present in the Christian’s closet; the Father hears; the Son + advocates his cause at the Father’s right hand; the Holy Spirit + intercedes in the heart of the believer.” Therefore “When God + inclines the heart to pray, He hath an ear to hear.” The impulse + to prayer, within our hearts, is evidence that Christ is urging + our claims in heaven. + + +D. Relation of Christ’s Intercession to that of saints.—All true +intercession is either directly or indirectly the intercession of Christ. +Christians are organs of Christ’s Spirit. To suppose Christ in us to offer +prayer to one of his saints, instead of directly to the Father, is to +blaspheme Christ, and utterly misconceive the nature of prayer. + + + Saints on earth, by their union with Christ, the great high + priest, are themselves constituted intercessors; and as the high + priest of old bore upon his bosom the breastplate engraven with + the names of the tribes of Israel (_Ex. 28:9-12_), so the + Christian is to bear upon his heart in prayer before God the + interests of his family, the church, and the world (_1 Tim. + 3:1_—“_I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, + prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings be made for all men_”). See + Symington on Intercession, in Atonement and Intercession, 256-308; + Milligan, Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood of our Lord. + + Luckock, After Death, finds evidence of belief in the intercession + of the saints in heaven as early as the second century. Invocation + of the saints he regards as beginning not earlier than the fourth + century. He approves the doctrine that the saints pray _for us_, + but rejects the doctrine that we are to pray _to them_. Prayers + _for_ the dead he strongly advocates. Bramhall, Works, + 1:57—Invocation of the saints is “not necessary, for two reasons: + _first_, no saint doth love us so well as Christ: no saint hath + given us such assurance of his love, or done so much for us as + Christ; no saint is so willing to help us as Christ; and + _secondly_, we have no command from God to invocate them.” A. B. + Cave: “The system of human mediation falls away in the advent to + our souls of the living Christ. Who wants stars, or even the moon, + after the sun is up?” + + +III. The Kingly Office of Christ. + + +This is to be distinguished from the sovereignty which Christ originally +possessed in virtue of his divine nature. Christ’s kingship is the +sovereignty of the divine-human Redeemer, which belonged to him of right +from the moment of his birth, but which was fully exercised only from the +time of his entrance upon the state of exaltation. By virtue of this +kingly office, Christ rules all things in heaven and earth, for the glory +of God and the execution of God’s purpose of salvation. + +(_a_) With respect to the universe at large, Christ’s kingdom is a kingdom +of power; he upholds, governs, and judges the world. + + + _Ps. 2:6-8_—“_I have set my king.... Thou art my son.... uttermost + parts of the earth for thy possession_”; _8:6_—“_madest him to + have dominion over the works of thy hands; Thou hast put all + things under his feet_”; _cf._ _Heb. 2:8, 9_—“_we see not yet all + things subjected to him. But we beheld ... Jesus ... crowned with + glory and honor_”; _Mat. 25:31, 32_—“_when the Son of man shall + come in his glory ... then shall he sit on the throne of his + glory: and before him shall be gathered all the nations_”; + _28:18_—“_All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on + earth_”; _Heb. 1:3_—“_upholding all things by the word of his + power_”; _Rev. 19:15, 16_—“_smite the nations ... rule them with a + rod of iron ... King of Kings, and Lord of Lords._” + + Julius Müller, Proof-texts, 34, says incorrectly, as we think, + that “the _regnum naturæ_ of the old theology is + unsupported,—there are only the _regnum gratiæ_ and the _regnum + gloriæ_.” A. J. Gordon: “Christ is now creation’s sceptre-bearer, + as he was once creation’s burden-bearer.” + + +(_b_) With respect to his militant church, it is a kingdom of grace; he +founds, legislates for, administers, defends, and augments his church on +earth. + + + _Luke 2:11_—“_born to you ... a Savior, who is Christ the lord_”; + _19:38_—“_Blessed is the King that cometh in the name of the + Lord_”; _John 18:36, 37_—“_My kingdom is not of this world.... + Thou sayest it, for I am a king.... Every one that is of the truth + heareth my voice_”; _Eph. 1:22_—“_he put all things in subjection + under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the + church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in + all_”; _Heb. 1:8_—“_of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for + ever and ever._” + + Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:677 (Syst. Doct., 4:142, 143)—“All great + men can be said to have an after-influence (_Nachwirkung_) after + their death, but only of Christ can it be said that he has an + after-activity (_Fortwirkung_). The sending of the Spirit is part + of Christ’s work as King.” P. S. Moxom, Bap. Quar. Rev., Jan. + 1886:25-36—“Preëminence of Christ, as source of the church’s + being; ground of the church’s unity; source of the church’s law; + mould of the church’s life.” A. J. Gordon: “As the church endures + hardness and humiliation as united to him who was on the cross, so + she should exhibit something of supernatural energy as united with + him who is on the throne.” Luther: “We tell our Lord God, that if + he will have his church, he must look after it himself. We cannot + sustain it, and, if we could, we should become the proudest asses + under heaven.... If it had been possible for pope, priest or + minister to destroy the church of Jesus Christ, it would have been + destroyed long ago.” Luther, watching the proceedings of the Diet + of Augsburg, made a noteworthy discovery. He saw the stars bestud + the canopy of the sky, and though there were no pillars to hold + them up they kept their place and the sky fell not. The business + of holding up the sky and its stars has been on the minds of men + in all ages. But we do not need to provide props to hold up the + sky. God will look after his church and after Christian doctrine. + For of Christ it has been written in _1 Cor. 15:25_—“_For he must + reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet._” + + “Thrice blessed is he to whom is given The instinct that can tell + That God is in the field when he Is most invisible.” Since Christ + is King, it is a duty never to despair of church or of the world. + Dr. E. G. Robinson declared that Christian character was never + more complete than now, nor more nearly approaching the ideal man. + We may add that modern education, modern commerce, modern + invention, modern civilization, are to be regarded as the + revelations of Christ, the Light of the world, and the Ruler of + the nations. All progress of knowledge, government, society, is + progress of his truth, and a prophecy of the complete + establishment of his kingdom. + + +(_c_) With respect to his church triumphant, it is a kingdom of glory; he +rewards his redeemed people with the full revelation of himself, upon the +completion of his kingdom in the resurrection and the judgment. + + + _John 17:24_—“_Father, that which thou hast given me, I desire + that where I am, they also may be with me, that they may behold my + glory_”; _1 Pet. 3:21, 22_—“_Jesus Christ; who is on the right + hand of God, having gone into heaven; angels and authorities and + powers being made subject unto him_”; _2 Pet. 1:11_—“_thus shall + be richly supplied unto you the entrance into the eternal kingdom + of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ._” See Andrew Murray, With + Christ in the School of Prayer, preface, vi—“_Rev. 1:6_—‘_made us + to be a kingdom, to be priests unto his God and Father._’ ” Both + in the king and the priest, the chief thing is power, influence, + blessing. In the king, it is the power coming downward; in the + priest, it is the power rising upward, prevailing with God. As in + Christ, so in us, the kingly power is founded on the priestly: + _Heb. 7:25_—“_able to save to the uttermost, ... seeing he ever + liveth to make intercession_”. + + Watts, New Apologetic, preface, ix—“We cannot have Christ as King + without having him also as Priest. It is as the Lamb that he sits + upon the throne in the Apocalypse; as the Lamb that he conducts + his conflict with the kings of the earth; and it is from the + throne of God on which the Lamb appears that the water of life + flows forth that carries refreshing throughout the Paradise of + God.” + + Luther: “Now Christ reigns, not in visible, public manner, but + through the word, just as we see the sun through a cloud. We see + the light, but not the sun itself. But when the clouds are gone, + then we see at the same time both light and sun.” We may close our + consideration of Christ’s Kingship with two practical remarks: 1. + We never can think too much of the cross, but we may think too + little of the throne. 2. We can not have Christ as our Prophet or + our Priest, unless we take him also as our King. On Christ’s + Kingship, see Philippi, Glaubenslehre, IV, 2:342-351; Van + Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 586 sq.; Garbett, Christ as Prophet, Priest, + and King, 2:243-438; J. M. Mason, Sermon on Messiah’s Throne, in + Works, 3:241-275. + + + + + + +***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY (VOLUME 2 OF 3)*** + + + +CREDITS + + +December 31, 2013 + + Project Gutenberg TEI edition 1 + Produced by Colin Bell, CCEL, David King, and the Online + Distributed Proofreading Team at <http://www.pgdp.net/>. + + + +A WORD FROM PROJECT GUTENBERG + + +This file should be named 44555‐0.txt or 44555‐0.zip. + +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + + + http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/4/4/5/5/44555/ + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one — the old editions will be +renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no one +owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and +you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission +and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the +General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and +distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the Project +Gutenberg™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered +trademark, and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you +receive specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of +this eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook +for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, +performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given away +— you may do practically _anything_ with public domain eBooks. +Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE + + +_Please read this before you distribute or use this work._ + +To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or +any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), +you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ +License (available with this file or online at +http://www.gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. + + +General Terms of Use & Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works + + +1.A. + + +By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, +you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the +terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) +agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this +agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of +Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee +for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work +and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may +obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set +forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + + +1.B. + + +“Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or +associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be +bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can +do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying +with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are +a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you +follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to +Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. + + +1.C. + + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or +PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual +work is in the public domain in the United States and you are located in +the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, +distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on +the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of +course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of +promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project +Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for +keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can +easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the +same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you +share it without charge with others. + + +1.D. + + +The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you +can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant +state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of +your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before +downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating +derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. +The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of +any work in any country outside the United States. + + +1.E. + + +Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + + +1.E.1. + + +The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access +to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever +any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase +“Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” +is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or +distributed: + + + This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with + almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away + or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License + included with this eBook or online at http://www.gutenberg.org + + +1.E.2. + + +If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from the +public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with +permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and +distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or +charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the +phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you +must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 +or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ +trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + + +1.E.3. + + +If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the +permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply +with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed +by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project +Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the +copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + + +1.E.4. + + +Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License +terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any +other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. + + +1.E.5. + + +Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic +work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying +the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate +access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License. + + +1.E.6. + + +You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, +marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word +processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than +“Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted +on the official Project Gutenberg™ web site (http://www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. +Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as +specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + + +1.E.7. + + +Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, +copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply +with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + + +1.E.8. + + +You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or +distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that + + - You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you + already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to + the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to + donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg + Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 + days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally + required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments + should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg + Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, + “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary + Archive Foundation.” + + - You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. + You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the + works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and + all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works. + + - You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of + any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of + receipt of the work. + + - You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. + + +1.E.9. + + +If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic +work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this +agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from both the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael Hart, the owner of the +Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in +Section 3 below. + + +1.F. + + +1.F.1. + + +Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to +identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread public domain +works in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these +efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they +may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, +incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright +or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk +or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot +be read by your equipment. + + +1.F.2. + + +LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES — Except for the “Right of +Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ +trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ +electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for +damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE +NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH +OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE +FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT +WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, +PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY +OF SUCH DAMAGE. + + +1.F.3. + + +LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND — If you discover a defect in this +electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund +of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to +the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a +physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. +The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect +to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the +work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose +to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in +lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a +refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem. + + +1.F.4. + + +Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in +paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ’AS-IS,’ WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + + +1.F.5. + + +Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the +exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or +limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state +applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make +the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state +law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement +shall not void the remaining provisions. + + +1.F.6. + + +INDEMNITY — You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark +owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of +Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and +any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution +of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs +and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from +any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of +this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or +additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect +you cause. + + +Section 2. + + + Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ + + +Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic +works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including +obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the +efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks +of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance +they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring +that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for +generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for +Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations +can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation web page at +http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. + + + Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation + + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of +Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. +The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. +Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/pglaf. Contributions to the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full +extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws. + +The Foundation’s principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. +S. Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809 North +1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact information +can be found at the Foundation’s web site and official page at +http://www.pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + + + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. + + + Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive + Foundation + + +Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without wide spread +public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the +number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed +in machine readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment +including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are +particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. +Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable +effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these +requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not +received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or +determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit +http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have +not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against +accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us +with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any +statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the +United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation methods +and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including +checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please +visit: http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate + + +Section 5. + + + General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. + + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with +anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ +eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + +Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, +all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. unless a copyright +notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance +with any particular paper edition. + +Each eBook is in a subdirectory of the same number as the eBook’s eBook +number, often in several formats including plain vanilla ASCII, compressed +(zipped), HTML and others. + +Corrected _editions_ of our eBooks replace the old file and take over the +old filename and etext number. The replaced older file is renamed. +_Versions_ based on separate sources are treated as new eBooks receiving +new filenames and etext numbers. + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + + http://www.gutenberg.org + + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how +to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, +how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email +newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + + + + + +***FINIS*** +
\ No newline at end of file |