diff options
Diffstat (limited to '44555-tei')
| -rw-r--r-- | 44555-tei/44555-tei.tei | 34452 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 44555-tei/images/cover.jpg | bin | 0 -> 51189 bytes |
2 files changed, 34452 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/44555-tei/44555-tei.tei b/44555-tei/44555-tei.tei new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d15e0c7 --- /dev/null +++ b/44555-tei/44555-tei.tei @@ -0,0 +1,34452 @@ +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?> + +<!DOCTYPE TEI.2 SYSTEM "http://www.gutenberg.org/tei/marcello/0.4/dtd/pgtei.dtd" [ + +<!ENTITY u5 "http://www.tei-c.org/Lite/"> + +]> + +<TEI.2 lang="en"> +<teiHeader> + <fileDesc> + <titleStmt> + <title>Systematic Theology (Volume 2 of 3)</title> + <title type="sub">The Doctrine of Man</title> + <author><name reg="Strong, Augustus Hopkins">Augustus Hopkins Strong</name></author> + </titleStmt> + <editionStmt> + <edition n="1">Edition 1</edition> + </editionStmt> + <publicationStmt> + <publisher>Project Gutenberg</publisher> + <date>December 31, 2013</date> + <idno type="etext-no">44555</idno> + <availability> + <p>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 online at www.gutenberg.org/license</p> + </availability> + </publicationStmt> + <sourceDesc> + <bibl> + Created electronically. + </bibl> + </sourceDesc> + </fileDesc> + <encodingDesc> + </encodingDesc> + <profileDesc> + <langUsage> + <language id="en"></language> + <language id="la"></language> + <language id="he"></language> + <language id="de"></language> + <language id="fr"></language> + <language id="el"></language> + <language id="ar"></language> + </langUsage> + </profileDesc> + <revisionDesc> + <change> + <date value="2013-12-31">December 31, 2013</date> + <respStmt> + <name> + Produced by Colin Bell, CCEL, David King, and the Online + Distributed Proofreading Team at <http://www.pgdp.net/>. + </name> + </respStmt> + <item>Project Gutenberg TEI edition 1</item> + </change> + </revisionDesc> +</teiHeader> + +<pgExtensions> + <pgStyleSheet> + .boxed { x-class: boxed } + .shaded { x-class: shaded } + .rules { x-class: rules; rules: all } + .indent { margin-left: 2 } + .bold { font-weight: bold } + .italic { font-style: italic } + .smallcaps { font-variant: small-caps } + </pgStyleSheet> + + <pgCharMap formats="txt.iso-8859-1"> + <char id="U0x2014"> + <charName>mdash</charName> + <desc>EM DASH</desc> + <mapping>--</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x2003"> + <charName>emsp</charName> + <desc>EM SPACE</desc> + <mapping> </mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x2026"> + <charName>hellip</charName> + <desc>HORIZONTAL ELLIPSIS</desc> + <mapping>...</mapping> + </char> + </pgCharMap> +</pgExtensions> + +<text lang="en"> + <front> + <div> + <divGen type="pgheader" /> + </div> + <div> + <divGen type="encodingDesc" /> + </div> + + <div rend="page-break-before: always"> + <p rend="font-size: xx-large; text-align: center">Systematic Theology</p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center">A Compendium and Commonplace-Book</p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center">Designed For The Use Of Theological Students</p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center">By</p> + <p rend="font-size: x-large; text-align: center">Augustus Hopkins Strong, D.D., LL.D.</p> + <p rend="text-align: center">President and Professor of Biblical Theology in the Rochester Theological Seminary</p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center">Revised and Enlarged</p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center">In Three Volumes</p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center">Volume 2</p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center">The Doctrine of Man</p> + <p rend="text-align: center">The Judson Press</p> + <p rend="text-align: center">Philadelphia</p> + <p rend="text-align: center">1907</p> + </div> + <div rend="page-break-before: always"> + <head>Contents</head> + <divGen type="toc" /> + </div> + + </front> +<body> + +<div> +<p rend='text-align: center'> +<figure url='images/cover.jpg' rend='width: 40%'> +<figDesc>Cover Art</figDesc> +</figure> +</p> +<p> +[Transcriber's Note: The above cover image was produced by the submitter at +Distributed Proofreaders, and is being placed into the public domain.] +</p> +</div> + +<pb n='v'/><anchor id='Pgv'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> + +<p> +Christo Deo Salvatori. +</p> + +<p> +<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>The eye sees only that which it brings with it the power +of seeing.</hi></q>—<hi rend='italic'>Cicero.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Open thou mine eyes, that i may behold wondrous things +out of thy law.</hi></q>—<hi rend='italic'>Psalm 119:18.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>For with thee is the fountain of life: In thy light shall +we see light.</hi></q>—<hi rend='italic'>Psalm 36:9.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>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.</hi></q>—<hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 13:9, 10.</hi> +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='371'/><anchor id='Pg371'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Part IV. The Nature, Decrees, And Works of God. (Continued)</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Chapter IV. The Works Of God; Or The Execution Of The Decrees.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Section I.—Creation.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>I. Definition Of Creation.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +F. H. Johnson, in Andover Rev., March, 1891:280, and What is Reality, 285—<q>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.</q> 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: <q>Matter is nothing +more than causation; its true being is its action.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Prof. C. L. Herrick, Denison Quarterly, 1896:248, and Psychological Review, March, +1899, advocates what he calls <emph>dynamism</emph>, 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 +<emph>residing in</emph> something is to introduce an entirely incongruous concept, for it continues +our guest <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>ad infinitum</foreign>. <q>Force,</q> he says, <q>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 +<pb n='372'/><anchor id='Pg372'/> +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 <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>causa posterior</foreign> or <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>extranea</foreign>, which +spurs him on. We must recognize in the source what appears in the outcome. We +can speak of <emph>absolute</emph>, but not of <emph>infinite</emph> or <emph>immutable</emph>, substance. The Universe is but +the partial expression of an infinite God.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Our view of creation is so nearly that of Lotze, that we here condense Ten Broeke's +statement of his philosophy: <q rend='pre'>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, <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'>Space is not an extra-mental reality, <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>sui generis</foreign>, 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>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 +(<hi rend='italic'>versus</hi> Bradley, who holds that <q>body and soul alike are phenomenal arrangements, +neither one of which has any title to fact which is not owned by the other</q>). 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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +In further explanation of our definition we remark that +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) Creation is not <q>production out of nothing,</q> as if <q>nothing</q> were +a substance out of which <q>something</q> could be formed. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +We do not regard the doctrine of Creation as bound to the use of the phrase <q>creation +out of nothing,</q> 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 +<q>nothing</q> 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 <q>without use of +preëxisting materials.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<pb n='373'/><anchor id='Pg373'/> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <q>a great +sheet let down from God out of heaven,</q> and containing <q>nothing that is common or +unclean;</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Studia Biblica, 4:148—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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, <hi rend='italic'>John 1:3, 4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>All things were made through him, and without him was not anything +made. That which hath been made was life in him</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 8:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all +things</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Col. 1:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>all things have been created through him, and unto him</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 1:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Thou, Lord, in the +beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thy hands.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +John Caird, Fundamental Ideas of Christianity, 1:120—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<pb n='374'/><anchor id='Pg374'/> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>II. Proof of the Doctrine of Creation.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Drummond, in his Natural Law in the Spiritual World, claims that atoms, as <q>manufactured +articles,</q> and the dissipation of energy, prove the creation of the visible from +the invisible. See the same doctrine propounded in <q>The Unseen Universe.</q> But Sir +Charles Lyell tells us: <q>Geology is the autobiography of the earth,—but like all autobiographies, +it does not go back to the beginning.</q> Hopkins, Yale Lectures on the +Scriptural View of Man: <q>There is nothing <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>a priori</foreign> against the eternity of matter.</q> +Wardlaw, Syst. Theol., 2:65—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. Direct Scripture Statements.</head> + +<p> +A. Genesis 1:1—<q>In the beginning God created the heaven and the +earth.</q> 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 +<q>God created man in his own image</q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> 2:7—<q>the Lord God formed +man of the dust of the ground</q>; also Ps. 51:10—<q>Create in me a clean +heart</q>). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<q>In the first two chapters of Genesis ברא is used (1) of the creation of the universe +(<hi rend='italic'>1:1</hi>); (2) of the creation of the great sea monsters (<hi rend='italic'>1:21</hi>); (3) of the creation of man +(<hi rend='italic'>1:27</hi>). Everywhere else we read of God's <emph>making</emph>, as from an already created substance, +the firmament (<hi rend='italic'>1:7</hi>), the sun, moon and stars (<hi rend='italic'>1:16</hi>), the brute creation (<hi rend='italic'>1:25</hi>); or of his +<emph>forming</emph> the beasts of the field out of the ground (<hi rend='italic'>2:19</hi>); or, lastly, of his <emph>building up</emph> +into a woman the rib he had taken from man (<hi rend='italic'>2:22</hi>, margin)</q>—quoted from Bible Com., +1:31. Guyot, Creation, 30—<q><foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>Bara</foreign> 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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='375'/><anchor id='Pg375'/> +of Gen. 1:1 the most plausible. Some of these considerations +we proceed to mention. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) While we acknowledge that the verb ברא <q>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.</q> For this reason, in the Kal species it is used only of God, and is +never accompanied by any accusative denoting material. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +No accusative denoting material follows <foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>bara</foreign>, 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: <q>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 <foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>bara</foreign>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +A moderate and scholarly statement of the facts is furnished by Professor W. J. +Beecher, in S. S. Times, Dec. 23, 1893:807—<q>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 (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 2:7</hi>), and woman +was builded from the rib of a man (<hi rend='italic'>2:22</hi>). 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Is. 43:1-15</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>65:18</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>Ez. 21:30</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>28:13, 15</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 102:18</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>Eccl. 12:1</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>Mal. 2:10</hi>). +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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) In the account of the creation, ברא seems to be distinguished from +עשה, <q>to make</q> either with or without the use of already existing material +(ברא לעשות, <q>created in making</q> or <q>made by creation,</q> in 2:3; and +ויעש, of the firmament, in 1:7), and from יצר, <q>to form</q> 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.) +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +See Conant, Genesis, 1; Bible Com., 1:37—<q><q>created to make</q> (in <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 2:3</hi>) = created +out of nothing, in order that he might make out of it all the works recorded in the six +days.</q> Over against these texts, however, we must set others in which there appears +no accurate distinguishing of these words from one another. <foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>Bara</foreign> is used in <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 1:1</hi>, +<foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>asah</foreign> in <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 2:4</hi>, of the creation of the heaven and earth. Of earth, both <foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>yatzar</foreign> and +<foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>asah</foreign> are used in <hi rend='italic'>Is. 45:18</hi>. In regard to man, in <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 1:27</hi> we find <foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>bara</foreign>; in <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 1:26</hi> and <hi rend='italic'>9:6</hi>, +<foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>asah</foreign>; and in <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 2:7</hi>, <foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>yatzar</foreign>. In <hi rend='italic'>Is. 43:7</hi>, all three are found in the same verse: <q><hi rend='italic'>whom +I have</hi> <foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>bara</foreign> <hi rend='italic'>for my glory, I have</hi> <foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>yatzar</foreign>, <hi rend='italic'>yea, I have</hi> <foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>asah</foreign> <hi rend='italic'>him</hi>.</q> In <hi rend='italic'>Is. 45:12</hi>, <q><foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>asah</foreign> <hi rend='italic'>the earth, and</hi> <foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>bara</foreign> +<hi rend='italic'>man upon it</hi></q>; but in <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 1:1</hi> we read: <q><hi rend='italic'>God</hi> <foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>bara</foreign> <hi rend='italic'>the earth</hi>,</q> and in <hi rend='italic'>9:6</hi> <q><foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>asah</foreign> <hi rend='italic'>man</hi>.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Is. 44:2—<q rend='pre'>the +Lord that</q></hi> <foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>asah</foreign> <hi rend='italic'>thee</hi> (<hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, man) and <foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>yatzar</foreign> <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>thee</hi></q>; but in <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 1:27</hi>, God <q><foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>bara</foreign> <hi rend='italic'>man</hi>.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 5:2</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>male +and female</hi></q><q rend='post'> <foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>bara</foreign> <hi rend='italic'>he them</hi>.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 2:22</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>the rib</hi></q> <foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>asah</foreign> <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>he a woman</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 2:7</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>he</hi></q> <foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>yatzar</foreign> <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>man</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, <foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>bara</foreign> male and female, yet <foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>asah</foreign> the woman and <foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>yatzar</foreign> the man. <foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>Asah</foreign> is not +always used for <emph>transform</emph>: <hi rend='italic'>Is. 41:20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>fir-tree, pine, box-tree</hi></q> in nature—<foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>bara</foreign>; <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 51:10</hi>—<q><foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>bara</foreign> +<hi rend='italic'>in me a clean heart</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Is. 65:18</hi>—God <q><foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>bara</foreign> <hi rend='italic'>Jerusalem into a rejoicing</hi>.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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 <q>the earth</q> 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. +</p> + +<pb n='376'/><anchor id='Pg376'/> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Oehler, Theology of O.T., 1:177—<q>By the absolute <foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>berashith</foreign>, <q><hi rend='italic'>in the beginning</hi>,</q> the +divine creation is fixed as an absolute beginning, not as a working on something that +already existed.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Verse 2</hi> cannot be the beginning of a history, for it begins with <q><hi rend='italic'>and</hi>.</q> +Delitzsch says of the expression <q><hi rend='italic'>the earth was without form and void</hi></q>: <q>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 <q><hi rend='italic'>the heaven and earth</hi></q> as God created them in the beginning were not +the well-ordered universe, but the world in its elementary form.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) The fact that ברא may have had an original signification of <q>cutting,</q> +<q>forming,</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +E. H. Johnson, Outline of Syst. Theol., 94—<q><hi rend='italic'>Rom. 4:17</hi> tells us that the faith of Abraham, +to whom God had promised a son, grasped the fact that God calls into existence +<q><hi rend='italic'>the things that are not</hi>.</q> This may be accepted as Paul's interpretation of the first verse of +the Bible.</q> 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 <q>One accent of the Holy Ghost The heedless world +has never lost.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Bib. Com., 1:31—<q>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.</q> Prof. E. D. Burton: <q>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.</q> See Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 1:471, and Mosheim's references in +Cudworth's Intellectual System, 3:140. +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>Originally this universe was soul +<pb n='377'/><anchor id='Pg377'/> +only; nothing else whatsoever existed, active or inactive. He thought: <q>I will create +worlds</q>; thus he created these various worlds: earth, light, mortal being, and the +waters.</q> Renouf, Hibbert Lectures, 216-222, speaks of a papyrus on the staircase of the +British Museum, which reads: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 +<q>Records of the Past</q>; 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +B. Hebrews 11:3—<q>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</q> = 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. <hi rend='italic'>in loco</hi>). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Compare 2 Maccabees 7:28—ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐποίησεν αὐτὰ ὁ Θεός. This the Vulgate translated +by <q>quia ex nihilo fecit illa Deus,</q> and from the Vulgate the phrase <q>creation +out of nothing</q> 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 <hi rend='italic'>Ex. 34:10</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>I will do marvels such as have +not been wrought</hi></q> [marg. <q><hi rend='italic'>created</hi></q>] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>in all the earth</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Num. 16:30</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>if Jehovah make a new thing</hi></q> [marg. +<q><hi rend='italic'>create a creation</hi></q>]; <hi rend='italic'>Is. 4:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Jehovah will create ... a cloud and smoke</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>41:20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the Holy One of Israel hath +created it</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>45:7, 8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I form the light, and create darkness</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>57:19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I create the fruit of the lips</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>65:17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I +create new heavens and a new earth</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Jer. 31:22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Jehovah hath created a new thing.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 4:17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>God, who giveth life to the dead, and calleth the things that are not, as though they were</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. +1:28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>things that are not</hi></q> [did God choose] <q><hi rend='italic'>that he might bring to naught the things that are</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. +4:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>God, that said, Light shall shine out of darkness</hi></q>—created light without preëxisting material,—for +darkness is no material; <hi rend='italic'>Col. 1:16, 17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>in him were all things created ... and he is +before all things</hi></q>; so also <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 33:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he spake, and it was done</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>148:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he commanded, and they were +created.</hi></q> See Philo, Creation of the World, chap. 1-7, and Life of Moses, book 3, chap. +36—<q>He produced the most perfect work, the Cosmos, out of non-existence (τοῦ μὴ +ὄντος) into being (εἰς τὸ εἶναι).</q> E. H. Johnson, Syst. Theol., 94—<q>We have no reason +to believe that the Hebrew mind had the idea of creation out of <emph>invisible</emph> materials. +But creation out of <emph>visible</emph> materials is in <hi rend='italic'>Hebrews 11:3</hi> expressly denied. This text is +therefore equivalent to an assertion that the universe was made without the use of <emph>any</emph> +preëxisting materials.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. Indirect evidence from Scripture.</head> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) The past duration of the world is limited; (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) before the world +began to be, each of the persons of the Godhead already existed; (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<pb n='378'/><anchor id='Pg378'/> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Mark 13:19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>from the beginning of the creation which God created until now</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 17:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>before the +world was</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 1:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>before the foundation of the world.</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 90:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Before the mountains were brought +forth, Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Prov. +8:23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, Before the earth was</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 1:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>In the beginning +was the Word</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Col. 1:17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he is before all things</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 9:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the eternal Spirit</hi></q> (see Tholuck, Com. +<hi rend='italic'>in loco</hi>). (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 3:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>God who created all things</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 11:36</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>of him ... are all things</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. +8:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>one God, the Father, of whom we are all things ... one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John +1:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>all things were made through him</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Col 1:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>in him were all things created ... all things have been +created through him, and unto him</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 1:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>through whom also he made the worlds</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 1:2</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>and the +Spirit of God moved</hi></q> [marg. <q><hi rend='italic'>was brooding</hi></q>] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>upon the face of the waters.</hi></q> 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 +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>III. Theories which oppose Creation.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. Dualism.</head> + +<p> +Of dualism there are two forms: +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='379'/><anchor id='Pg379'/> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Principal Tulloch, in Encyc. Brit., 10:704—<q>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.</q> Windelband, +Hist. Philosophy, 129, 144, 239—<q>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.</q> +Mansel, Gnostic Heresies, 139—<q>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.</q> A. H. Newman, Ch. History, 1:181-192, +calls the philosophy of Basilides <q>fundamentally pantheistic.</q> <q>Valentinus,</q> he says, +<q>was not so careful to insist on the original non-existence of God and everything.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Harnack, Hist. Dogma, 1:128—<q>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.</q>... 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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Lyman Abbott: <q>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.</q> +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. +</p> + +<p> +The author of <q>The Unseen Universe</q> (page 17) wrongly calls John Stuart Mill a +Manichæan. But Mill disclaims belief in the <emph>personality</emph> of this principle that resists and +limits God,—see his posthumous Essays on Religion, 176-195. F. W. Robertson, Lectures +on Genesis, 4-16—<q>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 +<pb n='380'/><anchor id='Pg380'/> +every day. Nature is God at work. Only after surprising changes, as in spring-time, +do we say figuratively, <q>God rests.</q></q> See also Frothingham, Christian Philosophy. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +With regard to this view, we remark: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) The maxim <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>ex nihilo nihil fit</foreign>, 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Lucretius: <q>Nihil posse creari De nihilo, neque quod genitum est ad nihil revocari.</q> +Persius: <q>Gigni De nihilo nihil, in nihilum nil posse reverti.</q> Martensen, Dogmatics, +116—<q>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.</q> Lewes, Problems of +Life and Mind, 2:292—<q>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.</q> See Cudworth, Intellectual System, 3:81 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Mivart, Lessons from Nature, 371, 372—<q>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.</q> We speak of <q>the +creative faculty</q> 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—<q>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.</q> 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). +</p> + +<p> +Beddoes: <q>I have a bit of <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Fiat</foreign> in my soul, And can myself create my little world.</q> +Mark Hopkins: <q>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.</q> E. C. Stedman, +Nature of Poetry, 223—<q>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.</q> Wordsworth +calls the poet a <q>serene creator of immortal things.</q> Imagination, he says, is +but another name for <q>clearest insight, amplitude of mind, And reason in her most +exalted mood.</q> <q>If we are <q><hi rend='italic'>gods</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 82:6</hi>), that part of the Infinite which is embodied +in us must partake to a limited extent of his power to create.</q> Veitch, Knowing and +Being, 289—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='381'/><anchor id='Pg381'/> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Bowne, Theory of Thought and Knowledge, 36—<q>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.</q> Clarke, Self and the Father, 38—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) It is unphilosophical to postulate two eternal substances, when one +self-existent Cause of all things will account for the facts. (<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) It contradicts +our fundamental notion of God as absolute sovereign to suppose the +existence of any other substance to be independent of his will. (<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) 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. (<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Martensen, Dogmatics, 121—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +The other form of dualism is: +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='382'/><anchor id='Pg382'/> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>These opposing theories represent various pagan conceptions of the +world, which, after the manner of palimpsests, show through Christianity.</q> Isaac +Taylor speaks of <q>the creator of the carnivora</q>; and some modern Christians practically +regard Satan as a second and equal God. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>twins</q>—the one constructive, +the other destructive; the one beneficent, the other maleficent. Zoroaster called these +<q>twins</q> also by the name of <q>spirits,</q> and declared that <q>these two spirits created, the +one the reality, the other the non-reality.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>The doctrine of the Manichæans +was that creation was the work of Satan.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +Of this view we need only say that it is refuted (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) by all the arguments +for the unity, omnipotence, sovereignty, and blessedness of God; (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) by +the Scripture representations of the prince of evil as the creature of God +and as subject to God's control. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Scripture passages showing that Satan is God's creature or subject are the following: +<hi rend='italic'>Col. 1:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 6:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Pet. 2:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 20:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>laid hold on the +dragon, the old serpent, which is the Devil and Satan</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>and the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake +of fire and brimstone.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +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, +<pb n='383'/><anchor id='Pg383'/> +nor is it shown that all things work together for good. E. H. Johnson: <q>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.</q> Tennyson, Unpublished Poem (Life, 1:314)—<q>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?</q> +</p> + +<p> +E. G. Robinson: <q>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.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Disselhoff, Die klassische Poesie und die göttliche Offenbarung, 13-25—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. Emanation.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +We object to it on the following grounds: (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) It contradicts the divine holiness,—since man, who by the +theory is of the substance of God, is nevertheless morally evil. (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>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, +<pb n='384'/><anchor id='Pg384'/> +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, +<hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, the complete revelation of his hidden being.</q> Emanation, from <foreign rend='italic'>e</foreign>, and <foreign rend='italic'>manare</foreign>, +to flow forth. Guericke, Church History, 1:160—<q>many flames from one light ... the +direct contrary to the doctrine of creation from nothing.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +On the difference between Oriental emanation and eternal generation, see Shedd, +Dogm. Theol., 1:470, and History Doctrine, 1:11-18, 318, note—<q>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 <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>de nihilo</foreign>. 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 <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>anima mundi</foreign>.</q> The +truths of which emanation was the perversion and caricature were therefore the generation +of the Son and the procession of the Spirit. +</p> + +<p> +Principal Tulloch, in Encyc. Brit., 10:704—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Sheldon, Ch. Hist., 1:206—<q>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.</q> Mansel, Gnostic Heresies, 139—<q>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 +<pb n='385'/><anchor id='Pg385'/> +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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +A. H. Newman, Ch. History, 1:192—<q>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.</q> +Mansel, Gnostic Heresies, 210—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>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.</q> Palmer, Theol. Definition, 63, +note—<q>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, <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, as emanations.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 1:2</hi>—<q>The word <foreign lang='el' rend='italic'>Æon</foreign> 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: <q><hi rend='italic'>The Word became flesh</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 1:14</hi>).</q> +</p> + +<p> +Upton, Hibbert Lectures, chap. 2—<q>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 +<pb n='386'/><anchor id='Pg386'/> +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</q> (275). +</p> + +<p> +Swedenborg held to emanation,—see Divine Love and Wisdom, 283, 303, 905—<q>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 <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>esse</foreign>, 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.</q> Swedenborgianism +is <q>materialism driven deep and clinched on the inside.</q> This system reverses +the Lord's prayer; it should read: <q>As on earth, so in heaven.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Napoleon asked Goethe what matter was. <q><foreign lang='fr' rend='italic'>Esprit gelé</foreign>,</q>—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 <q>frozen music,</q> and another +writer calls music <q>dissolved architecture.</q> There is a <q>psychical automatism,</q> as +Ladd says, in his Philosophy of Mind, 169; and Hegel calls nature <q>the corpse of the +understanding—spirit to alienation from itself.</q> But spirit is the Adam, of which +nature is the Eve; and man says to nature: <q><hi rend='italic'>This is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh</hi>,</q> as +Adam did in <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 2:23</hi>. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>3. Creation from eternity.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Origen held that God was from eternity the creator of the world of spirits. Martensen, +in his Dogmatics, 114, shows favor to the maxims: <q>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.</q> Schiller, Die Freundschaft, last stanza, gives +the following popular expression to this view: <q>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.</q> The poet's thought was perhaps suggested by +Goethe's Sorrows of Werther: <q>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.</q> Robert Browning, +Rabbi Ben Ezra, 31—<q>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.</q> But this regards the +Creator as dependent upon, and in bondage to, his own world. +</p> + +<p> +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, +<pb n='387'/><anchor id='Pg387'/> +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—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +W. N. Clarke, Christian Theology, 117—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <emph>creation in eternity +past</emph> (= God and the world coëternal, yet God the cause of the world, as he is the +begetter of the Son) from <emph>continuous creation</emph> (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—<q>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 <emph>time</emph> +before creation, because there was no <emph>succession</emph>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Birks, Scripture Doctrine of Creation, 78-105—<q>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.</q> Veitch, Knowing and Being, 22—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<pb n='388'/><anchor id='Pg388'/> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Jude 25</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Before all time</hi></q>—implies that time had a beginning, and <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 1:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>before the foundation +of the world</hi></q>—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—<q>What +has a goal or end must have a beginning; history, as teleological, implies creation.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Lotze, Philos. Religion, 74—<q>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 <q>creation</q> ought not to be used to designate +a deed of God so much as the absolute dependence of the world on his will.</q> So Schurman, +Belief in God, 146, 156, 225—<q>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.</q> On this view +that God is the Ground but not the Creator of the world, see Hovey, Studies in Ethics +and Religion, 23-56—<q>Creation is no more of a mystery than is the causal action</q> in +which both Lotze and Schurman believe. <q>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.</q> No one can prove that <q>it is of the essence of spirit to reveal itself,</q> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <q><hi rend='italic'>the fulness of the time</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Gal. 4:4</hi>) 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 +<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 1:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,</hi></q> and <hi rend='italic'>John 1:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>In the beginning was the +Word,</hi></q> as both and alike meaning <q>in eternity.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Since all things are created in Christ, the eternal Word, Reason, and Power of God, +God can <q><hi rend='italic'>reconcile all things to himself</hi></q> in Christ (<hi rend='italic'>Col. 1:20</hi>). 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 <emph>revealing</emph> 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Eph. 1:4</hi>). 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—<q>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 +<pb n='389'/><anchor id='Pg389'/> +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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Gore, Incarnation, 136, 137—<q>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.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>4. Spontaneous generation.</head> + +<p> +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 +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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 <q>omne vivum e vivo,</q> or <q>ex ovo.</q> +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Owen, Comparative Anatomy of the Vertebrates, 3:814-818—on Monogeny or Thaumatogeny; +quoted in Argyle, Reign of Law, 281—<q>We discern no evidence of a pause +or intromission in the creation or coming-to-be of new plants and animals.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +In favor of Redi's maxim, <q>omne vivum e vivo,</q> see Huxley, in Encyc. Britannica, +art.: Biology, 689—<q>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</q>; Flint, Physiology of Man, 1:263-265—<q>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.</q> On the Philosophy of Evolution, see +A. H. Strong, Philosophy and Religion, 39-57. +</p> + +</quote> + +<pb n='390'/><anchor id='Pg390'/> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Sully: <q>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.</q> Bixby, Crisis of Morals, 258—<q>If no creative fiat can be +believed to create something out of nothing, still less is evolution able to perform such +a contradiction.</q> 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—<q>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?</q> +</p> + +<p> +Hens come before eggs. Perfect organic forms are antecedent to all life-cells, +whether animal or vegetable. <q>Omnis cellula e cellula, sed primaria cellula ex organismo.</q> +God created first the tree, and its seed was in it when created (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 1:12</hi>). Protoplasm +is not <foreign lang='el' rend='italic'>proton</foreign>, but <foreign lang='el' rend='italic'>deuteron</foreign>; the elements are antecedent to it. It is not true that +man was never made at all but only <q>growed</q> like Topsy; see Watts, New Apologetic, +xvi, 312. Royce, Spirit of Modern Philosophy, 273—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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 +<pb n='391'/><anchor id='Pg391'/> +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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Ward, Naturalism and Agnosticism, 1:180—<q>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, <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, 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 <emph>and</emph> mechanism, +but God <emph>only</emph> and no mechanism. 283—Naturalism and Agnosticism, in spite of +themselves, lead us to a world of Spiritualistic Monism.</q> Newman Smyth, Christian +Ethics, 36—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>IV. The Mosaic Account of Creation.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. Its twofold nature,—as uniting the ideas of creation and of development.</head> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 1:1</hi>—<foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>bara</foreign>) and he subsequently created animal life (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 1:21</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>and God created</hi></q>—<foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>bara</foreign>) +and the life of man (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 1:27</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>and God create man</hi></q>—<foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>bara</foreign> again). +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>survival</emph> of the fittest, but cannot explain the <emph>arrival</emph> of +the fittest. Schurman, Agnosticism and Religion, 34—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Seebohm, quoted in J. J. Murphy, Nat. Selection and Spir. Freedom, 76—<q>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 <emph>cause</emph> 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 +<pb n='392'/><anchor id='Pg392'/> +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.</q> 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 <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>a +priori</foreign> self-consciousness which is the essential being and true person of the mind. +</p> + +<p> +Evolution, according to Herbert Spencer, is <q>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.</q> D. W. Simon criticizes this definition +as defective <q>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.</q> Mark Hopkins, +Life, 189—<q>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?</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Martensen wrongly asserts that <q>Judaism represented the world exclusively as <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>creatura</foreign>, +not <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>natura</foreign>; as κτίσις, not φύσις.</q> 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 1:12, +22, 24, 28</hi>—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). +</p> + +<p> +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. <q>When catastrophic change burst in upon the ages of uniformity +and sounded in the ear of every living thing the words: <q>Change or die!</q> +plasticity became the sole principle of action.</q> Nature proceeded then by leaps, and +corresponding to the leaps of geology we find leaps of biology. +</p> + +<p> +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 <foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>bara</foreign> in <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 1:21, 27</hi>, and to give it there +the meaning of mediate creation, or creation by law. Such a meaning might almost +seem to be favored by <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 1:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>let the earth put forth grass</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>let the waters bring forth abundantly +<pb n='393'/><anchor id='Pg393'/> +the moving creature that hath life</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the Lord God formed man of the dust</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>out of the ground +made the Lord God to grow every tree</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Mark 4:28</hi>—αὐτομάτη ἣ γή καρποφορεῖ—<q><hi rend='italic'>the earth brings forth +fruit automatically</hi>.</q> Goethe, Sprüche in Reimen: <q>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</q>—<q>No, such a God my worship may not +win, Who lets the world about his finger spin, A thing eternal; God must dwell within.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>derived +from the lower.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Even Haeckel, Hist. Creation, 1:38, can say that in the Mosaic narrative <q>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.</q> 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 <q>spiritual law in the natural world.</q> 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 <q>red in tooth and claw with ravine.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. Its proper interpretation.</head> + +<p> +We adopt neither (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) the allegorical, or mythical, (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) the hyperliteral, +nor (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) the hyperscientific interpretation of the Mosaic narrative; but +rather (<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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 +<pb n='394'/><anchor id='Pg394'/> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) The <emph>allegorical</emph>, or <emph>mythical interpretation</emph>, 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. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>The compiler of this +book ... lays side by side two accounts of man's creation which no ingenuity can reconcile.</q> +Charles A. Briggs: <q>The doctrine of creation in Genesis 1 is altogether different +from that taught in Genesis 2.</q> W. N. Clarke, Christian Theology, 199-201—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>the first sober one among +many drunken.</q> Schurman, Belief in God, 138—<q>In these cosmogonies the world and +the gods grow up together; cosmogony is, at the same time, theogony.</q> Dr. E. G. +Robinson: <q>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.</q> 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 <q>prophetic vision,</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) The <emph>hyperliteral interpretation</emph> 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 <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 1</hi>, 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 +<q><hi rend='italic'>day</hi></q> is not used in its literal sense; while the other Scriptures unquestionably employ +it to designate a period of indefinite duration (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 1:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>God called the light Day</hi></q>—a day +before there was a sun; <hi rend='italic'>8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>there was evening and there was morning, a second day</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2:2</hi>—God +<q><hi rend='italic'>rested on the seventh day</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 4:3-10</hi>—where God's day of rest seems to continue, and +his people are exhorted to enter into it; <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 2:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the day that Jehovah made earth and heaven</hi></q>—<q><hi rend='italic'>day</hi></q> +here covers all the seven days; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Is. 2:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>a day of Jehovah of hosts</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Zech. 14:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>it +shall be one day which is known unto Jehovah; not day, and not night</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Pet. 3:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>one day is with the Lord as +<pb n='395'/><anchor id='Pg395'/> +a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day</hi></q>). 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 2:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>these are the generations of the heaven and of the earth</hi></q>), whereas +this interpretation confines the history to the earth. On the meaning of the word <q><hi rend='italic'>day</hi>,</q> +as a period of indefinite duration, see Dana, Manual of Geology, 744; LeConte, Religion +and Science, 262. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) The <emph>hyperscientific interpretation</emph> 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 +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) The <emph>pictorial-summary interpretation</emph>. 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—<q>First God created a chaotic matter, +which was <emph>next</emph> to <emph>nothing</emph>. This chaotic matter was made from nothing, before all +days. Then this chaotic, amorphous matter was subsequently arranged, in the succeeding +six days</q>; De Genes. ad Lit., 4:27—<q>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.</q> We proceed now to the scheme: +</p> + +<p> +1. The earth, if originally in the condition of a gaseous fluid, must have been void +and formless as described in <hi rend='italic'>Genesis 1:2</hi>. Here the earth is not yet separated from the +condensing nebula, and its fluid condition is indicated by the term <q><hi rend='italic'>waters</hi>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>verse 3</hi>. As the result of condensation, the nebula becomes luminous, and this +process from darkness to light is described as follows: <q><hi rend='italic'>there was evening and there was morning, +one day</hi>.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +3. The development of the earth into an independent sphere and its separation from +the fluid around it answers to the dividing of <q><hi rend='italic'>the waters under the firmament from the waters above</hi>,</q> +in <hi rend='italic'>verse 7</hi>. Here the word <q><hi rend='italic'>waters</hi></q> is used to designate the <q>primordial cosmic material</q> +(Guyot, Creation, 35-37), or the molten mass of earth and sun united, from which the +earth is thrown off. The term <q><hi rend='italic'>waters</hi></q> is the best which the Hebrew language affords to +express this idea of a fluid mass. <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 148</hi> seems to have this meaning, where it speaks of +the <q><hi rend='italic'>waters that are above the heavens</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>verse 4</hi>)—waters which are distinguished from the +<q><hi rend='italic'>deeps</hi></q> below (<hi rend='italic'>verse 7</hi>), and the <q><hi rend='italic'>vapor</hi></q> above (<hi rend='italic'>verse 8</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>verse 9</hi> as the gathering of the waters into one +place and the appearing of the dry land. +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>verse 11</hi> 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 +<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>algæ</foreign>, 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 +<pb n='396'/><anchor id='Pg396'/> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>verses 16</hi> and <hi rend='italic'>17</hi> as a making of the sun, moon, and +stars, and a giving of them as luminaries to the earth. Compare <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 9:13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I do set my +bow in the cloud.</hi></q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>verses 20</hi> and <hi rend='italic'>21</hi> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>verses 24</hi> and <hi rend='italic'>25</hi> by the creation, on the sixth day, of cattle and +beasts of prey. +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>verses 26-31</hi>). With Prof. Dana, we may +say that <q>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.</q> See Dana, Manual +of Geology, 741-746, and Bib. Sac., April, 1885:201-224. Richard Owen: <q>Man from the +beginning of organisms was ideally present upon the earth</q>; see Owen, Anatomy of +Vertebrates, 3:796; Louis Agassiz: <q>Man is the purpose toward which the whole +animal creation tends from the first appearance of the first palæozoic fish.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Prof. John M. Taylor: <q>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.</q> W. E. Gladstone in S. +S. Times, April 26, 1890, calls the Mosaic days <q>chapters in the history of creation.</q> 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: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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; +<pb n='397'/><anchor id='Pg397'/> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>V. God's End in Creation.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>To whom +shall I give greater credit concerning God than to God himself?</q> George A. Gordon, +New Epoch for Faith, 15—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +In determining this end, we turn first to: +</p> + + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. The testimony of Scripture.</head> + +<p> +This may be summed up in four statements. God finds his end (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) in +himself; (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) in his own will and pleasure; (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) in his own glory; (<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 11:36</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>unto him are all things</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Col. 1:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>all things have been created ... unto him</hi></q> +(Christ); compare <hi rend='italic'>Is. 48:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>for mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it ... and my glory will I +not give to another</hi></q>; and <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 15:28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all.</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>Proverbs 16:4</hi>—not +<q>The Lord hath made all things for himself</q> (A. V.) but <q><hi rend='italic'>Jehovah hath made everything +for its own end</hi></q> (Rev. Vers.). +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 1:5, 6, 9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rev. +4:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>thou didst create all things, and because of thy will they were, and were created.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Is. 43:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>whom I have created for my glory</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>60:21</hi> and <hi rend='italic'>61:3</hi>—the righteousness and blessedness +of the redeemed are secured, that <q><hi rend='italic'>he may be glorified</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Luke 2:14</hi>—the angels' song +at the birth of Christ expressed the design of the work of salvation: <q><hi rend='italic'>Glory to God in the +highest</hi>,</q> and only through, and for its sake, <q><hi rend='italic'>on earth peace among men in whom he is well pleased</hi>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 143:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>In thy righteousness bring my soul out of trouble</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Ez. 36:21, 22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I do not this for your +sake ... but for mine holy name</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>39:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>my holy name will I make known</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 9:17</hi>—to Pharaoh: +<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>22, 23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>riches of his glory</hi></q> made known in vessels of wrath, and in +vessels of mercy; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 3:9, 10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> See Godet, +on Ultimate Design of Man; <q>God in man and man in God,</q> in Princeton Rev., Nov. +1880; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 1:436, 535, 565, 568. <hi rend='italic'>Per contra</hi>, see Miller, Fetich in Theology, +19, 39-45, 88-98, 143-146. +</p> + +</quote> + +<pb n='398'/><anchor id='Pg398'/> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>Man's end is to be like God.</q> And so God must look within, and +find his honor and his end in himself. Robert Browning, Hohenstiel-Schwangau: +<q>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.</q> +Schurman, Belief in God, 214-216—<q>God glorifies himself in communicating himself.</q> +The object of his love is the exercise of his holiness. Self-affirmation conditions self-communication. +</p> + +<p> +E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 94, 196—<q>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: (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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 (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) For an infinite Creator not to +make himself his own end would be to dishonor himself and wrong his creatures; since, +thereby, (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) he must either act without an end, which is irrational, or from an end which +is impossible without wronging his creatures; because (<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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 +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) 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.</q> 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 <q>declarative glory,</q> +rather than God's <q>essential glory,</q> as resulting from man's obedience and salvation. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. The testimony of reason.</head> + +<p> +That his own glory, in the sense just mentioned, is God's supreme end +in creation, is evident from the following considerations: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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 <hi rend='italic'><q>what his soul desireth, even that +he doeth</q> (Job 23:13)</hi>. 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>Ducunt volentem fata, nolentem trahunt.</q> W. C. Wilkinson, +Epic of Saul, 271—<q>But some are tools, and others ministers, Of God, who works his +holy will with all.</q> Christ baptizes <hi rend='italic'><q>in the Holy Spirit and in fire</q> (Mat. 3:11)</hi>. Alexander +<pb n='399'/><anchor id='Pg399'/> +McLaren: <q>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.</q> Hare, Mission of the Comforter, on <hi rend='italic'>John 16:8</hi>, shows that the Holy Spirit either +<emph>convinces</emph> those who yield to his influence, or <emph>convicts</emph> those who resist—the word ἐλέγχω +having this double significance. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Is. 40:15, 16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance</hi></q>—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 <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 6:13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>since +he could swear by none greater, he sware by himself</hi></q>—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 (<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 89:35</hi>). We infer that to find his end in himself is to find that end in +his holiness. See Martineau on Malebranche, in Types, 177. +</p> + +<p> +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. <q>Modern thought,</q> it is said, <q>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.</q> So the small boy said his Catechism: <q>Man's chief end is to +glorify God and to annoy him forever.</q> Prof. Clifford: <q>The kingdom of God is +obsolete; the kingdom of man has now come.</q> All this is the insanity of sin. <hi rend='italic'>Per +contra</hi>, see Allen, Jonathan Edwards, 329, 330—<q>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.</q> But we would add +that Edwards does not say they are themselves of the essence of God; see his Works, +2:210, 211. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>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 +<pb n='400'/><anchor id='Pg400'/> +us.</q> 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—<q>God is +the perfect Poet, Who in creation acts his own conceptions.</q> Shedd, Dogm. Theol., +1:357, 358; Shairp, Province of Poetry, 11, 12. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. <q>Arma virumque cano</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>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.</q> Tennyson, after observing the subaqueous life of a brook, exclaimed: +<q>What an imagination God has!</q> Caird, Philos. Religion, 245—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='401'/><anchor id='Pg401'/> +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. <q>Only one being in the universe is excepted from the duty of +subordination. Man must be subject to the <q><hi rend='italic'>higher powers</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 13:1</hi>). But there are no +higher powers to God.</q> See Park, Discourses, 181-209. +</p> + +<p> +Bismarck's motto: <q>Ohne Kaiser, kein Reich</q>—<q>Without an emperor, there can be +no empire</q>—applies to God, as Von Moltke's motto: <q>Erst wägen, dann wagen</q>—<q>First +weigh, then dare</q>—applies to man. Edwards, Works, 2:215—<q>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.</q> Shakespeare, Hamlet, 3:3—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> 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 <hi rend='italic'>Psalm 25:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>For thy name's sake.... Pardon mine iniquity, +for it is great</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>115:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Not unto us, O Jehovah, not unto us, But unto thy name give glory</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 6:33</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Seek ye +first his kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 10:31</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Whether +therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Pet. 2:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>ye are an elect race ... +that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>4:11</hi>—speaking, +ministering, <q><hi rend='italic'>that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, whose is the glory and the +dominion for ever and ever. Amen.</hi></q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +It is a duty to make the most of ourselves, but only for God's sake. <hi rend='italic'>Jer. 45:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>seekest +thou great things for thyself? seek them not!</hi></q> But it is nowhere forbidden us to seek great +things for God. Rather we are to <q><hi rend='italic'>desire earnestly the greater gifts</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 12:31</hi>). Self-realization +as well as self-expression is native to humanity. Kant: <q>Man, and with him every +rational creature, is an end in himself.</q> 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. +</p> + +<pb n='402'/><anchor id='Pg402'/> + +<p> +George A. Gordon, The New Epoch for Faith, 11-13—<q>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.</q> Hovey, Studies, 65—<q>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.</q> See statement and criticism of Edwards's view in Allen, Jonathan +Edwards, 227-238. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>VI. Relation of the Doctrine of Creation to other Doctrines.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. To the holiness and benevolence of God.</head> + +<p> +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 <q>very good</q> (Gen. 1:31). +This difficulty may be in great part removed by considering that: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +The coprolites of Saurians contain the scales and bones of fish which they have +devoured. <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 8:20-22</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q> [the irrational creation] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>groaneth and +travaileth in pain together until now</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>23</hi>—our mortal body, as a part of nature, participates in +the same groaning. <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 4:17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>our light affliction, which is for the moment, worketh for us more and more +exceedingly an eternal weight of glory.</hi></q> Bowne, Philosophy of Theism, 224-240—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +It was Darwin's judgment that in the world of nature and of man, on the whole, +<q>happiness decidedly prevails.</q> Wallace, Darwinism, 36-40—<q>Animals enjoy all the +happiness of which they are capable.</q> Drummond, Ascent of Man, 203 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi>—<q>In the +struggle for life there is no hate—only hunger.</q> Martineau, Study, 1:330—<q>Waste +of life is simply nature's exuberance.</q> Newman Smyth, Place of Death in Evolution, +44-56—<q>Death simply buries the useless waste. Death has entered for life's sake.</q> +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 +<pb n='403'/><anchor id='Pg403'/> +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—<q>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.</q> +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: <q>Suffering is God's protest +against sin.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Wallace's theory of the survival of the fittest was suggested by the prodigal destructiveness +of nature. Tennyson: <q>Finding that of fifty seeds She often brings but one +to bear.</q> William James: <q>Our dogs are <emph>in</emph> our human life, but not <emph>of</emph> 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.</q> Mason, Faith of the +Gospel, 72—<q>Love is prepared to take deeper and sterner measures than benevolence, +which is by itself a shallow thing.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>anticipative consequences,</q> 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—<q>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.</q> Perowne refers <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 96:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>The +world also is established that it cannot be moved</hi></q>—to the restoration of the inanimate creation; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> +<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 12:27</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 21:1, 5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>a new heaven and a new earth +... Behold, I make all things new.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +Much sport has been made of this doctrine of anticipative consequences. James D. +Dana: <q>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!</q> 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 <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 8:20, 21</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the creation was subjected to vanity ... by +reason of him who subjected it</hi></q>—<hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, by reason of the first man's sin—<q><hi rend='italic'>in hope that the creation +itself also shall be delivered</hi>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Martineau, Types, 2:151—<q>What meaning could Pity have in a world where suffering +was not meant to be?</q> Hicks, Critique of Design Arguments, 386—<q>The very +badness of the world convinces us that God is good.</q> And Sir Henry Taylor's words: +<q>Pain in man Bears the high mission of the flail and fan; In brutes 'tis surely piteous</q>—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: <q>Whatever virtue can be bought with pain is cheaply bought.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<pb n='404'/><anchor id='Pg404'/> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. To the wisdom and free-will of God.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>Calvin's <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Quia voluit</foreign> 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 8:28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>to them that love God all things work together for good</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 3:21</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>all things +are yours.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> 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 <hi rend='italic'>Is. 5:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>what could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +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). <q>All life is summed up in effort, and effort +is painful; therefore life is pain.</q> But we might retort: <q>Life is active, and action is +always accompanied with pleasure; therefore life is pleasure.</q> 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: <hi rend='italic'>Eccl. 2:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>all was vanity and a striving after wind.</hi></q> Homer: <q>There is +nothing whatever more wretched than man.</q> Seneca praises death as the best invention +of nature. Byron: <q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<pb n='405'/><anchor id='Pg405'/> + +<p> +G. H. Beard, in Andover Rev., March, 1892—<q>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.</q> +Bowne, Philos. of Theism, 124—<q>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.</q> Royce, Spirit of Mod. +Philos., 253-280—<q>Schopenhauer united Kant's thought, <q>The inmost life of all things is +one,</q> with the Hindoo insight, <q>The life of all these things, That art Thou.</q> 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>represents the +universe as a trap which catches most of the human vermin that have its bait dangled +before them.</q> Strauss: <q>If the prophets of pessimism prove that man had better +never have lived, they thereby prove that themselves had better never have prophesied.</q> +Hawthorne, Note-book: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>Disorder and misery are so mingled with order and beneficence, that both +optimism and pessimism are possible.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>3. To Christ as the Revealer of God.</head> + +<p> +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 <emph>for</emph> us on the Cross and Christ <emph>in</emph> 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 3:25</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>8:32</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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?</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:8, 9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>we see not yet all +things subjected to him. But we behold ... Jesus ... crowned with glory and honor</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Acts 17:31</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he hath +appointed a day in which he will judge the earth in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained.</hi></q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +G. A. Gordon, New Epoch of Faith, 199—<q>The book of Job is called by Huxley the +classic of pessimism.</q> Dean Swift, on the successive anniversaries of his own birth, +<pb n='406'/><anchor id='Pg406'/> +was accustomed to read the third chapter of Job, which begins with the terrible +<q><hi rend='italic'>Let the day perish wherein I was born</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>3:3</hi>). 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. <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 4:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Thou didst create all things, and because of thy will they were, and were created.</hi></q> Mason, +Faith of the Gospel, 79—<q>All things were present to God's mind because of his will, +and then, when it pleased him, had being given to them.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Jones, Robert Browning, 109, 311—<q>Pantheistic optimism asserts that all things <emph>are</emph> +good; Christian optimism asserts that all things are <emph>working together</emph> for good. Reverie +in Asolando: <q>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.</q> Balaustion's Adventure: <q>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.</q> 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: <q>Loving not, hating not, just choosing so.</q> Pippa Passes: <q>God's +in his heaven—All's right with the world.</q> 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: <q>All's love, but all's law.</q> 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.</q> Carlyle took Emerson +through the London slums at midnight and asked him: <q>Do you believe in a devil +now?</q> But Emerson replied: <q>I am more and more convinced of the greatness and +goodness of the English people.</q> On Browning and Carlyle, see A. H. Strong, Great +Poets and their Theology, 373-447. +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>I would kill off all the bed-bugs, mosquitoes +and fleas, and make oranges and bananas grow further north.</q> The lady who +was bitten by a mosquito asked whether it would be proper to speak of the creature as +<q>a depraved little insect.</q> 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: +<q>There! I'll show you that there is a God in Israel!</q> He identified the mosquito with +all the corporate evil of the world. Allen, Religious Progress, 22—<q>Wordsworth +hoped still, although the French Revolution depressed him; Macaulay, after reading +Ranke's History of the Popes, denied all religious progress.</q> On Huxley's account of +evil, see Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 265 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 1:301, 302—<q>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.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> Bradley, +Appearance and Reality, xiv, sums up the optimistic view as follows: <q>The world is +the best of all possible worlds, and everything in it is a necessary evil.</q> He should +<pb n='407'/><anchor id='Pg407'/> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Jackson, James Martineau, 390—<q>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?</q> <emph>Live</emph> spells <emph>Evil</emph>, only when we read it the +wrong way. James Russell Lowell, Letters, 2:51—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Compare with all this the hopeless pessimism of Omar Kháyyám, Rubáiyát, stanza 99—<q>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?</q> Royce, Studies of Good and Evil, 14, in discussing the Problem of Job, suggests +the following solution: <q>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.</q> F. H. Johnson, What is Reality, 349, +505—<q>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.</q> A. E. Waffle, Uses of Moral Evil: <q>(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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>4. To Providence and Redemption.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +The logical alternative of creation is therefore a system of pantheism, in +which God is an impersonal and necessary force. Hence the pantheistic +<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>dicta</foreign> of Fichte: <q>The assumption of a creation is the fundamental error +of all false metaphysics and false theology</q>; of Hegel: <q>God evolves the +world out of himself, in order to take it back into himself again in the +Spirit</q>; and of Strauss: <q>Trinity and creation, speculatively viewed, are +one and the same,—only the one is viewed absolutely, the other +empirically.</q> +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Sterrett, Studies, 155, 156—<q>Hegel held that it belongs to God's nature to create. +Creation is God's positing an <emph>other</emph> which is not an <emph>other</emph>. The creation is <emph>his</emph>, 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 <emph>another</emph>. But in loving +this <emph>other</emph>, God is only loving himself.</q> 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. +</p> + +<pb n='408'/><anchor id='Pg408'/> + +<p> +Luthardt, Compendium der Dogmatik, 97—<q>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.</q> Dorner, System of Doctrine, 2:11—<q>The world cannot be +necessitated in order to satisfy either want or over-fulness in God.... The doctrine +of absolute creation prevents the <emph>confounding</emph> 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 <emph>separation</emph> of God from +the world. Thus pantheism and deism are both avoided.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>5. To the Observance of the Sabbath.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 2:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> 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: <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 4:3</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>And +in process of time</hi></q> [lit. <q><hi rend='italic'>at the end of days</hi></q>] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>it came to pass that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an +offering unto Jehovah</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 8:10, 12</hi>—Noah twice waited seven days before sending forth the +dove from the ark; <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 29:27, 28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>fulfil the week</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Judges 14:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the seven days of the feast</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>Ex. 16:5</hi>—double portion of manna promised on the sixth day, that none be gathered +on the Sabbath (<hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>verses 20, 30</hi>). 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: <hi rend='italic'>Ex. 20:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Remember +the Sabbath day to keep it holy.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>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.</q> 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: <q>A day of +rest.</q> 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 <q>the day of rest for the +heart,</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +S. S. Times, Jan. 1892, art. by Dr. Jensen of the University of Strassburg on the Biblical +and Babylonian Week: <q><foreign rend='italic'>Subattu</foreign> 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.</q> Hutton, Essays, +2:229—<q>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.</q> We +<pb n='409'/><anchor id='Pg409'/> +may question, indeed, whether this doctrine of God's rest does not of itself refute the +theory of eternal, continuous, and necessary creation. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. <hi rend='italic'>Mark 2:27</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>The +Sabbath was made</hi></q> [by God] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>for man, and not man for the Sabbath.</hi></q> 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. <hi rend='italic'>Nehemiah 8:12, 18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>—seems to include the Sabbath +day as a day of gladness. +</p> + +<p> +Origen, in Homily 23 on <hi rend='italic'>Numbers</hi> (Migne, II:358): <q>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.</q> 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 <q>the Lord's day</q> was weekly or annual. The observance +of the Sabbath, to his mind, is a matter not of authority, but of convenience. Archbishop +Paley: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>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.</q> 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 <q>the core of our civilization.</q> Charles Sumner: <q>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.</q> Oliver Wendell Holmes: <q>He who ordained the Sabbath +loved the poor.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='410'/><anchor id='Pg410'/> +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 <q><hi rend='italic'>a Sabbath rest</hi></q> that <q><hi rend='italic'>remaineth</hi>,</q> and to <q><hi rend='italic'>another day</hi></q> taking the +place of the original promised day of rest. Teaching of the Twelve Apostles: <q>On the +Lord's Day assemble ye together, and give thanks, and break bread.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The change from the seventh day to the first seems to have been due to the resurrection +of Christ upon <q><hi rend='italic'>the first day of the week</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 28:1</hi>), to his meeting with the disciples +upon that day and upon the succeeding Sunday (<hi rend='italic'>John 20:26</hi>), and to the pouring out of +the Spirit upon the Pentecostal Sunday seven weeks after (<hi rend='italic'>Acts 2:1</hi>—see Bap. Quar. +Rev., 185:229-232). Thus by Christ's own example and by apostolic sanction the first +day became <q><hi rend='italic'>the Lord's day</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Rev. 1:10</hi>), on which believers met regularly each week with +their Lord (<hi rend='italic'>Acts 20:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread</hi></q>) and +brought together their benevolent contributions (<hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 16:1, 2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>). Eusebius, Com. on <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 92</hi> (Migne, V:1191, C): <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Justin Martyr, First Apology: <q>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.</q> 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>received up</hi></q> only after <q><hi rend='italic'>he had given commandment +through the Holy Spirit unto the apostles whom he had chosen</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Acts 1:2</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 2</hi>: <q>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.</q> (<hi rend='italic'>Gal. 4:10, 11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Col. 2:16,17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q>) 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 <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 12:3</hi>. For the +seventh-day view, see T. B. Brown, The Sabbath; J. N. Andrews, History of the Sabbath. +<hi rend='italic'>Per contra</hi>, see Prof. A. Rauschenbusch, Saturday or Sunday? +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Section II.—Preservation.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>I. Definition of Preservation.</head> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='411'/><anchor id='Pg411'/> +our attempt to explain the existence of the universe, so the doctrine of +Preservation is our attempt to explain its continuance. +</p> + +<p> +In explanation we remark: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Dorner, System of Doctrine, 2:40-42—<q>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 <emph>rest</emph> of God is not +cessation of activity, but is a new exercise of power.</q> Nor is God <q>the soul of the +universe.</q> This phrase is pantheistic, and implies that God is the only agent. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>II. Proof of the Doctrine of Preservation.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. From Scripture.</head> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='412'/><anchor id='Pg412'/> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Nehemiah 9:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Job +7:20</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>O thou watcher</hi></q> [marg. <q>preserver</q>] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>of men!</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 36:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>thou preservest man and beast</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>104:29, 30</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> See Perowne on <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 104</hi>—<q>A psalm to the God who is in +and with nature for good.</q> Humboldt, Cosmos, 2:413—<q>Psalm 104 presents an image +of the whole Cosmos.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Acts 17:28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>in him we live, and move, and have our being</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Col. 1:17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>in him +all things consist</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 1:2, 3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>upholding all things by the word of his power.</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>John 5:17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>My Father +worketh even until now, and I work</hi></q>—refers most naturally to preservation, since creation is a +work completed; compare <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 2:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> God is the upholder of physical life; +see <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 66:8, 9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>O bless our God ... who holdeth our soul in life.</hi></q> God is also the upholder of spiritual +life; see <hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 6:13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I charge thee in the sight of God who preserveth all things alive</hi></q> (ζωογονοῦντος τὰ +πάντα)—the great Preserver enables us to persist in our Christian course. <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 4:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Man +shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God</hi></q>—though originally +referring to physical nourishment is equally true of spiritual sustentation. In <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 104:26</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>There +go the ships,</hi></q> Dawson, Mod. Ideas of Evolution, thinks the reference is not to +man's works but to God's, as the parallelism: <q>There is leviathan</q> would indicate, and that +by <q>ships</q> are meant <q>floaters</q> like the nautilus, which is a <q>little ship.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. From Reason.</head> + +<p> +We may argue the preserving agency of God from the following +considerations: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Dorner, Glaubenslehre: <q>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</q>—<hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, +are dependent for their continued existence upon God. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>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 +<pb n='413'/><anchor id='Pg413'/> +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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +From our present point of view we would also criticize Hodge, Systematic Theology, +1:596—<q>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.</q> New Englander, Sept. 1883:552—<q>Man in early time used second causes, +<hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, 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.</q> Dorner: <q>If the world had no independence, it would not reflect +God, nor would creation mean anything.</q> But this independence is not absolute. +Even man lives, moves and has his being in God (<hi rend='italic'>Acts 17:28</hi>), and whatever has come into +being, whether material or spiritual, has life only in Christ (<hi rend='italic'>John 1:3, 4</hi>, marginal reading). +</p> + +<p> +Preservation is God's continuous willing. Bowne, Introd. to Psych. Theory, 305, +speaks of <q>a kind of wholesale willing.</q> Augustine: <q>Dei voluntas est rerum natura.</q> +Principal Fairbairn: <q>Nature is spirit.</q> Tennyson, The Ancient Sage: <q>Force is from +the heights.</q> Lord Gifford, quoted in Max Müller, Anthropological Religion, 392—<q>The +human soul is neither self-derived nor self-subsisting. It would vanish if it had +not a substance, and its substance is God.</q> Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 284, 285—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +James Martineau, Seat of Authority, 29, 30—<q>All cosmic force is will.... This identification +of nature with God's will <emph>would</emph> be pantheistic only <emph>if</emph> we turned the proposition +round and identified God with <emph>no more</emph> than the life of the universe. But we do +not deny transcendency. Natural forces are God's will, but God's will <emph>is</emph> 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 <emph>other than himself</emph>, and he parts with <emph>other use of it</emph> +by preëngagement to an end. Yet he is the continuous source and supply of power to +the system.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> A. R. Wallace: <q>The whole universe +is not merely dependent on, but actually <emph>is</emph>, 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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='414'/><anchor id='Pg414'/> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi>—<q>Christian theology is the harmony +of pantheism and deism.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> On the +persistency of force, <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>super cuncta</foreign>, <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>subter cuncta</foreign>, 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>III. Theories which virtually deny the doctrine of Preservation.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. Deism.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Lord Herbert of Cherbury was one of the first who formed deism into a system. His +book <hi rend='italic'>De Veritate</hi> 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 <q>particular religion.</q> +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 <q>asked for a +sign,</q> and was answered by a <q>loud though gentle noise from the heavens.</q> 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: <q>Ut faber discedit a navi exstructa et +relinquit eam nautis.</q> God is the maker, not the keeper, of the watch. In Sartor +Resartus, Carlyle makes Teufelsdröckh speak of <q>An absentee God, sitting idle ever +since the first Sabbath at the outside of the universe, and seeing it go.</q> Blunt, Dict. +Doct. and Hist. Theology, art.: Deism. +</p> + +<p> +<q>Deism emphasized the inviolability of natural law, and held to a mechanical view of +the world</q> (Ten Broeke). Its God is a sort of Hindu Brahma, <q>as idle as a painted +ship upon a painted ocean</q>—mere being, without content or movement. Bruce, +Apologetics, 115-131—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<pb n='415'/><anchor id='Pg415'/> + +<p> +We object to this view that: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Deism regards the universe as a <q>perpetual motion.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> Hence Spinoza, the pantheist, was the great antagonist of +16th century deism. See Woods, Works, 2:40. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>There's not a flower that's born to blush unseen And +waste its sweetness on the desert air.</q> 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—<q>The +worst person in all history is something to God, if he be nothing to the world.</q> +See Chalmers, Astronomical Discourses, in Works, 7:68. Kurtz, The Bible and Astronomy, +in Introd. to History of Old Covenant, lxxxii-xcviii. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Deism therefore continually tends to atheism. Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 287—<q>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.</q> Ruskin: <q>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.</q> See Pearson, Infidelity, +87; Hanne, Idee der absoluten Persönlichkeit, 76. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. Continuous Creation.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<pb n='416'/><anchor id='Pg416'/> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Edwards, Works, 2:486-490, quotes and defends Dr. Taylor's utterance: <q>God is the +original of all being, and the only cause of all natural effects.</q> Edwards himself says: +<q>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.</q> +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. <q>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</q> (A. S. +Carman). Hopkins, Works, 1:164-167—Preservation <q>is really continued creation.</q> +Emmons, Works, 4:363-389, esp. 381—<q>Since all men are dependent agents, all their +motions, exercises, or actions must originate in a divine efficiency.</q> 2:683—<q>There is +but one true and satisfactory answer to the question which has been agitated for centuries: +<q>Whence came evil?</q> 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.</q> 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: <q>Kein Gott ohne Welt</q>—<q>There can be no God +without an accompanying world.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +The element of truth in Continuous Creation is its assumption that all force is will. +Its error is in maintaining that all force is <emph>divine</emph> will, and divine will in <emph>direct</emph> 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 <q>ideas are like the successive +chords and cadences brought out from a piano, which successively die away as others +are produced.</q> Maudsley, Physiology of Mind, quotes this passage, but asks quite pertinently: +<q>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?</q> Professor Fitzgerald: <q>All nature is living thought—the +language of One in whom we live and move and have our being.</q> Dr. Oliver Lodge, +to the British Association in 1891: <q>The barrier between matter and mind may melt +away, as so many others have done.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +To this we object, upon the following grounds: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Ladd, in his Philosophy of Mind, 144, indicates the error in Continuous Creation as +follows: <q>The whole world of things is momently quenched and then replaced by a +similar world of actually new realities.</q> The words of the poet would then be literally +true: <q>Every fresh and new creation, A divine improvisation, From the heart of God +proceeds.</q> Ovid, Metaph., 1:16—<q>Instabilis tellus, innabilis unda.</q> Seth, Hegelianism +and Personality, 60, says that, to Fichte, <q>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.</q> A. L. Moore, Science and the Faith, 184, 185—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='417'/><anchor id='Pg417'/> +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—<q>What is <emph>nature</emph>, but the promise of God's +pledged and habitual causality? And what is <emph>spirit</emph>, 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.</q> William Watson, Poems, 88—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>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</q> (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. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> It is easy +to see how, from this view of Edwards, the <q>Exercise-system</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) As deism tends to atheism, so the doctrine of continuous creation +tends to pantheism.—Arguing that, because we get our notion of force +<pb n='418'/><anchor id='Pg418'/> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Lotze tries to escape from <emph>material</emph> causes and yet hold to <emph>second</emph> 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—<q>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.</q> Dorner well +remarks that <q>Preservation is empowering of the creature and maintenance of its +activity, not new bringing it into being.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>IV. Remarks upon the Divine Concurrence.</head> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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). +<hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 12:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>there are diversities of workings, but the same God, who worketh all things in all</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 1:23</hi>—the +church, <q><hi rend='italic'>which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all</hi>.</q> God's action is no <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>actio in +distans</foreign>, 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>wherein is the seed thereof</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 1:11</hi>) has its counterpart in the spiritual +growth described in the words <q><hi rend='italic'>his seed abideth in him</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>1 John 3:9</hi>). Paul considers himself +a reproductive agency in the hands of God: he begets children in the gospel (<hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 4:15</hi>); +yet the New Testament speaks of this begetting as the work of God (<hi rend='italic'>1 Pet. 1:3</hi>). 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Phil. 2:12, 13</hi>). +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. <hi rend='italic'>Jer. 44:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Oh, do not this +abominable thing that I hate</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Hab. 1:13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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?</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>James 1:13, 14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> Aaron excused himself for making an Egyptian +idol by saying that the fire did it; he asked the people for gold; <q><hi rend='italic'>so they gave it me; and +I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Ex. 32:24</hi>). Aaron leaves out one important point—his +<pb n='419'/><anchor id='Pg419'/> +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 (<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 1:3</hi>). On the importance of the idea of preservation in Christian +doctrine, see Calvin, Institutes, 1:182 (chapter 16). +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Section III.—Providence.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>I. Definition of Providence.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +As Creation explains the existence of the universe, and as Preservation +explains its continuance, so Providence explains its evolution and progress. +</p> + +<p> +In explanation notice: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) Providence is not to be taken merely in its etymological sense of +<emph>fore</emph>seeing. It is <emph>for</emph>seeing also, or a positive agency in connection with +all the events of history. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) 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—<q>one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things</q>; +<hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> John 5:17—<q>My Father worketh even until now, and I work.</q> +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +The Germans have the word <foreign lang='de' rend='italic'>Fürsehung</foreign>, forseeing, looking out for, as well as the +word <foreign lang='de' rend='italic'>Vorsehung</foreign>, foreseeing, seeing beforehand. Our word <q>providence</q> embraces the +meanings of both these words. On the general subject of providence, see Philippi, +<pb n='420'/><anchor id='Pg420'/> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Providence is God's attention concentrated everywhere. His care is microscopic as +well as telescopic. Robert Browning, Pippa Passes, <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>ad finem</foreign>: <q>All service is the same +with God—With God, whose puppets, best and worst, Are we: there is no last nor +first.</q> Canon Farrar: <q>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. <q>Silently he left The Presence, and prevented the king's sin, And holp the +little ant at entering in.</q> <q>Nothing is too high or low, Too mean or mighty, if God +wills it so.</q></q> Yet a preacher began his sermon on Mat. 10:30—<q>The very hairs of your head are +are all numbered</q>—by saying: <q>Why, some of you, my hearers, do not believe that even +your heads are all numbered!</q> +</p> + +<p> +A modern prophet of unbelief in God's providence is William Watson. In his poem +entitled The Unknown God, we read: <q>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.</q> Then he likens +the God of the Old Testament to Odin and Zeus, and continues: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +In pleasing contrast to William Watson's Unknown God, is the God of Rudyard Kipling's +Recessional: <q>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!</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <q><hi rend='italic'>all things work together for good to them +that love God.</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 8:28</hi>). +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<pb n='421'/><anchor id='Pg421'/> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>II. Proof of the Doctrine of Providence.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. Scriptural Proof.</head> + +<p> +The Scripture witnesses to +</p> + +<p> +A. A general providential government and control (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) over the universe +at large; (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) over the physical world; (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) over the brute creation; +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) over the affairs of nations; (<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) over man's birth and lot in life; +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) over the outward successes and failures of men's lives; (<hi rend='italic'>g</hi>) over things +seemingly accidental or insignificant; (<hi rend='italic'>h</hi>) in the protection of the +righteous; (<hi rend='italic'>i</hi>) in the supply of the wants of God's people; (<hi rend='italic'>j</hi>) in the +arrangement of answers to prayer; (<hi rend='italic'>k</hi>) in the exposure and punishment +of the wicked. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 103:19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>his kingdom ruleth over all</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Dan. 4:35</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, +and among the inhabitants of the earth</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 1:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>worketh all things after the counsel of his will.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Job 37:5, 10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>God thundereth ... By the breath of God ice is given</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 104:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>causeth the grass +to grow for the cattle</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>135:6, 7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Whatsoever Jehovah pleased, that hath he done, In heaven and in earth, in the seas +and in all deeps ... vapors ... lightnings ... wind</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 5:45</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>maketh his sun to rise ... sendeth +rain</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 104:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>The trees of Jehovah are filled</hi></q>—are planted and tended by God as carefully +as those which come under human cultivation; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 6:30</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>if God so clothe the +grass of the field.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 104:21, 28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>young lions roar ... seek their food from God ... that thou givest them they gather</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 6:26</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>birds of the heaven ... your heavenly Father feedeth them</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>10:29</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>two sparrows ... not one +of them shall fall on the ground without your Father.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Job 12:23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>He increaseth the nations, and he destroyeth them: He enlargeth the nations, and he leadeth them +captive</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 22:28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the kingdom is Jehovah's; And he is the ruler over the nations</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>66:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>He ruleth by his +might for ever; His eyes observe the nations</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Acts 17:26</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q> (instance Palestine, +Greece, England). +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>1 Sam. 16:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 139:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Thine eyes did see mine unformed substance, And in thy book +were all my members written</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Is. 45:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I will gird thee, though thou hast not known me</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Jer. 1:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Before +I formed thee in the belly I knew thee ... sanctified thee ... appointed thee</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Gal. 1:15, 16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 75:6, 7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Luke 1:52</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>He hath put down princes from their thrones, +And hath exalted them of low degree.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>g</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Prov. 16:33</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>The lot is cast into the lap; But the whole disposing thereof is of Jehovah</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 10:30</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the +very hairs of your head are all numbered.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>h</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 4:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>In peace will I both lay me down and sleep; For thou, Jehovah, alone makest me dwell in safety</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>5:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>thou wilt compass him with favor as with a shield</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>63:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Thy right hand upholdeth me</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>121:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>He +that keepeth thee will not slumber</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 8:28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>to them that love God all things work together for good.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>i</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 22:8, 14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>God will provide himself the lamb ... Jehovah-jireh</hi></q> (marg.: that is, <q>Jehovah will +see,</q> or <q>provide</q>); <hi rend='italic'>Deut. 8:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>man doth not live by bread only, but by every thing that proceedeth out of the +mouth of Jehovah doth man live</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Phil. 4:19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>my God shall supply every need of yours.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>j</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 68:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Thou, O God, didst prepare of thy goodness for the poor</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Is. 64:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>neither hath the eye seen +a God besides thee, who worketh for him that waiteth for him</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 6:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>your Father knoweth what things ye +have need of, before ye ask him</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>32, 33</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>all these things shall be added unto you.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>k</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 7:12, 13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>11:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Upon the wicked he will +rain snares; Fire and brimstone and burning wind shall be the portion of their cup.</hi></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. <q>There shall be no Alps!</q> says Napoleon. Charles Kingsley: +<pb n='422'/><anchor id='Pg422'/> +<q>The spirit of ancient tragedy was man conquered by circumstance; the spirit of +modern tragedy is man conquering circumstance.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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. <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Parcere +subjectis</foreign> was her rule, as well as <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>debellare superbos</foreign>. 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 <emph>several</emph> islands. Scotland was always liberal, and Ireland foredoomed to subjection. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +B. A government and control extending to the free actions of men—(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) +to men's free acts in general; (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) to the sinful acts of men also. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +(a) <hi rend='italic'>Ex. 12:36</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Sam. 24:18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Jehovah had delivered me up into thy hand</hi></q> (Saul to +David); <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 33:14, 15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>He looketh forth Upon all the inhabitants of the earth, He that fashioneth the hearts of them +all</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, equally, one as well as another); <hi rend='italic'>Prov. 16:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>The plans of the heart belong to man; But the +answer of the tongue is from Jehovah</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>19:21</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>There are many devices in a man's heart; But the counsel of Jehovah, +<pb n='423'/><anchor id='Pg423'/> +that shall stand</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>20:24</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>A man's goings are of Jehovah; How then can man understand his way?</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>21:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>The +king's heart is in the hand of Jehovah as the watercourses: He turneth it whithersoever he will</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, as easily as +the rivulets of the eastern fields are turned by the slightest motion of the hand or the +foot of the husbandman); <hi rend='italic'>Jer. 10:23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>O Jehovah, I know that the way of man is not in himself; it is not +in man that walketh to direct his steps</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Phil. 2:13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>it is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, +for his good pleasure</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 2:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God +afore prepared that we should walk in them</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>James 4:13-15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>If the Lord will, we shall both live, and do this or +that.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>2 Sam. 16:10</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>because Jehovah hath said unto him</hi></q> [Shimei]: <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>Curse David</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>24:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the anger of +Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. +11:32</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>God hath shut up all unto disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Thess. 2:11, 12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +Henry Ward Beecher: <q>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.</q> 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. <q>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.</q> Dr. Deems: <q>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.</q> See Bruce, Providential Order, 183 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi>; Providence in the Individual +Life, 231 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +God's providence with respect to men's evil acts is described in Scripture +as of four sorts: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 20:6</hi>—Of Abimelech: <q><hi rend='italic'>I also withheld thee from sinning against me</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>31:24</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Psalm 19:13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; Let them not have dominion over +me</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Hosea 2:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Behold, I will hedge up thy way with thorns, and I will build a wall against her, that she shall +not find her paths</hi></q>—here the <q><hi rend='italic'>thorns</hi></q> and the <q><hi rend='italic'>wall</hi></q> may represent the restraints and sufferings +by which God mercifully checks the fatal pursuit of sin (see Annotated Par. Bible +<hi rend='italic'>in loco</hi>). 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: <q>Death!</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>2 Chron. 32:31</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>God left him</hi></q> [Hezekiah], <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>to try him, that he might know all that was in his heart</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> +<hi rend='italic'>Deut. 8:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>that he might humble thee, to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart.</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 17:13, 14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Deliver +my soul from the wicked, who is thy sword, from men who are thy hand, O Jehovah</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 81:12, 13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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!</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>Is. 53:4, 10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Surely he hath borne our griefs.... Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him.</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>Hosea 4:17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Ephraim +<pb n='424'/><anchor id='Pg424'/> +Ephraim is joined to idols; let him alone</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Acts 14:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>who in the generations gone by suffered all the +nations to walk in their own ways</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 1:24, 28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>3:25</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>to show his righteousness, +because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God.</hi></q> To this head of permissive +providence is possibly to be referred <hi rend='italic'>1 Sam. 18:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>an evil spirit from God came mightily +upon Saul.</hi></q> As the Hebrew writers saw in second causes the operation of the great first +Cause, and said: <q><hi rend='italic'>The God of glory thundereth</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 29:3</hi>), 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 <hi rend='italic'>2 Sam. 24:1</hi>, God moves David to +number Israel, but in <hi rend='italic'>1 Chron. 21:1</hi> the same thing is referred to Satan. God's providence +in these cases, however, may be directive as well as permissive. +</p> + +<p> +Tennyson, The Higher Pantheism: <q>God is law, say the wise; O Soul, and let us +rejoice, For if he thunder by law the thunder is yet his voice.</q> Fisher, Nature and +Method of Revelation, 56—<q>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.</q> Coleridge, in his Confessions of an Inquiring +Spirit, letter II, speaks of <q>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.</q> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 50:20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 76:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the wrath of man shall praise thee: The residue of wrath shalt thou gird upon +thee</hi></q>—put on as an ornament—clothe thyself with it for thine own glory; <hi rend='italic'>Is. 10:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Ho +Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in whose hand is mine indignation</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 13:27</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>What thou doest, +do quickly</hi></q>—do in a particular way what is actually being done (Westcott, Bib. Com., +<hi rend='italic'>in loco</hi>); <hi rend='italic'>Acts 4:27, 28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +To this head of directive providence should probably be referred the passages with +regard to Pharaoh in <hi rend='italic'>Ex. 4:21</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I will harden his heart, and he will not let the people go</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>7:13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>and +Pharaoh's heart was hardened</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>8:15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he hardened his heart</hi></q>—<hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 9:17, 18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> Thus the very passions which +<pb n='425'/><anchor id='Pg425'/> +excite men to rebel against God are made completely subservient to his purposes: +see Annotated Paragraph Bible, on <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 76:10</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> The Watchman, Dec. 5, 1901:11—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Job 1:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And Jehovah said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth +thy hand</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Behold, he is in thy hand; only spare his life</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 124:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>If it had not been Jehovah who +was on our side, when men rose up against us; Then had they swallowed us up alive</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 10:13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Thess. 2:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work; only there is one that restraineth +now, until he be taken out of the way</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 20:2, 3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And he laid hold on the dragon, the old serpent, which is the +Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +Pepper, Outlines of Syst. Theol., 76—The union of God's will and man's will is <q>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.</q> +</p> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. Rational proof.</head> + +<p> +A. Arguments <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>a priori</foreign> from the divine attributes. (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +For heathen ideas of providence, see Cicero, De Natura Deorum, 11:30, where Balbus +speaks of the existence of the gods as that, <q>quo concesso, confitendum est eorum +consilio mundum administrari.</q> Epictetus, sec. 41—<q>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.</q> Marcus Antoninus: <q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<pb n='426'/><anchor id='Pg426'/> + +<p> +On the argument for providence derived from God's benevolence, see Appleton, +Works, 1:146—<q>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.</q> <hi rend='italic'>John 5:17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>My +Father worketh even until now, and I work</hi></q>—is as applicable to providence as to preservation. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +B. Arguments <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>a posteriori</foreign> from the facts of nature and of history. +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <q>variety of environment</q> +(H. Spencer). But this variety of environment is in great part independent of our own +efforts. +</p> + +<p> +<q>There's a Divinity that shapes our ends, Rough hew them how we will.</q> Shakespeare +here expounds human consciousness. <q>Man proposes and God disposes</q> 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 <q>embattle and +are broken.</q> 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. <hi rend='italic'>Cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Is. 42:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I will bring the blind by a way that they know not</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 5:37, +38</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>thou sowest ... a bare grain ... but God giveth it a body even as it pleased him.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +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: +<q><hi rend='italic'>But if not</hi></q>—even if God does not deliver us—<q><hi rend='italic'>we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden +image which thou hast set up</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Dan. 3:18.</hi>) +</p> + +<p> +Martineau, Seat of Authority, 298—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +James Russell Lowell, Letters, 2:51, suggests that God's calm control of the forces +<pb n='427'/><anchor id='Pg427'/> +of the universe, both physical and mental, should give us confidence when evil +seems impending: <q>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!</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>III. Theories opposing the Doctrine of Providence.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. Fatalism.</head> + +<p> +Fatalism maintains the certainty, but denies the freedom, of human self-determination,—thus +substituting fate for providence. +</p> + +<p> +To this view we object that (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) it contradicts consciousness, which testifies +that we are free; (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) it exalts the divine power at the expense of +God's truth, wisdom, holiness, love; (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) it destroys all evidence of the +personality and freedom of God; (<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) it practically makes necessity the +only God, and leaves the imperatives of our moral nature without present +validity or future vindication. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. <foreign lang='ar' rend='italic'>Islam</foreign> = <q>submission,</q> and the participle <foreign lang='ar' rend='italic'>Moslem</foreign> += <q>submitted,</q> <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, to God. Turkish proverb: <q>A man cannot escape what is +written on his forehead.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>sensual</emph>. <q>The Christian and Jewish +religions,</q> he says, <q>have their paradise also. The Koran makes this the reward, but +not the ideal, of conduct; <q>Grace from thy Lord—that is the grand bliss.</q> The emphasis +of the Koran is upon right living. The Koran does not teach the propagation of +religion by <emph>force</emph>. 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 <emph>polygamy</emph>. 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 <emph>secular learning</emph>. 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.</q> +See Zwemer, Moslem Doctrine of God. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. Casualism.</head> + +<p> +Casualism transfers the freedom of mind to nature, as fatalism transfers +the fixity of nature to mind. It thus exchanges providence for chance. +<pb n='428'/><anchor id='Pg428'/> +Upon this view we remark: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. <q>Love God and do what you will,</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +In <hi rend='italic'>Luke 10:31</hi>, our Savior says: <q><hi rend='italic'>By chance a certain priest was going down that way</hi>.</q> Janet: +<q>Chance is not a cause, but a coincidence of causes.</q> Bowne, Theory of Thought and +Knowledge, 197—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +The observer at the signal station was asked what was the climate of Rochester. +<q>Climate?</q> he replied; <q>Rochester has no climate,—only weather!</q> So Chauncey +Wright spoke of the ups and downs of human affairs as simply <q>cosmical weather.</q> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>3. Theory of a merely general providence.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<pb n='429'/><anchor id='Pg429'/> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +This appears to have been the view of most of the heathen philosophers. Cicero: +<q>Magna dii curant; parva negligunt.</q> <q>Even in kingdoms among men,</q> he says, +<q>kings do not trouble themselves with insignificant affairs.</q> Fullerton, Conceptions +of the Infinite, 9—<q>Plutarch thought there could not be an infinity of worlds,—Providence +could not possibly take charge of so many. <q>Troublesome and boundless infinity</q> +could be grasped by no consciousness.</q> The ancient Cretans made an image of +Jove without ears, for they said: <q>It is a shame to believe that God would hear the +talk of men.</q> 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: +<q>A reasonable amount of fleas is good for a dog,—they keep him from broodin' on +bein' a dog.</q> This has been paraphrased: <q>A reasonable number of beaux are good +for a girl,—they keep her from brooding over her being a girl.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +In addition to the arguments above alluded to, we may urge against this +theory that: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<q>Nothing great has great beginnings.</q> <q>Take care of the pence, and the pounds will +take care of themselves.</q> <q>Care for the chain is care for the links of the chain.</q> +Instances in point are the sleeplessness of King Ahasuerus (<hi rend='italic'>Esther 6:1</hi>), 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. +</p> + +<p> +<q>Large doors swing on small hinges.</q> The barking of a dog determined F. W. +Robertson to be a preacher rather than a soldier. Robert Browning, Mr. Sludge the +Medium: <q>We find great things are made of little things, And little things go lessening +till at last Comes God behind them.</q> E. G. Robinson: <q>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.</q> Dr. Lloyd, one of the Oxford +Professors, said to Pusey, <q>I wish you would learn something about those German +critics.</q> <q>In the obedient spirit of those times,</q> writes Pusey, <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Goldwin Smith: <q>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.</q> The annexation of Corsica to France +<pb n='430'/><anchor id='Pg430'/> +gave to France a Napoleon, and to Europe a conqueror. Martineau, Seat of Authority, +101—<q>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.</q> See Appleton, Works, 1:149 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi>; Lecky, England +in the Eighteenth Century, chap. I. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +God's care is shown in the least things as well as in the greatest. In Gethsemane +Christ says: <q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 18:8, 9</hi>). It is the same spirit as that of his intercessory prayer: +<q><hi rend='italic'>I guarded them, and not one of them perished, but the son of perdition</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 17:12</hi>). 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Gal. 3:13</hi>). 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. +</p> + +<p> +Of his journey through the dark continent in search of David Livingston, Henry M. +Stanley wrote in Scribner's Monthly for June, 1890: <q>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.</q> He refuses +to believe that it is all the result of <q>luck</q>, and he closes with a doxology which we +should expect from Livingston but not from him: <q>Thanks be to God, forever and +ever!</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<pb n='431'/><anchor id='Pg431'/> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 107:23-28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +<q>Est deus in nobis; agitante calescimus illo.</q> 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—<q>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 <q>Poor Richard's</q> 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 <q>with a rope around their necks.</q> 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 <q>God verily rules in the affairs of men.</q> And +when the designs for an American coinage were under discussion, Franklin proposed +to stamp on them, not <q>A Penny Saved is a Penny Earned,</q> or any other piece of +worldly prudence, but <q>The Fear of the Lord is the Beginning of Wisdom.</q></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>I have been fed more by miracle than Elijah when the angels +were his purveyors.</q> In <hi rend='italic'>Psalm 32</hi>, David celebrates not only God's pardoning mercy but +his subsequent providential leading: <q><hi rend='italic'>I will counsel thee with mine eye upon thee</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>verse 8</hi>). 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 <emph>know</emph> the design, but +that there <emph>is</emph> 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Job 23:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>He knoweth the way that is mine,</hi></q> or <q><hi rend='italic'>the way that is with me,</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, my inmost way, life, +character; <q><hi rend='italic'>When he hath tried me, I shall come forth as gold.</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 19:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>and the rock was Christ</hi></q>—Christ +was the ever present source of their refreshment and life, both physical and +spiritual. God's providence is all exercised through Christ. <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 2:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>But thanks be +unto God, who always leadeth us in triumph in Christ</hi></q>; not, as in A. V., <q><hi rend='italic'>causeth us to triumph</hi>.</q> Paul +glories, not in conquering, but in being conquered. Let Christ triumph, not Paul. +<q>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.</q> Therefore Paul can call +himself <q><hi rend='italic'>the prisoner of Christ Jesus</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Eph. 3:1</hi>). It was Christ who had shut him up two years +in Cæsarea, and then two succeeding years in Rome. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>IV. Relations of the Doctrine of Providence.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. To miracles and works of grace.</head> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='432'/><anchor id='Pg432'/> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> +In a similar way, the life of Dr. Oncken was saved in the railroad disaster at Norwalk. +</p> + +<p> +Trench gives the name of <q>providential miracles</q> 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 <emph>some</emph> warrant, while +the former give <emph>full</emph> warrant, for believing that they are wrought by God. He calls +special providences <q>invisible miracles.</q> Bp. of Southampton, Place of Miracles, 12, +13—<q>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: <hi rend='italic'><q>Jehovah spake unto Moses</q> (Num. 5:1)</hi>. God is everywhere +present in the history of Israel, but miracles are strikingly rare.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +E. G. Robinson: <q>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.</q> 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>a mound of salt</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 19:26</hi>). 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 +<pb n='433'/><anchor id='Pg433'/> +that Christ is absolute Lord of nature. For the naturalistic view, see Tyndall on +Miracles and Special Providences, in Fragments of Science, 45, 418. <hi rend='italic'>Per contra</hi>, 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. To prayer and its answer.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <q>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.</q> In reply we would remark: +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +A. Negatively, that the true solution is not to be reached: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>We can make use of no +expression or even thought in prayers and entreaties which does not imply that these +prayers have an influence.</q> 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 <q>mere dumb-bell exercise.</q> Baron Munchausen +pulled himself out of the bog in China by tugging away at his own pigtail. +</p> + +<p> +Hyde, God's Education of Man, 154, 155—<q>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.</q> +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 <q>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.</q> +Harnack forgets that the same Christ said also: <q><hi rend='italic'>All things whatsoever ye pray and ask for, believe +that ye receive them, and ye shall have them</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Mark 11:24</hi>). +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. <hi rend='italic'>1 K. 17:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>behold, I have commanded a +widow there to sustain thee.</hi></q> But God could also feed Elijah by the ravens and the angel +(<hi rend='italic'>1 K. 17:4; 19:15</hi>), and the pouring rain that followed Elijah's prayer (<hi rend='italic'>1 K. 18:42-45</hi>) +cannot be explained as a subjective spiritual phenomenon. Diman, Theistic Argument, +268—<q>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 +<pb n='434'/><anchor id='Pg434'/> +slopes of the Rocky Mountains.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q><hi rend='italic'>Thy will +be done</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 6:10</hi>). E. G. Robinson: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <q>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</q> +(Hopkins, Sermon on Prayer-gauge, 16). +</p> + +</quote> +<p> +It seems more in accordance with both Scripture and reason to say that: +</p> + +<p> +B. God may answer prayer, even when that answer involves changes in +the sequences of nature,— +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Hopkins, Sermon on the Prayer-gauge: <q>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.</q> Kendall Brooks: <q>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 +<pb n='435'/><anchor id='Pg435'/> +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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Hodge, Popular Lectures, 45, 99—<q>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.</q> Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 155—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Shaler, Interpretation of Nature, chap. 2—<q>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.</q> William James, Address before Soc. for Psych. +Research: <q>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.</q> Tennyson, +Life, 1:324—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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—<q>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 <emph>endlessly varying combinations of invariable forces</emph>.</q> Diman +seems to have followed Argyll, Reign of Law, 100. +</p> + +<p> +Janet, Final Causes, 219—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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: +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<pb n='436'/><anchor id='Pg436'/> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +J. P. Cooke, Credentials of Science, 194—<q>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.</q> +E. G. Robinson: <q>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.</q> The +bishop who was asked by his curate to sanction prayers for rain was unduly sceptical +when he replied: <q>First consult the barometer.</q> Phillips Brooks: <q>Prayer is not the +conquering of God's reluctance, but the taking hold of God's willingness.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>Brethren, +be still, while I call upon God to stay the storm till the gospel is preached to this multitude!</q> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>The universe is God's ceaseless conversation with his creatures.</q> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Matheson, Messages of the Old Religions, 321, 322—<q>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.</q> Miss Heloise E. Hersey: <q>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.</q> Abp. Trench, Poems, 134—<q>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 +<pb n='437'/><anchor id='Pg437'/> +or heartless be, Anxious or troubled, when with us is prayer, And joy and strength and +courage are with thee?</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) There is a general proof of it in the past experience of the Christian +and in the past history of the church. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 116:1-8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I love Jehovah because he heareth my voice and my supplications.</hi></q> 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: <q>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.</q> Mr. +Spurgeon's language is rhetorical: he means simply that God's answers to prayer +remove all reasonable doubt. Adoniram Judson: <q>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!</q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Is. 7:10-13</hi>—Ahaz is rebuked for not asking a sign,—in him it indicated unbelief. <hi rend='italic'>1 K. +18:36-38</hi>—Elijah said, <q><hi rend='italic'>let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel.... Then the fire of Jehovah fell, +and consumed the burnt offering.</hi></q> Romaine speaks of <q>a year famous for believing.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Mat 21:21, +22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> <q>Impossible?</q> said Napoleon; <q>then it +shall be done!</q> Arthur Hallam, quoted in Tennyson's Life, 1:44—<q>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?</q> <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Martineau, Seat of Authority, 102, 103—<q>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.</q> +Hartley Coleridge: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<pb n='438'/><anchor id='Pg438'/> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 12:39</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> 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: <q>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.</q> Christ's prayer, <q><hi rend='italic'>let this cup pass away from me</hi></q> +(<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 26:39</hi>), and Paul's prayer that the <q><hi rend='italic'>thorn in the flesh</hi></q> might depart from him (<hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 12:7, +8</hi>), 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 +<q>prediction is the crown of all science.</q> But, as Diman remarks: <q>geometry, geology, +physiology, are sciences, yet they do not predict.</q> 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 <hi rend='italic'>Mal. 3:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> All such +prayer is a reflection of Christ's words—some fragment of his teaching transformed +into a supplication (<hi rend='italic'>John 15:7</hi>; see Westcott, Bib. Com., <hi rend='italic'>in loco</hi>); all such prayer is moreover +the work of the Spirit of God (<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 8:26, 27</hi>). It is therefore sure of an answer. +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi>—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <q><hi rend='italic'>helpeth our infirmity; for we know not how to pray as we ought; but the Spirit himself +<pb n='439'/><anchor id='Pg439'/> +maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 8:26</hi>). And we ought not to +talk of <q>submitting</q> to perfect Wisdom, or of <q>being resigned</q> to perfect Love. +Shakespeare, Antony and Cleopatra, 2:1—<q>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.</q> See +Thornton, Old-Fashioned Ethics, 286-297. <hi rend='italic'>Per contra</hi>, see Galton, Inquiries into Human +Faculty, 277-294. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>3. To Christian activity.</head> + +<p> +Here the truth lies between the two extremes of quietism and naturalism. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Upham, Interior Life, 356, defines quietism as <q>cessation of wandering thoughts and +discursive imaginations, rest from irregular desires and affections, and perfect submission +of the will.</q> 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: +<q>Quietism makes God a monarch without living subjects.</q> Certain English +quietists, like the Mohammedans, will not employ physicians in sickness. They quote +<hi rend='italic'>2 Chron. 16:12, 13</hi>—Asa <q><hi rend='italic'>sought not to Jehovah, but to the physicians. And Asa slept with his fathers</hi>.</q> They +forget that the <q><hi rend='italic'>physicians</hi></q> alluded to in Chronicles were probably heathen necromancers. +Cromwell to his Ironsides: <q>Trust God, and keep your powder dry!</q> +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>Saved your precious self from what +befell The thirty-three whom Providence forgot.</q> Schurman, Belief in God, 213—<q>The +temples were hung with the votive offerings of those only who had <emph>escaped</emph> +drowning.</q> <q>So like Provvy!</q> 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. <q>Every man is as lazy as circumstances will admit.</q> We +throw upon the shoulders of Providence the burdens which belong to us to bear. +<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Phil. 2:12, 13</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +Prayer without the use of means is an insult to God. <q>If God has decreed that you +should live, what is the use of your eating or drinking?</q> 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? <q>Tie your camel,</q> said Mohammed, <q>and commit it to +God.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 37:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Rest in Jehovah, and wait patiently for him</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Is. 57:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>He entereth +into peace; they rest in their beds, each one that walketh in his uprightness</hi></q>. Ian Maclaren, Cure of +Souls, 147—<q>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.</q> On the self-guidance +of Christ, see Adamson, The Mind in Christ, 202-232. +</p> + +<p> +George Müller, writing about ascertaining the will of God, says: <q>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 +<pb n='440'/><anchor id='Pg440'/> +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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +We must not confound rational piety with false enthusiasm. See Isaac Taylor, +Natural History of Enthusiasm. <q>Not quiescence, but acquiescence, is demanded of +us.</q> As God feeds <q><hi rend='italic'>the birds of the heaven</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 6:26</hi>), 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: +<hi rend='italic'>1 John 4:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God.</hi></q> The test is +the revealed word of God: <hi rend='italic'>Is. 8:20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>To the law and to the testimony! if they speak not according to this +word, surely there is no morning for them.</hi></q> See remarks on false Mysticism, pages 32, 33. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +The Christian may have a continual divine guidance. Unlike the unfaithful and unbelieving, +of whom it is said, in <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 106:13</hi>, <q><hi rend='italic'>They waited not for his counsel,</hi></q> the true believer has +wisdom given him from above. <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 32:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou +shalt go</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Prov. 3:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>In all thy ways acknowledge him, And he will direct thy paths</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Phil. 1:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And this I +pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and all discernment</hi></q> (αἰσθήσει = spiritual +discernment); <hi rend='italic'>James 1:5</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>if any of you lacketh wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth</hi></q> (τοῦ διδόντος +Θεοῦ) <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>to all liberally and upbraideth not</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 15:15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>No longer do I call you servants; for the servant knoweth +not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Col. 1:9, 10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>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.</q> Hutton, Essays: <q>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.</q> So the +Christian hymn, <q>Guide me, O thou great Jehovah!</q> 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>the prisoner of Christ Jesus</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Eph. 3:1</hi>). Affliction is the discipline of God's providence. +Greek proverb: <q>He who does not get thrashed, does not get educated.</q> On God's +Leadings, see A. H. Strong, Philosophy and Religion, 560-562. +</p> + +<pb n='441'/><anchor id='Pg441'/> + +<p> +Abraham <q><hi rend='italic'>went out, not knowing whither he went</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 11:8</hi>). 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. <hi rend='italic'>Is. 42:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I will bring the blind by a way that they know +not; in paths that they know not will I lead them.</hi></q> 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: <q>Himself from God he could not free; He builded better than +he knew.</q> Disappointments? Ah, you make a mistake in the spelling; the D should +be an H: His appointments. Melanchthon: <q>Quem poetæ fortunam, nos Deum appellamus.</q> +Chinese proverb: <q>The good God never smites with both hands.</q> <q>Tact is a +sort of psychical automatism</q> (Ladd). There is a Christian tact which is rarely at +fault, because its possessor is <q><hi rend='italic'>led by the Spirit of God</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 8:14</hi>). Yet we must always make +allowance, as Oliver Cromwell used to say, <q>for the possibility of being mistaken.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Amiel lamented that everything was left to his own responsibility and declared: <q>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.</q> How much better is +Wordsworth's faith, Excursion, book 4:581—<q>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.</q> Mrs. +Browning, De Profundis, stanza xxiii—<q>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!</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>4. To the evil acts of free agents.</head> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Bp. Wordsworth: <q>God <emph>foresees</emph> evil deeds, but never <emph>forces</emph> them.</q> <q>God does not +cause sin, any more than the rider of a limping horse causes the limping.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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 +<pb n='442'/><anchor id='Pg442'/> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 2:272-284—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>Thus doth +he force the swords of wicked men To turn their own points on their masters' +bosoms</q>; Hamlet, 1:2—<q>Foul deeds will rise, though all the earth o'erwhelm them, +to men's eyes</q>; Macbeth, 1:7—<q>Even handed justice Commends the ingredients of +the poisoned chalice To our own lips.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>Noctem sideribus illustrem, quasi convinsendum +ad scelus, dii præbuere</q>—<q>a night brilliant with stars, as if for the purpose +of proving the crime, was granted by the gods.</q> 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: <q>It must be confessed. It will be +confessed. There is no refuge from confession but suicide, and suicide is confession.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Is. 10:5, 7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Ho Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, the staff in whose hand is mine indignation!... Howbeit, he +meaneth not so.</hi></q> Charles Kingsley, Two Years Ago: <q>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</q>—here we would add the qualification: <q>consistently +with the limits which he has set to the operations of his grace.</q> Pharaoh's ordering +the destruction of the Israelitish children (<hi rend='italic'>Ex. 1:16</hi>) 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: <q>My will fulfilled +shall be, For in daylight as in dark My thunderbolt has eyes to see His way home to +the mark.</q> See also Edwards, Works, 4:300-312. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Col. 2:15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>having stripped off from himself the principalities and the powers</hi></q>—the hosts of evil spirits +that swarmed upon him in their final onset—<q><hi rend='italic'>he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them +in it</hi>,</q> <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, in the cross, thus turning their evil into a means of good. Royce, Spirit of +Modern Philosophy, 443,—<q>Love, seeking for absolute evil, is like an electric light +engaged in searching for a shadow,—when Love gets there, the shadow has disappeared.</q> +But this means, not that all things <emph>are</emph> good, but that <q><hi rend='italic'>all things work together +<pb n='443'/><anchor id='Pg443'/> +for good</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 8:28</hi>)—God overruling for good that which in itself is only evil. John +Wesley: <q>God buries his workmen, but carries on his work.</q> Sermon on <q>The Devil's +Mistakes</q>: 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 (<hi rend='italic'>John 12:32</hi>), and Paul's imprisonment furnished +his epistles to the New Testament. +</p> + +<p> +<q>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. <q>Nothing can be done with that,</q> 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.</q> So <q>men may rise on stepping stones Of their dead selves to higher things</q> +(Tennyson, In Memoriam, I). +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Section IV.—Good And Evil Angels.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <q><hi rend='italic'>angels' food</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 78:25</hi>), and if angels ate +(<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 18:8</hi>), it was argued that we must take the logical consequences. +</p> + +<p> +Dante makes the creation of angels simultaneous with that of the universe at large. +<q>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</q>—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. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='444'/><anchor id='Pg444'/> +written with blood. Goethe represents Mephistopheles as saying to Faust: <q>I to thy +service here agree to bind me, To run and never rest at call of thee; When <emph>over yonder</emph> +thou shalt find me, Then thou shalt do as much for me.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Quenstedt (Theol., 1:629) regards the existence of angels as antecedently probable, +because there are no gaps in creation; nature does not proceed <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>per saltum</foreign>. 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. +</p> + +<p> +If souls live after death, there is certainly a class of disembodied spirits. It is not +impossible that God may have <emph>created</emph> spirits without bodies. E. G. Robinson, Christian +Theology, 110—<q>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.</q> Locke: +<q>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.</q> Foster, Christian Life and Theology, +193—<q>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.</q> Tennyson, Two Voices: <q>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?</q> +</p> + +<p> +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: <hi rend='italic'>Col. 2:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>who is the head of all principality and power</hi></q>—Christ is the head of +angels as well as of men; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 1:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things +upon the earth.</hi></q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>I. Scripture Statements and Imitations.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. As to the nature and attributes of angels.</head> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) They are created beings. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 148:2-5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Praise ye him, all his angels.... For he commanded, and they were created</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Col. 1:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>for +in him were all things created ... whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>1 Pet. 3:32</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>angels +and authorities and powers.</hi></q> God alone is uncreated and eternal. This is implied in +<hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 6:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>who only hath immortality.</hi></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<pb n='445'/><anchor id='Pg445'/> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) They are incorporeal beings. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +In <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 1:14</hi>, where a single word is used to designate angels, they are described as +<q><hi rend='italic'>spirits</hi></q>—<q><hi rend='italic'>are they not all ministering spirits?</hi></q> Men, with their twofold nature, material as +well as immaterial, could not well be designated as <q><hi rend='italic'>spirits</hi>.</q> That their being characteristically +<q><hi rend='italic'>spirits</hi></q> forbids us to regard angels as having a bodily organism, seems implied +in <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 6:12</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>for our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against ... the spiritual hosts</hi></q> [or <q><hi rend='italic'>things</hi></q>] +<q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>of wickedness in the heavenly places</hi></q>; cf. <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 1:3</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>2:6</hi>. In <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 6:2</hi>, <q><hi rend='italic'>sons of God</hi></q> =, not angels, but +descendants of Seth and worshipers of the true God (see Murphy, Com., <hi rend='italic'>in loco</hi>). In +<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 78:25</hi> (A. V.), <q><hi rend='italic'>angels' food</hi></q> = manna coming from heaven where angels dwell; better, +however, read with Rev. Vers.: <q><hi rend='italic'>bread of the mighty</hi></q>—probably meaning angels, though +the word <q><hi rend='italic'>mighty</hi></q> is nowhere else applied to them; possibly = <q>bread of princes or +nobles,</q> <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, the finest, most delicate bread. <hi rend='italic'>Mat 22:30</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>neither marry, nor are given in marriage, +but are as angels in heaven</hi></q>—and <hi rend='italic'>Luke 20:36</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels</hi></q>—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. +</p> + +<p> +There are no <q>souls of angels,</q> as there are <q><hi rend='italic'>souls of men</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Rev. 18:13</hi>), 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: <q>So in Scripture +we have spirits represented as wandering about to seek rest in bodies, and asking +permission to enter into swine</q> (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 12:43; 8:31</hi>). Angels therefore, since they have no +bodies, know nothing of growth, age, or death. Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, 133—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) They are personal—that is, intelligent and voluntary—agents. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>2 Sam. 14:20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Luke 4:34</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I know thee who thou art, the +Holy One of God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Tim. 2:26</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>snare of the devil ... taken captive by him unto his will</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 22:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>See +thou do it not</hi></q> = exercise of will; <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 12:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>The devil is gone down unto you, having great wrath</hi></q> = set +purpose of evil. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) They are possessed of superhuman intelligence and power, yet an +intelligence and power that has its fixed limits. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 24:36</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven</hi></q> = their knowledge, +though superhuman, is yet finite. <hi rend='italic'>1 Pet. 1:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>which things angels desire to look into</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 103:20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>angels +... mighty in strength</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Thess. 1:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the angels of his power</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Pet. 2:11</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>angels, though +greater</hi></q> [than men] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>in might and power</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 20:2, 10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>laid hold on the dragon ... and bound him ... +cast into the lake of fire.</hi></q> Compare <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 72:18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>God ... Who only doeth wondrous things</hi></q> = only +God can perform miracles. Angels are imperfect compared with God (<hi rend='italic'>Job 4:18; 15:15; +25:5</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +Power, rather than beauty or intelligence, is their striking characteristic. They are +<q><hi rend='italic'>principalities and powers</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Col. 1:16</hi>). They terrify those who behold them (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 28:4</hi>). 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—<q>The spiritual might and burning indignation in +the face of Stephen reminded the guilty Sanhedrin of an angelic vision.</q> Even in their +tenderest ministrations they strengthen (<hi rend='italic'>Luke 22:43</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Dan. 10:19</hi>). In <hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 6:15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>King +of kings and Lord of lords</hi></q>—the words <q><hi rend='italic'>kings</hi></q> and <q><hi rend='italic'>lords</hi></q> (βασιλευόντων and κυριευόντων) may +refer to angels. In the case of evil spirits especially, power seems the chief thing in +mind, <hi rend='italic'>e. g.</hi>, <q><hi rend='italic'>the prince of this world</hi>,</q> <q><hi rend='italic'>the strong man armed</hi>,</q> <q><hi rend='italic'>the power of darkness</hi>,</q> <q><hi rend='italic'>rulers of the darkness +of this world</hi>,</q> <q><hi rend='italic'>the great dragon,</hi></q> <q><hi rend='italic'>all the power of the enemy</hi>,</q> <q><hi rend='italic'>all these things will I give thee</hi>,</q> <q><hi rend='italic'>deliver us +from the evil one</hi>.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) They are an order of intelligences distinct from man and older +than man. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Angels are distinct from man. <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 6:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>we shall judge angels</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 1:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Are they not all +ministering spirits, sent forth to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation?</hi></q> They are not +glorified human spirits; see <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>for verily not to angels doth he give help, but he giveth help to +<pb n='446'/><anchor id='Pg446'/> +the seed of Abraham</hi></q>; also <hi rend='italic'>12:22, 23</hi>, where <q><hi rend='italic'>the innumerable hosts of angels</hi></q> are distinguished from +<q><hi rend='italic'>the church of the firstborn</hi></q> and <q><hi rend='italic'>the spirits of just men made perfect</hi>.</q> In <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 22:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I am a fellow-servant +with thee</hi></q>—<q><hi rend='italic'>fellow-servant</hi></q> 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—<q>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 <q><hi rend='italic'>judge angels</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 6:3</hi>), and +inferiors are not to judge superiors.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>he that liveth eternally +created all things together.</q> In <hi rend='italic'>Job 38:7</hi>, the Hebrews parallelism makes <q><hi rend='italic'>morning stars</hi></q>—<q><hi rend='italic'>sons +of God,</hi></q> so that angels are spoken of as present at certain stages of God's creative +work. The mention of <q><hi rend='italic'>the serpent</hi></q> in <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 3:1</hi> 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 <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 2:1</hi>, <q><hi rend='italic'>all the host of them,</hi></q> 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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Jesus accommodated himself to the popular belief in respect at least to <q><hi rend='italic'>Abraham's bosom</hi></q> +(<hi rend='italic'>Luke 16:22</hi>), and he confessed ignorance with regard to the time of the end (<hi rend='italic'>Mark 13:32</hi>); +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 <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 8:28</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Eph. 3:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>—excludes the hypothesis that angels are simply +abstract conceptions of good or evil. We speak of <q>moon-struck</q> 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 <emph>did</emph> 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Col 2:18</hi>) +but would have denied their existence, as he denied the existence of heathen gods +(<hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 8:4</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +Theodore Parker said it was very evident that Jesus Christ believed in a personal +devil. Harnack, Wesen des Christenthums, 35—<q>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.</q> Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 1:164—Jesus <q>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.</q> Maurice, Theological Essays, +<pb n='447'/><anchor id='Pg447'/> +32, 34—<q>The acknowledgment of an evil spirit is characteristic of Christianity.</q> H. B. +Smith, System, 261—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Crane, The Religion of To-morrow, 299 sq.—<q>We well say <q>personal devil,</q> for there +is no devil but personality.</q> 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 <q>Endymion</q>: +<q>Give me a single argument against his [Satan's] personality, which is not +applicable to the personality of the Deity.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<q>condition privative</q> of all finite beings as such, believes that <q>good angels have all +been passed through and helped up out of a fall, as the redeemed of mankind will be.</q> +<q><hi rend='italic'>Elect angels</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 5:21</hi>) then would mean those saved <emph>after</emph> falling, not those saved <emph>from</emph> +falling; and <q><hi rend='italic'>Satan</hi></q> would be, not the name of a particular person, but the all or total +of all bad minds and powers. <hi rend='italic'>Per contra</hi>, 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 <q>Paradise Lost,</q> and Goethe's +Mephistopheles in <q>Faust,</q> see Masson, The Three Devils. We may add to this list +Dante's Satan (or Dis) in the <q>Divine Comedy,</q> Byron's Lucifer in <q>Cain,</q> and Mrs. +Browning's Lucifer in her <q>Drama of Exile</q>; see Gregory, Christian Ethics, 219. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. As to their number and organization.</head> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) They are of great multitude. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Deut. 33:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Jehovah ... came from the ten thousands of holy ones</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 68:17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>The chariots of God are +twenty thousand, even thousands upon thousands</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Dan. 7:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>thousands of thousands ministered unto him, and ten +thousand times ten thousand stood before him</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 5:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I heard a voice of many angels ... and the number +of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands.</hi></q> 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 <q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) They constitute a company, as distinguished from a race. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 22:30</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Luke 20:36</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>neither +can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are sons of God.</hi></q> We are called <q><hi rend='italic'>sons +of men</hi>,</q> but angels are never called <q><hi rend='italic'>sons of angels</hi>,</q> but only <q><hi rend='italic'>sons of God</hi>.</q> 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 +<pb n='448'/><anchor id='Pg448'/> +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 <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>not to angels doth he give help.</hi></q> The angels are <q><hi rend='italic'>sons of God</hi>,</q> as having no earthly +parentage and no parentage at all except the divine. <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 3:14, 15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the Father, of whom every +fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named,</hi></q>—not <q><hi rend='italic'>every family</hi>,</q> as in R. V., for there are no families +among the angels. The marginal rendering <q><hi rend='italic'>fatherhood</hi></q> is better than <q><hi rend='italic'>family</hi>,</q>—all the +πατριαί are named from the πατήρ. Dodge, Christian Theology, 172—<q>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.</q> Newman Smyth, Through Science to Faith, 191—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) They are of various ranks and endowments. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Col. 1:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>thrones or dominions or principalities or powers</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Thess. 4:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the voice of the archangel</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>Jude 9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Michael the archangel.</hi></q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 1:51—<q>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 (<hi rend='italic'>Acts 7:38, 53</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>Gal. 3:19</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:2</hi>; Josephus, Ant. +15:5, 3).</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) They have an organization. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>1 Sam. 1:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Jehovah of hosts</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 K. 22:19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Jehovah sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing +by him on his right hand and on his left</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 26:53</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>twelve legions of angels</hi></q>—suggests the organization +of the Roman army; <hi rend='italic'>25:41</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the devil and his angels</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 2:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the prince of the powers +in the air</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 2:13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Satan's throne</hi></q> (not <q><hi rend='italic'>seat</hi></q>); <hi rend='italic'>16:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>throne of the beast</hi></q>—<q>a hellish parody +of the heavenly kingdom</q> (Trench). The phrase <q><hi rend='italic'>host of heaven</hi>,</q> in <hi rend='italic'>Deut. 4:19</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>17:3</hi>; +<hi rend='italic'>Acts 7:42</hi>, probably = the stars; but in <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 32:2</hi>, <q><hi rend='italic'>God's host</hi></q> = angels, for when Jacob saw +the angels he said <q><hi rend='italic'>this is God's host</hi>.</q> In general the phrases <q><hi rend='italic'>God of hosts</hi></q>, <q><hi rend='italic'>Lord of hosts</hi></q> seem +to mean <q>God of angels</q>, <q>Lord of angels</q>: compare <hi rend='italic'>2 Chron. 18:18</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>Luke 2:13</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 19:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the +armies which are in heaven.</hi></q> Yet in <hi rend='italic'>Neh. 9:6</hi> and <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 33:6</hi> the word <q><hi rend='italic'>host</hi></q> seems to include +both angels and stars. +</p> + +<p> +Satan is <q>the ape of God.</q> He has a throne. He is <q><hi rend='italic'>the prince of the world</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 14:30; +16:11</hi>), <q><hi rend='italic'>the prince of the powers of the air</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Eph. 2:2</hi>). 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Luke 11:21</hi>) 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 <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 3:1-15</hi>; the second in <hi rend='italic'>Lev. 16:8</hi>, where one of the two +goats on the day of atonement is said to be <q><hi rend='italic'>for Azazel</hi>,</q> or Satan; the third where Satan +moved David to number Israel (<hi rend='italic'>1 Chron. 21:1</hi>); the fourth in the book of <hi rend='italic'>Job 1:6-12</hi>; the +fifth in <hi rend='italic'>Zech. 3:1-3</hi>, 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 +<pb n='449'/><anchor id='Pg449'/> +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: <q>The moon, the planets, and the +meteors light, These angels in their crystal armor fight A doubtful battle.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +With regard to the <q>cherubim</q> of Genesis, Exodus, and Ezekiel,—with +which the <q>seraphim</q> of Isaiah and the <q>living creatures</q> 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 4:6-8</hi>, +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 <emph>image of God</emph> and <emph>priest of nature</emph>. 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 (<hi rend='italic'>Ex. 1:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>they had the likeness of a +man</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 5:9</hi>—A. V.—<q><hi rend='italic'>thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood</hi></q>—so read א, B, and Tregelles; +the Eng. and Am. Rev. Vers., however, follow A and Tischendorf, and omit the word +<q><hi rend='italic'>us</hi></q>). 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Ez. 1</hi> and <hi rend='italic'>10</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 4:6-8</hi>). 4. These +cherubic forms represent, not merely material or earthly perfections, but human +nature spiritualized and sanctified. They are <q><hi rend='italic'>living creatures</hi></q> and their life is a holy life +of obedience to the divine will (<hi rend='italic'>Ez. 1:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>whither the spirit was to go, they went</hi></q>). 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Ex. 37:6-9</hi>). While the flaming +sword at the gates of Eden was the symbol of justice, the cherubim were symbols of +mercy—keeping the <q><hi rend='italic'>way of the tree of life</hi></q> for man, until by sacrifice and renewal +Paradise should be regained (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 3:24</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>The winged lions, eagles, and bulls, that +guard the entrances of the palace of Nineveh, are worshipers rather than divinities.</q> +It has lately been shown that the winged bull of Assyria was called <q>Kerub</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='450'/><anchor id='Pg450'/> +God's life in the universe as a whole. <hi rend='italic'>Ez. 28:14-19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the anointed cherub that covereth</hi></q>—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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>3. As to their moral character.</head> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) They were all created holy. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 1:31</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Jude 6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>angels that kept +not their own beginning</hi></q>—ἀρχήν seems here to mean their beginning in holy character, rather +than their original lordship and dominion. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) They had a probation. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +This we infer from <hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 5:21</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the elect angels</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>1 Pet. 1:1, 2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>elect ... unto obedience.</hi></q> If +certain angels, like certain men, are <q><hi rend='italic'>elect ... unto obedience</hi>,</q> 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 <hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 5:21</hi>. Mason, Faith of the Gospel, +106-108—<q><hi rend='italic'>Gen. 3:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou</hi></q>—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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) Some preserved their integrity. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 89:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the council of the holy ones</hi></q>—a designation of angels; <hi rend='italic'>Mark 8:38</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the holy angels.</hi></q> +Shakespeare, Macbeth, 4:3—<q>Angels are bright still, though the brightest fell.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) Some fell from their state of innocence. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>John 8:44</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in +him</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Pet. 2:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>angels when they sinned</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Jude 6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>angels who kept not their own beginning, but left their +proper habitation.</hi></q> Shakespeare, Henry VIII, 3:2—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) The good are confirmed in good. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 6:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>18:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>in heaven their angels do always behold the +face of my Father who is in heaven</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 11:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>an angel of light.</hi></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) The evil are confirmed in evil. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 13:19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the evil one</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 John 5:18, 19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the evil one toucheth him not ... the whole world lieth in the +evil one</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>John 8:44</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 6:13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>deliver us from the evil one.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>1 Pet. 1:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>which +things angels desire to look into</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 3:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>that now unto the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places +might be made known through the church the manifold wisdom of God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Col. 1:20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>through him to reconcile all +things unto himself ... whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 1:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>to sum up all things +in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth</hi></q>—<q>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</q>—freely quoted from Leitch, God's Glory in the Heavens, 327-330. +</p> + +<p> +It is not impossible that God is using this earth as a breeding-ground from which to +populate the universe. Mark Hopkins, Life, 317—<q>While there shall be gathered at +<pb n='451'/><anchor id='Pg451'/> +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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>4. As to their employments.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>A. The employments of good angels.</head> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) They stand in the presence of God and worship him. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 29:1, 2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>—Perowne: <q>Heaven being +thought of as one great temple, and all the worshipers therein as clothed in priestly +vestments.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 89:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>a God very terrible in the council of the holy ones,</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, angels—Perowne: +<q>Angels are called an assembly or congregation, as the church above, which like the +church below worships and praises God.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 18:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>in heaven their angels do always behold +the face of my Father who is in heaven.</hi></q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) They rejoice in God's works. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Job 38:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>all the sons of God shouted for joy</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Luke 15:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>there is joy in the presence of the angels of God +over one sinner that repenteth</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>2 Tim. 2:25</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>if peradventure God may give them repentance.</hi></q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) They execute God's will,—by working in nature; +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 103:20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Ye his angels ... that fulfil his word, Hearkening unto the voice of his word</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>104:4</hi> marg.—<q><hi rend='italic'>Who +maketh his angels winds</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>His ministers a flaming fire</hi>,</q> <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, lightnings. See Alford on <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 1:7</hi>—<q>The +order of the Hebrew words here [in <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 104:4</hi>] is not the same as in the former +verses (see especially <hi rend='italic'>v. 3</hi>), where we have: <q><hi rend='italic'>Who maketh the clouds his chariot</hi>.</q> For this transposition, +those who insist that the passage means <q>he maketh winds his messengers</q> +can give no reason.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Farrar on <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 1:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>He maketh his angels winds</hi></q>; <q>The Rabbis often refer to the fact that +God makes his angels assume any form he pleases, whether man (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 18:2</hi>) or woman +(<hi rend='italic'>Zech 5:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>two women, and the wind was in their wings</hi></q>), or wind or flame (<hi rend='italic'>Ex. 3:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>angel ... in a +flame of fire</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 K. 6:17</hi>). 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.</q> John Henry +Newman, in his Apologia, sees an angel in every flower. Mason, Faith of the Gospel, +82—<q>Origen thought not a blade of grass nor a fly was without its angel. <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 14:18</hi>—an +angel <q><hi rend='italic'>that hath power over fire</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 5:4</hi>—intermittent spring under charge of an angel; +<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 28:2</hi>—descent of an angel caused earthquake on the morning of Christ's resurrection; +<hi rend='italic'>Luke 13:11</hi>—control of diseases is ascribed to angels.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) by guiding the affairs of nations; +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Dan. 10:12, 13, 21</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>11:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And as for me, in the first year +of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>12:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>at that time shall Michael stand up, the +great prince who standeth for the children of thy people.</hi></q> Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 87, suggests +the question whether <q>the spirit of the age</q> or <q>the national character</q> in any particular +case may not be due to the unseen <q>principalities</q> under which men live. +Paul certainly recognizes, in <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 2:2</hi>, <q><hi rend='italic'>the prince of the powers of the air, ... the spirit that now worketh +in the sons of disobedience.</hi></q> May not good angels be entrusted with influence over nations' +affairs to counteract the evil and help the good? +</p> + +</quote> + +<pb n='452'/><anchor id='Pg452'/> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) by watching over the interests of particular churches; +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 11:10</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>for this cause ought the women to have a sign of authority</hi></q> [<hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, a veil] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>on her head, because of +the angels</hi></q>—who watch over the church and have care for its order. Matheson, Spiritual +Development of St. Paul, 242—<q>Man's covering is woman's power. Ministration <emph>is</emph> +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.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Col. 2:18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Let no man rob you of your prize by a voluntary humility and worshiping of +the angels</hi></q>—a false worship which would be very natural if angels were present to +guard the meetings of the saints. <hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 5:21</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I charge thee in the sight of God, and Christ Jesus, +and the elect angels, that thou observe these things</hi></q>—the public duties of the Christian minister. +</p> + +<p> +Alford regards <q><hi rend='italic'>the angels of the seven churches</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Rev. 1:20</hi>) 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>the angels of the seven churches</hi></q> as meaning simply the pastors of the seven +churches. The word <q><hi rend='italic'>angel</hi></q> means simply <q>messenger,</q> and may be used of human as +well as of superhuman beings—see <hi rend='italic'>Hag. 1:13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Haggai, Jehovah's messenger</hi></q>—literally, <q><hi rend='italic'>the +angel of Jehovah</hi>.</q> 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 <q>angel</q> 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, +<q>angels</q> constitute an official class. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) by assisting and protecting individual believers; +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>1 K. 19:5</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>an angel touched him</hi></q> [Elijah], <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>and said unto him, Arise and eat</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 91:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Dan. 6:22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions' mouths, and they have not hurt +me</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 4:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>angels came and ministered unto him</hi></q>—Jesus was the type of all believers; <hi rend='italic'>18:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; compare <hi rend='italic'>verse 6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>one of these little ones that believe on me</hi></q>; see Meyer, Com. <hi rend='italic'>in loco</hi>, who +regards these passages as proving the doctrine of guardian angels. <hi rend='italic'>Luke 16:22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the beggar +died, and ... was carried away by the angels into Abraham's bosom</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 1:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Are they not all ministering +spirits, sent forth to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation?</hi></q> Compare <hi rend='italic'>Acts 12:15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And +they said, It is his angel</hi></q>—of Peter standing knocking; see Hackett, Com. <hi rend='italic'>in loco</hi>: the utterance +<q>expresses a popular belief prevalent among the Jews, which is neither affirmed +nor denied.</q> Shakespeare, Henry IV, 2nd part, 2:2—<q>For the boy—there is a good +angel about him.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Per contra</hi>, see Broadus, Com. on <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 18:10</hi>—<q>It is simply said of +believers as a class that there are angels which are <q><hi rend='italic'>their angels</hi></q>; but there is nothing here +or elsewhere to show that one angel has special charge of one believer.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>g</hi>) by punishing God's enemies. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>2 K. 19:35</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Acts 12:23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +A general survey of this Scripture testimony as to the employments of +good angels leads us to the following conclusions: +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>maketh his angels +winds</q> and <q>a flaming fire,</q> 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 +<pb n='453'/><anchor id='Pg453'/> +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). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +The substance of these remarks may be found in Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:637-645. +Milton tells us that <q>Millions of spiritual creatures walk the earth Unseen, both +when we wake and when we sleep.</q> 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>worshiping of the angels</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Col. 2:18</hi>) 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 <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 22:8, 9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>Folks are +better than angels.</q> It is vain to sing: <q>I want to be an angel.</q> We never shall be +angels. Victor Hugo is wrong when he says: <q>I am the tadpole of an archangel.</q> +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 (<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:16</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +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. <hi rend='italic'>Job 38:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Deut. 33:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Jehovah +came from Sinai ... he came from the ten thousands of holy ones: At his right hand was a fiery law +for them</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Gal. 3:19</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>it</hi></q> [the law] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the +word spoken through angels</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Acts 7:53</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>who received the law as it was ordained by angels</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Luke 2:13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>suddenly +there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 4:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Then the devil leaveth him; and +behold, angels came and ministered unto him</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Luke 22:43</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And there appeared unto him an angel from heaven, +strengthening him</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 28:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, +and sat upon it</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Acts 1:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And while they were looking steadfastly into heaven as he went, behold, two men +stood by them in white apparel</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 25:31</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='454'/><anchor id='Pg454'/> +and Method of Revelation, 276—<q>The facts of hypnotism illustrate the possibility of +one mind falling into a strange thraldom under another.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Binet, in his Alterations of Personality, says that experiments on hysterical patients +have produced in his mind the conviction that, in them at least, <q>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</q>; 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>B. The employments of evil angels.</head> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) They oppose God and strive to defeat his will. This is indicated +in the names applied to their chief. The word <q>Satan</q> means <q>adversary</q>—primarily +to God, secondarily to men; the term <q>devil</q> signifies +<q>slanderer</q>—of God to men, and of men to God. It is indicated also in +the description of the <q>man of sin</q> as <q>he that opposeth and exalteth +himself against all that is called God.</q> +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Job 1:6</hi>—Satan appears among <q><hi rend='italic'>the sons of God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Zech. 3:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Joshua the high priest ... and Satan +standing at his right hand to be his adversary</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 13:39</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the enemy that sowed them is the devil</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Pet. 5:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>your +adversary the devil.</hi></q> Satan slanders God to men, in <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 3:1, 4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Yea, hath God said?... +Ye shall not surely die</hi></q>; men to God, in <hi rend='italic'>Job 1:9, 11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2:4, 5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 12:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the accuser of our brethren is cast down, who accuseth them before our God night +and day.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +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: <hi rend='italic'>John 16:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he, when he is come, will convict the world in respect of sin, and of righteousness, +and of judgment</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 8:26</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> Hence Balaam +can say: <hi rend='italic'>Num. 23:21</hi>, <q><hi rend='italic'>He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, Neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel</hi></q>; and +the Lord can say to Satan as he resists Joshua: <q><hi rend='italic'>Jehovah rebuke thee, O Satan; yea, Jehovah that +hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Zech. 3:2</hi>). <q>Thus he puts himself between his people and +every tongue that would accuse them</q> (C. H. M.). For the description of the <q><hi rend='italic'>man of +sin</hi>,</q> see <hi rend='italic'>2 Thess. 2:3, 4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he that opposeth</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>verse 9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>whose coming is according to the working of Satan.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +On the <q><hi rend='italic'>man of sin</hi>,</q> see Wm. Arnold Stevens, in Bap. Quar. Rev., July, 1889:328-360. As +in <hi rend='italic'>Daniel 11:36</hi>, the great enemy of the faith, he who <q><hi rend='italic'>shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above +every God</hi></q>, is the Syrian King, Antiochus Epiphanes, so the man of lawlessness described +by Paul in <hi rend='italic'>2 Thess. 2:3, 4</hi> was <q>the corrupt and impious Judaism of the apostolic age.</q> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='455'/><anchor id='Pg455'/> +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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Control of natural phenomena is ascribed to evil spirits in <hi rend='italic'>Job 1:12, 16, 19</hi> and <hi rend='italic'>2:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>all +that he hath is in thy power</hi></q>—and Satan uses lightning, whirlwind, disease, for his purposes; +<hi rend='italic'>Luke 13:11, 16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>a woman that had a spirit of infirmity ... whom Satan had bound, lo, these eighteen years</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>Acts 10:38</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>healing all that were oppressed of the devil</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 12:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of +Satan to buffet me</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Thess. 2:18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>we would fain have come unto you, I Paul once and again; and Satan hindered +us</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.</hi></q> Temptation is ascribed to evil +spirits in <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 3:1</hi> <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Now the serpent was more subtle</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 20:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the old serpent, which is the Devil +and Satan</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 4:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the tempter came</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 13:27</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>after the sop, then entered Satan into him</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Acts 5:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>why +hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 2:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the spirit that now worketh in the sons +of disobedience</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Thess. 3:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>lest by any means the tempter had tempted you</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Pet 5:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>your adversary +the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +At the time of Christ, popular belief undoubtedly exaggerated the influence of evil +spirits. Savage, Life after Death, 113—<q>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.</q> If some +good end has been attained in spite of them they feel that <q>Their labor must be to +pervert that end. And out of good still to find means of evil.</q> In Goethe's Faust, Margaret +detects the evil in Mephistopheles: <q>You see that he with no soul sympathizes. +'Tis written on his face—he never loved.... Whenever he comes near, I cannot +pray.</q> Mephistopheles describes himself as <q>Ein Theil von jener Kraft Die stäts das +Böse will Und stäts das Gute schafft</q>—<q>Part of that power not understood, which +always wills the bad, and always works the good</q>—through the overruling Providence +of God. <q>The devil says his prayers backwards.</q> <q>He tried to learn the Basque +language, but had to give it up, having learned only three words in two years.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Satan's negative agency is shown in <hi rend='italic'>Mark 4:15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>when they have heard, straightway cometh Satan, +and taketh away the word which hath been sown in them</hi></q>; his positive agency in <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 13:38, 39</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the tares +are the sons of the evil one; and the enemy that sowed them is the devil.</hi></q> One devil, but many angels: see +<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 25:41</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the devil and his angels</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mark 5:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>My name is Legion, for we are many</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 2:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the +prince of the powers of the air</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>6:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>principalities ... powers ... world-rulers of this darkness ... +spiritual hosts of wickedness.</hi></q> 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 4:3, 6, 9</hi>), and to appeal to our love for independence by +saying to us, as he did to our first parents—<q><hi rend='italic'>ye shall be as God</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 3:5</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +C. C. Everett, Essays Theol. and Lit., 186-218, on The Devil: <q>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.</q> If +there was no Satan, then Christ's temptations came from within, and showed a predisposition +to evil on his own part. +</p> + +</quote> + +<pb n='456'/><anchor id='Pg456'/> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Possession may apparently be either physical, as in the case of the Gerasene demoniacs +(<hi rend='italic'>Mark 5:2-4</hi>), or spiritual, as in the case of the <q><hi rend='italic'>maid having a spirit of divination</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Acts 16:16</hi>), +where the body does not seem to have been affected. It is distinguished from bodily +disease: see <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 17:15, 18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>epileptic ... the demon went out from him: and the boy was cured</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mark 9:25</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Thou +dumb and deaf spirit</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>3:11, 12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the unclean spirits ... cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God. +And he charged them much that they should not make him known</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Luke 8:30, 31</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>10:17, 18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +These descriptions of personal intercourse between Christ and the demons cannot be +interpreted as metaphorical. <q>In the temptation of Christ and in the possession of the +swine, imagination could have no place. Christ was <emph>above</emph> its delusions; the brutes +were <emph>below</emph> them.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 4:24</hi>, 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 (<hi rend='italic'>John 13:27</hi>); 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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +On <hi rend='italic'>Mark 1:21-34</hi>, see Maclaren in S. S. Times, Jan. 23, 1904—<q>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?</q> 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—<q>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 +<pb n='457'/><anchor id='Pg457'/> +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.</q> Nevius quotes F. W. A. +Myers, Fortnightly Rev., Nov. 1885—<q>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.</q> See Bennet, Diseases +of the Bible; Kedney, Diabolology; and references in Poole's Synopsis, 1:343; also +Bramwell, Hypnotism, 358-398. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Punishing the ungodly: <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 78:49</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, Wrath and indignation, +and trouble, A band of angels of evil</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 K. 22:23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Jehovah hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy +prophets; and Jehovah hath spoken evil concerning thee.</hi></q> In <hi rend='italic'>Luke 22:31</hi>, Satan's sifting accomplishes the +opposite of the sifter's intention, and the same as the Master's winnowing (Maclaren). +</p> + +<p> +Chastening the good: see <hi rend='italic'>Job, chapters 1</hi> and <hi rend='italic'>2</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 5:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 1:20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Hymenæus +and Alexander; whom I delivered onto Satan, that they might be taught not to blaspheme.</hi></q> 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 <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 5:5</hi>, +regards <q>delivering to Satan</q> as merely putting a man out of the church by excommunication. +This of itself was equivalent to banishing him into <q>the world,</q> of which +Satan was the ruler. +</p> + +<p> +Evil spirits illustrate the nature and fate of moral evil: see <hi rend='italic'>Mat 8:29</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>art thou come +hither to torment us before the time?</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>25:41</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Thess. +2:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>then shall be revealed the lawless one</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>James 2:19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the demons also believe, and shudder</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 12:9, +12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>20:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>cast into the lake of fire ... tormented day and night for ever +and ever.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +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. <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 10:20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Thess. +2:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the working of Satan with all power and signs of lying wonders</hi></q>—would seem to favor an +affirmative answer. But <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 8:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>concerning therefore the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know +that no idol is anything in the world</hi></q>—seems to favor a negative answer. This last may, however, +mean that <q>the beings whom the idols are designed to <emph>represent</emph> have no existence, +although it is afterwards shown (<hi rend='italic'>10:20</hi>) that there are <emph>other</emph> beings connected +with false worship</q> (Ann. Par. Bible, <hi rend='italic'>in loco</hi>). <q>Heathenism is the reign of the devil</q> +(Meyer), and while the heathen think themselves to be sacrificing to Jupiter or Venus, +they are really <q><hi rend='italic'>sacrificing to demons</hi>,</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Nevius, Demon-Possession, 294—<q>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 <q>devilcraft</q> for <q>witchcraft.</q>... +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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +A survey of the Scripture testimony with regard to the employments of +evil spirits leads to the following general conclusions: +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='458'/><anchor id='Pg458'/> +consent of the human will, and may be resisted and shaken off through +prayer and faith in God. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Luke 22:31, 40</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Satan asked to have you, that he might sift you as wheat.... Pray that ye enter not into +temptation</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 6:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the +devil</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the evil one</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>James 4:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>resist +the devil, and he will flee from you</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Pet. 5:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>whom withstand stedfast in your faith.</hi></q> 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 <hi rend='italic'>Acts 5:3, 4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Why hath +Satan filled thy heart?... How is it that thou hast conceived this thing in thine heart?</hi></q> The Satanic impulse +could have been resisted, and <q><emph>after it was</emph></q> suggested, it was still <q><emph>in his own power</emph>,</q> as was +the land that he had sold (Maclaren). +</p> + +<p> +The soul is a castle into which even the king of evil spirits cannot enter without +receiving permission from within. Bp. Wordsworth: <q>The devil may <emph>tempt</emph> us to fall, +but he cannot <emph>make</emph> us fall; he may persuade us to cast <emph>ourselves</emph> down, but he cannot +<emph>cast</emph> us down.</q> E. G. Robinson: <q>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.</q> Both God and +Satan stand at the door and knock, but neither heaven nor hell can come in unless we +will. <q>We cannot prevent the birds from flying over our heads, but we can prevent +them from making their nests in our hair.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Mat 12:43-45</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>The unclean spirit, when he is gone +out of a man</hi></q>—suggests that the man who gets rid of one vice but does not occupy his +mind with better things is ready to be repossessed. <q><hi rend='italic'>Seven other spirits more evil than himself</hi></q> +implies that some demons are more wicked than others and so are harder to cast out +(<hi rend='italic'>Mark 9:29</hi>). The Jews had cast out idolatry, but other and worse sins had taken possession +of them. +</p> + +<p> +Hudson, Law of Psychic Phenomena, 129—<q>The hypnotic subject cannot be controlled +so far as to make him do what he knows to be wrong, unless he himself voluntarily +assents.</q> A. S. Hart: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Höffding, Outlines of Psychology, 330-335—<q>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—<q>Half she drew him down and half he sank</q>—repeats +the duality in the second term; for to sink is to let one's self sink.</q> Manton, +the Puritan: <q>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.</q> +Spurgeon, the modern Puritan, remarks on the above: <q>O Lord, when I am worried by +my great enemy, call him off, I pray thee! Let me hear a voice saying: <q><hi rend='italic'>Jehovah rebuke +thee, O Satan; even Jehovah that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee!</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Zech. 3:2)</hi>. By thine election of me, +rebuke him, I pray thee, and deliver me from <q><hi rend='italic'>the power of the dog</hi></q>! (<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 22:20)</hi>.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 10:13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Jude 6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='459'/><anchor id='Pg459'/> +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). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <q><hi rend='italic'>to naught him that had the power of death, that is, the devil</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:14)</hi> and <q><hi rend='italic'>having despoiled the +principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it</hi>,</q> <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, in the Cross (<hi rend='italic'>Col. +2:15</hi>). <hi rend='italic'>1 John 3:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>To this end was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.</hi></q> Evil +spirits now exist and act only upon sufferance. McLeod, Temptation of our Lord, 24—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Genung, Epic of the Inner Life, 136—<q>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: <q>What will you bet? There's still a chance to +gain him, If unto me full leave you give Gently upon <emph>my</emph> road to train him!</q> And in +<hi rend='italic'>Job 1:11; 2:5</hi>, Satan wagers: <q><hi rend='italic'>He will renounce thee to thy face.</hi></q></q> William Ashmore: <q>Is Satan +omnipresent? No, but he is very spry. Is he bound? Yes, but with a rather loose +rope.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>II. Objections to the Doctrine of Angels.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. To the doctrine of angels in general.</head> + +<p> +It is objected: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Ladd, Philosophy of Knowledge, 332—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <q><hi rend='italic'>able to destroy both soul and body in hell</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 10:28</hi>) affords some reason for +believing that hell is also a place. +</p> + +<p> +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 +(<hi rend='italic'>2 Kings 6:17</hi>), we ourselves should behold them. Upon ground of <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 2:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>prince of the +<pb n='460'/><anchor id='Pg460'/> +powers of the air</hi></q>—and <hi rend='italic'>3:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places</hi></q>—some have +assigned the atmosphere of the earth as the abode of angelic spirits, both good and +evil. But the expressions <q><hi rend='italic'>air</hi></q> and <q><hi rend='italic'>heavenly places</hi></q> may be merely metaphorical designations +of their spiritual method of existence. +</p> + +<p> +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 (<hi rend='italic'>John 14:21</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 28:20</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 1:7</hi>). 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. +</p> + +<p> +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. <hi rend='italic'>Per contra</hi>, see Van Oosterzee, Christian Dogmatics, 1:308-317; +Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, 127-136. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. To the doctrine of evil angels in particular.</head> + +<p> +It is objected that: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +There can be no sinful propensity before there is sin. The reason of the <emph>first</emph> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. <q>Sow an act, and you reap a habit; sow +a habit, and you reap a character; sow a character, and you reap a destiny.</q> And what +is true of men, may be also true of angels. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Scherer, Essays on English Literature, 139, puts this objection as follows: <q>The idea +of Satan is a contradictory idea; for it is contradictory to know God and yet attempt +rivalry with him.</q> But we must remember that understanding is the servant of will, +<pb n='461'/><anchor id='Pg461'/> +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: <q>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.</q> One of Ben Jonson's plays has, for its title: <q>The Devil is +an Ass.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>Nothing is easier than to contend against emotional evil.</q> 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 3:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>hath +God said?</hi></q>). 2. Man to himself (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 3:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Ye shall not surely die</hi></q>). 3. Man to God (<hi rend='italic'>Job 1:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Doth +Job fear God for naught?</hi></q>). 4. God to himself (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 4:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>If thou art the Son of God</hi></q>). 5. Himself +to man (<hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 11:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Satan fashioneth himself into an angel of light</hi></q>). 6. Himself to himself +(<hi rend='italic'>Rev. 12:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the devil is gone down unto you, having great wrath</hi></q>—thinking he could successfully +oppose God or destroy man). +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>Do you believe +in the devil now?</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <q>honor among thieves.</q> Else the +world would be a pandemonium, and society would be what Hobbes called it: <q>bellum +omnium contra omnes.</q> See art. on Satan, by Whitehouse, in Hastings, Dictionary of +the Bible: <q>Some personalities are ganglionic centres of a nervous system, incarnations +of evil influence. The Bible teaches that Satan is such a centre.</q> +</p> + +<p> +But the organizing power of Satan has its limitations. Nevius, Demon-Possession, +279—<q>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.</q> An English parliamentarian +comforted himself by saying: <q>If the fleas were all of one mind, they +would have us out of bed.</q> Plato, Lysis, 214—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) The doctrine is morally pernicious, as transferring the blame of +human sin to the being or beings who tempt men thereto.—We reply that +<pb n='462'/><anchor id='Pg462'/> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>g</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +It rather puts a stigma upon human nature to say that it is <emph>not</emph> 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 +<q><hi rend='italic'>Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Luke 23:34</hi>), since it was choosing evil with +the <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>mala gaudia mentis</foreign>, 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>an enemy hath done +this</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 13:28</hi>), then there is hope. And so we may accept the maxim: <q>Nullus diabolus, +nullus Redemptor.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>III. Practical uses of the Doctrine of Angels.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>A. Uses of the doctrine of good angels.</head> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<pb n='463'/><anchor id='Pg463'/> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Instance the appearance of angels in Jacob's life at Bethel (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 28:12</hi>—Jacob's conversion?) +and at Mahanaim (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 32:1, 2</hi>—two camps, of angels, on the right hand and +on the left; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 34:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>The angel of Jehovah encampeth round about them that fear him, And delivereth +them</hi></q>); so too the Angel at Penuel that struggled with Jacob at his entering the promised +land (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 32:24</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Hos. 12:3, 4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>in his manhood he had power with God: yea, he had power over the +angel, and prevailed</hi></q>), and <q><hi rend='italic'>the angel who hath redeemed me from all evil</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 48:16</hi>) to whom Jacob +refers on his dying bed. Edmund Spenser, The Faerie Queene: <q>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!</q> +</p> + +<p> +It shows us that sin is not mere finiteness, to see these finite intelligences that maintained +their integrity. Shakespeare, Henry VIII, 2:2—<q>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.</q> +Measure for Measure, 2:2—<q>Man, proud man, Plays such fantastic tricks before +high heaven, As makes the angels weep.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>B. Uses of the doctrine of evil angels.</head> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) It shuts us up to Christ, as the only Being who is able to deliver +us or others from the enemy of all good. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <emph>angel</emph>, 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 <emph>spiritual</emph> creature, +sin cannot have its origin in mere sensuousness, or in the mere possession of a physical +nature. 3. Since Satan is not a <emph>weak</emph> and <emph>poorly endowed</emph> creature, sin is not a necessary +result of weakness and limitation. 4. Since Satan is <emph>confirmed in evil</emph>, sin is not necessarily +a transient or remediable act of will. 5. Since in Satan sin <emph>does not come to an end</emph>, +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. +</p> + +<p> +<q>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.</q> If no redemption +has been provided for them, it may be because: 1. sin originated with them; 2. +the sin which they committed was <q><hi rend='italic'>an eternal sin</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Mark 3:29</hi>); 3. they sinned with +clearer intellect and fuller knowledge than ours (<hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Luke 23:34</hi>); 4. their incorporeal +being aggravated their sin and made it analogous to our sinning against the Holy +<pb n='464'/><anchor id='Pg464'/> +Spirit (<hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 12:31, 32</hi>); 5. this incorporeal being gave no opportunity for Christ to +objectify his grace and visibly to join himself to them (<hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:16</hi>); 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. +</p> + +<p> +Yet angels were created in Christ (<hi rend='italic'>Col. 1:16</hi>); they consist in him (<hi rend='italic'>Col. 1:17</hi>); 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>the angel of Jehovah</hi></q> in the Old Testament (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 22:11</hi>). It is not asserted +that <emph>all</emph> fallen angels shall be eternally tormented (<hi rend='italic'>Rev. 14:10</hi>). In terms equally strong +(<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 25:41</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 20:10</hi>) 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. <hi rend='italic'>2 Pet. 2:4</hi> +shows that evil angels have not received <emph>final</emph> 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>elect angels</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 5:21</hi>) 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 +(<hi rend='italic'>Rev. 20:10</hi>)? +</p> + +<p> +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 <q><hi rend='italic'>ignorant of his devices</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 2:11</hi>). It is not well to keep +loaded firearms in the chimney corner. <q>They who fear the adder's sting will not come +near her hissing.</q> Talmage: <q>O Lord, help us to hear the serpent's rattle before we +feel its fangs.</q> Ian Maclaren, Cure of Souls, 215—The pastor trembles for a soul, +<q>when he sees the destroyer hovering over it like a hawk poised in midair, and would +have it gathered beneath Christ's wing.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Thomas K. Beecher: <q>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: <q>Enter my door, pass through my hall, come into my +parlor, make yourselves at home in my dining-room, go up into my bedchambers</q>? +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: <q>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.</q> 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!</q> (<hi rend='italic'>Rev. 3:20</hi>; +<hi rend='italic'>Eph. 5:18</hi>.) +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +</div> + +</div> + +</div> + +<pb n='465'/><anchor id='Pg465'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Part V. Anthropology, Or The Doctrine Of Man.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Chapter I. Preliminary.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>I. Man a Creation of God and a Child of God.</head> + +<p> +The fact of man's creation is declared in Gen. 1:27—<q>And God created +man in his own image, in the image of God created he him</q>; 2:7—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Compare <hi rend='italic'>Hebrews 12:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the Father of spirits</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Num. 16:22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the God of the spirits of all flesh</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>27:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Jehovah, +the God of the spirits of all flesh</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 22:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the God of the spirits of the prophets.</hi></q> Bruce, The +Providential Order, 25—<q>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.</q> By <q><emph>mere</emph> +nature</q> 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: <q>Spirit in man is linked with, +because derived from, God, who is spirit.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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 <q>Let the earth bring forth living creatures</q> +(Gen. 1:24) does not exclude the idea of mediate creation, through +natural generation, so the forming of man <q>of the dust of the ground</q> +(Gen. 2:7) does not in itself determine whether the creation of man's body +was mediate or immediate. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 +(<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 14:19</hi>), or which the wine sustained to the water which was transformed at Cana +(<hi rend='italic'>John 2:7-10</hi>), or which the multiplied oil sustained to the original oil in the O. T. miracle +(<hi rend='italic'>2 K. 4:1-7</hi>). The <q><hi rend='italic'>dust</hi>,</q> 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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<pb n='466'/><anchor id='Pg466'/> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Schurman, Agnosticism and Religion, 42—<q>You are not what you have come from, +but what you have become.</q> Huxley said of the brutes: <q>Whether <emph>from</emph> them or not, +man is assuredly not <emph>of</emph> them.</q> Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 1:289—<q>The religious dignity +of man rests after all upon what he <emph>is</emph>, not upon the mode and manner in which +he has <emph>become</emph> what he is.</q> Because he came <emph>from</emph> a beast, it does not follow that he <emph>is</emph> +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. +</p> + +<p> +J. M. Bronson: <q>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 <emph>end</emph>, +he is an <emph>anomaly</emph>. The greatest argument for God is the fact that all animate nature +is one vast and connected unity. Man has developed not <emph>from</emph> the ape, but <emph>away from</emph> +the ape. He was never anything but potential man. He did not, as man, come into +being until he became a conscious moral agent.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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 <q>breathing into man's nostrils +the breath of life</q> (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 +<pb n='467'/><anchor id='Pg467'/> +process of life turned the animal into man. In other words, man came +not <emph>from</emph> the brute, but <emph>through</emph> the brute, and the same immanent God +who had previously created the brute created also the man. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Tennyson, In Memoriam, XLV—<q>The baby new to earth and sky, What time his +tender palm is pressed Against the circle of the breast, Has never thought that <q>this is +I</q>: But as he grows he gathers much, And learns the use of <q>I</q> and <q>me,</q> And finds +<q>I am not what I see, And other than the things I touch.</q> 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.</q> Fichte called that the birthday of his child, when the child +awoke to self-consciousness and said <q>I.</q> 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: <q>Henry did so and so.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Jean Paul Richter, quoted in Ladd, Philosophy of Mind, 110—<q>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 <q>I am I,</q> 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Höffding, Outlines of Psychology, 3—<q>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.</q> Hill, Genetic Philosophy, 282, suggests that this early state, in +which the child speaks of self in the third person and is devoid of <emph>self</emph>-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. +</p> + +<p> +Connecting these remarks with our present subject, we assert that no brute ever yet +said, or thought, <q>I.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +1. The brute is conscious, but man is self-conscious. The brute does not objectify +self. <q>If the pig could once say, <q>I am a pig,</q> it would at once and thereby cease to be +a pig.</q> The brute does not distinguish itself from its sensations. The brute has perception, +but only the man has apperception, <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, perception accompanied by reference +of it to the self to which it belongs. +</p> + +<p> +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, <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, the power of deriving abstract ideas from particular things +or experiences. +</p> + +<p> +3. Hence the brute has no language. <q>Language is the expression of general notions +by symbols</q> (Harris). Words are the symbols of concepts. Where there are no +concepts there can be no words. The parrot utters cries; but <q>no parrot ever yet +spoke a true word.</q> 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. <q>The ape's tongue +is eloquent in his own dispraise.</q> James, Psychology, 2:356—<q>The notion of a sign +as such, and the general purpose to apply it to everything, is the distinctive characteristic +of man.</q> Why do not animals speak? Because they have nothing to say, <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, +have no general ideas which words might express. +</p> + +<p> +4. The brute forms no judgments, <hi rend='italic'>e. g.</hi>, that <emph>this</emph> is like <emph>that</emph>, accompanied with belief. +Hence there is no sense of the ridiculous, and no laughter. James, Psychology, 2:360—<q>The +brute does not associate ideas by similarity.... Genius in man is the possession +of this power of association in an extreme degree.</q> +</p> + +<p> +5. The brute has no reasoning—no sense that <emph>this</emph> follows from <emph>that</emph>, accompanied by +a feeling that the sequence is necessary. Association of ideas without judgment is the +<pb n='468'/><anchor id='Pg468'/> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. <q>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</q>; see S. S. Times, April 7, 1900. In man, +mind first became supreme. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> Calderwood, Philosophy of Evolution, chapter on Right and Wrong: <q>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</q> [as they do in the brute]. By what Mivart calls a process of <q>inverse +anthropomorphism,</q> 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, <q>reading +our full selves in life of lower forms.</q> 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 <q>enormous gulf,</q> a +<q>divergence immeasurable</q> and <q>practically infinite.</q> +</p> + +<p> +8. The brute has no conscience and no religious nature. No dog ever brought back +to the butcher the meat it had stolen. <q>The aspen trembles without fear, and dogs +skulk without guilt.</q> The dog mentioned by Darwin, whose behavior in presence of a +newspaper moved by the wind seemed to testify to <q>a sense of the supernatural,</q> 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—<q>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.</q> Calderwood, Evolution and Man's Place in Nature, 337, +speaks of <q>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.</q> Shaler, Interpretation of Nature, 186—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<pb n='469'/><anchor id='Pg469'/> + +<p> +John Burroughs, Ways of Nature: <q>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.</q> 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: <q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>through</emph> the brute, he did not come <emph>from</emph> the brute, but from God, the Father of +spirits and the author of all life. Œdipus' terrific oracle: <q>Mayst thou ne'er know +the truth of what thou art!</q> 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: <q>If this brute philosophy is true, then man +should go on all fours, and not lay claim to the dignity of being moral.</q> G. F. Wright, +Ant. and Origin of Human Race, lecture IX—<q>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 +<emph>sport</emph> 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Scripture seems to teach the doctrine that man's nature is the creation of God. <hi rend='italic'>Gen. +2:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>—appears, says Hovey (State of the Impen. Dead, 14), <q>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.</q> So in +<hi rend='italic'>Zech. 12:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Jehovah, who stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the +spirit of man within him</hi></q>—the soul is recognized as distinct in nature from the body, and of +a dignity and value far beyond those of any material organism. <hi rend='italic'>Job 32:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>there is a +spirit in man, and the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Eccl. 12:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the dust returneth to the +earth as it was, and the spirit returneth unto God who gave it.</hi></q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<pb n='470'/><anchor id='Pg470'/> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: +</p> + +<p> +1. It gives no account of the origin of substance, nor of the origin of variations. +Darwinism simply says that <q>round stones will roll down hill further than flat ones</q> +(Gray, Natural Science and Religion). It accounts for the selection, not for the +creation, of forms. <q>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</q> (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 <q>not the Genesis, but the +Exodus, of living forms.</q> Schurman: <q>The <emph>survival</emph> of the fittest does nothing to +explain the <emph>arrival</emph> of the fittest</q>; see also DeVries, Species and Varieties, <hi rend='italic'>ad finem</hi>. +Darwin himself acknowledged that <q>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</q> (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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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: +<q>The largest ape-brain is only half as large as the smallest normal human.</q> Wallace, +Darwinism, 458—<q>The average human brain weighs 48 or 49 ounces; the average ape's +brain is only 18 ounces.</q> The brain of Daniel Webster weighed 53 ounces; but Dr. +<pb n='471'/><anchor id='Pg471'/> +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: <q>While the size of the brain increases in +arithmetical proportion, intellectual range increases in geometrical proportion.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Respecting the Enghis and Neanderthal crania, Huxley says: <q>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 <foreign lang='el' rend='italic'>Protanthropos</foreign> who should exhibit this link +has not been found.... None have been found that stood nearer the monkey than the +men of to-day.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Professor Virchow has also very recently expressed his belief that no relics of any +predecessor of man have yet been discovered. He said: <q>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.</q> 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 <hi rend='italic'>Pithecanthropus erectus</hi>. 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 <hi rend='italic'>Pithecanthropus</hi> as a <q>missing link.</q> But <q>Nature</q> +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. <q>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.</q> The monkey nearest +to man in physical form is no more intelligent than the elephant or the bee. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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 <emph>existing</emph> species of anthropoid +apes.... When once <emph>mind</emph> 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 <emph>sport</emph>.</q> +With this statement of Dr. Wright we substantially agree, and therefore differ from +<pb n='472'/><anchor id='Pg472'/> +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: <q>The strain of man's bred out +into baboon and monkey.</q> 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. <q>Mamma, am I +descended from a monkey?</q> <q>I do not know, William, I never met any of your +father's people.</q> +</p> + +<p> +4. No species is yet known to have been produced either by artificial or by natural +selection. Huxley, Lay Sermons, 323—<q>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</q>; Man's Place in Nature, 107—<q>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.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> 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 <q>a puerile hypothesis</q> (Lessons from Nature, 300; Essays and Criticisms, +2:289-314). +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>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 <emph>through</emph> the brute, he did not come +<emph>from</emph> 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.</q> See also A. H. Strong, +Christ in Creation, 163-180. +</p> + +<pb n='473'/><anchor id='Pg473'/> + +<p> +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 <q>by the Creator</q> +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—<q>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.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The atheistic conception of evolution is well satirized in the verse: <q>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.</q> 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 <emph>in</emph> nature, but not for man's place <emph>above</emph> nature, as a spiritual being. See +Wallace, Darwinism, 445-478—<q>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.</q> But the +conclusion that man's higher faculties have also been derived from the lower animals +<q>appears to me not to be supported by adequate evidence, and to be directly opposed +to many well-ascertained facts</q> (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. +</p> + +<p> +Wallace, Natural Selection, 338—<q>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.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi>, 360—<q>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.</q> Sir +Wm. Thompson: <q>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.</q> Hartmann, in his Anthropoid Apes, 302-306, while not despairing of <q>the +possibility of discovering the true link between the world of man and mammals,</q> +declares that <q>that purely hypothetical being, the common ancestor of man and apes, +is still to be found,</q> and that <q>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.</q> See Dana, Amer. Journ. Science and Arts, 1876:251, and Geology, 603, +<pb n='474'/><anchor id='Pg474'/> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Texts referring to God's natural and common Fatherhood are: <hi rend='italic'>Mal. 2:10</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>Have we not +all one father</hi></q> [Abraham]? <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>hath not one God created us?</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>Luke 3:38</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Adam, the son of God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>15:11-32</hi>—the +parable of the prodigal son, in which the father is father even before the prodigal +returns; <hi rend='italic'>John 3:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 15:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>;—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. +<hi rend='italic'>Acts 17:28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>For we are also his offspring</hi></q>—words addressed by Paul to a heathen audience; <hi rend='italic'>Col. +1:16, 17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>in him were all things created ... and in him all things consist</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 12:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the Father of +spirits.</hi></q> 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 <emph>created</emph> in Christ; we are spiritually sons of God, +as we have been <emph>created anew</emph> in Christ Jesus. G. W. Northrop: <q>God never <emph>becomes</emph> +Father to any men or class of men; he only becomes a <emph>reconciled</emph> and <emph>complacent</emph> +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.</q> Chapman, Jesus Christ and the +Present Age, 39—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Texts referring to the special Fatherhood of grace are: <hi rend='italic'>John 1:12, 13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 8:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>for as many as are led by the +Spirit of God, these are sons of God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>ye received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. +6:17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 1:5, +6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>3:14, 15</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>the Father, from +whom every family</hi></q> [marg. <q>fatherhood</q>] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>in heaven and on earth is named</hi></q> (= every race among angels +or men—so Meyer, Romans, 158, 159); <hi rend='italic'>Gal 3:26</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>for ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ +Jesus</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>4:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>1 John 3:1, 2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God; +<pb n='475'/><anchor id='Pg475'/> +and such we are.... Beloved, now are we children of God.</hi></q> The sonship of the race is only rudimentary. +The actual realization of sonship is possible only through Christ. <hi rend='italic'>Gal. 4:1-7</hi> intimates +a universal sonship, but a sonship in which the child <q><hi rend='italic'>differeth nothing from a bondservant +though he is lord of all</hi>,</q> and needs still to <q><hi rend='italic'>receive the adoption of sons</hi>.</q> Simon, Reconciliation, 81—<q>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.</q> 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>servants</hi></q> +who <q><hi rend='italic'>abide not in the house forever</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 8:35</hi>). God is their Father, but they have yet to +<q><hi rend='italic'>become</hi></q> his children (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 5:45</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +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, <hi rend='italic'>John 8:41-44</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>If God were your +Father, ye would love me.... Ye are of your father, the devil</hi></q> = the Fatherhood of God is not universal; +<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 5:44, 45</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Love your enemies ... in order that ye may become sons of your Father who is in +heaven</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 1:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them +that believe on his name.</hi></q> Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 103—<q>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 <q><hi rend='italic'>another gospel</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Gal. 1:7</hi>), the recompense of whose preaching is not a +beatitude, but an <q><hi rend='italic'>anathema</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Gal 1:8.</hi>)</q> +</p> + +<p> +But we can also agree with much that is urged by the opposite party, as for example, +Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 1:193—<q>God does not <emph>become</emph> the Father, but <emph>is</emph> 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.</q> A. H. Bradford, Age of +Faith, 116-120—<q>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 <q><hi rend='italic'>children of wrath</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Eph. 2:3</hi>), or <q><hi rend='italic'>of perdition</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 17:12</hi>), 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.</q> 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Col. 1:16</hi>) and was a son of God +by virtue of his union with Christ (<hi rend='italic'>Luke 3:38</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>John 15:6</hi>). 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Eph. 2:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>created in Christ Jesus for good works</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Pet 1:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>his precious and exceeding great promises; +that through these ye may become partakers of the divine nature</hi></q>). +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>My children are not converted, and if I were to teach +them the Lord's Prayer, I must teach them to say: <q>Our father who art in hell</q>; for +<pb n='476'/><anchor id='Pg476'/> +they are only children of the devil.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>II. Unity of the Human Race.</head> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) The Scriptures teach that the whole human race is descended from +a single pair. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 1:27, 28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, made +he a woman, and brought her unto the man</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>3:20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And the man called his wife's name Eve; because she was the +mother of all living</hi></q> = even Eve is traced back to Adam; <hi rend='italic'>9:19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>These three were the sons of Noah; +and of these was the whole earth overspread.</hi></q> Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 110—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 15:21, 22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>For verily not of angels doth he take hold, but he taketh hold of the seed of Abraham.</hi></q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Acts 17:26</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he made of one every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth</hi></q>—here the Rev. +Vers. omits the word <q><hi rend='italic'>blood</hi></q> (<q><hi rend='italic'>made of one blood</hi></q>—Auth. Vers.). The word to be supplied is +possibly <q>father,</q> but more probably <q>body</q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:11</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>for both he that sanctifieth and +they that are sanctified are all of one</hi></q> [father or body]: <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +Winchell, in his Preadamites, has recently revived the theory broached in 1655 by +Peyrerius, that there were men before Adam: <q>Adam is descended from a black race—not +the black races from Adam.</q> Adam is simply <q>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.</q> 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 <q>regards the Adamic stock as +derived from an older and humbler human type,</q> originally as low in the scale as the +present Australian savages. +</p> + +<p> +Although this theory furnishes a plausible explanation of certain Biblical facts, such +as the marriage of Cain (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 4:17</hi>), Cain's fear that men would slay him (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 4:14</hi>), and +the distinction between <q><hi rend='italic'>the sons of God</hi></q> and <q><hi rend='italic'>the daughters of men</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 6:1, 2</hi>), it treats the +<pb n='477'/><anchor id='Pg477'/> +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 <q><hi rend='italic'>the mother of all living</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 3:20</hi>), nor could the transgression of +Adam be the cause and beginning of condemnation to the whole race (<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:12, 19</hi>). 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. +</p> + +<p> +See Keil and Delitzsch, Com. on Pentateuch, 1:116—<q>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.</q> Prof. W. H. Green: <q><hi rend='italic'>Gen. 20:12</hi> shows that Sarah was Abraham's half-sister;...the +regulations subsequently ordained in the Mosaic law were not then in +force.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +The Scripture statements are corroborated by considerations drawn from +history and science. Four arguments may be briefly mentioned: +</p> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. The argument from history.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <q>is as fully proved as the unity of family +among themselves.</q> Mason, Origins of Invention, 361—<q>Before the time of Columbus, +the Polynesians made canoe voyages from Tahiti to Hawaii, a distance of 2300 +miles.</q> 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: +<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Tylor, Primitive Culture, 1:48—<q>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.</q> 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; +<pb n='478'/><anchor id='Pg478'/> +Godron, Unité de l'Espèce Humaine, 2:412 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Per contra</hi>, however, see Prof. A. H. +Sayce: <q>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 <q>our Indian brethren</q> is as absurd and false as to claim relationship with +the negroes of the United States because they now use an Aryan language.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. The argument from language.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +G. J. Romanes, Life and Letters, 195—<q>Children are the constructors of all <emph>languages</emph>, +as distinguished from <emph>language</emph>.</q> 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—<q>Recent +investigations show that children, when from any cause isolated at an early +age, will often produce at once a language <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>de novo</foreign>. 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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Zöckler, in Jahrbuch für deutsche Theologie, 8:68 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi>, 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, +<pb n='479'/><anchor id='Pg479'/> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>Yh-King</hi>, 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 <q>the non-indigenousness of the Chinese civilization and its derivation +from the old Chaldæo-Babylonian focus of culture by the medium of Susiana.</q> +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, <q>night,</q> is in +Accadian Ge, <q>night.</q> The order of development seems to be: 1. picture writing; 2. +syllabic writing; 3. alphabetic writing. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> See also Smyth, Unity of Human +Races, 199-222; Smith's Bib. Dict., art.: Confusion of Tongues. +</p> + +<p> +We regard the facts as, on the whole, favoring an opposite conclusion from that in +Hastings's Bible Dictionary, art.: Flood: <q>The diversity of the human race and of +language alike makes it improbable that men were derived from a single pair.</q> E. G. +Robinson: <q>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 <hi rend='italic'>Romans 5</hi>.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>3. The argument from psychology.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<pb n='480'/><anchor id='Pg480'/> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>4. The argument from physiology.</head> + +<p> +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: (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) The numberless intermediate +gradations which connect the so-called races with each other. (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) The +essential identity of all races in cranial, osteological, and dental characteristics. +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) The fertility of unions between individuals of the most diverse +types, and the continuous fertility of the offspring of such unions. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Huxley, Critiques and Addresses, 163—<q>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, <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, on Darwin's hypothesis</q>; +Origin of Species, 118—<q>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.</q> Owen, quoted by Burgess, +Ant. and Unity of Race, 185—<q>Man forms but one species, and differences are but +indications of varieties. These variations merge into each other by easy gradations.</q> +Alex. von Humboldt: <q>The different races of men are forms of one sole species,—they +are not different species of a genus.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Quatrefages, in Revue d. deux Mondes, Dec. 1860:814—<q>If one places himself exclusively +upon the plane of the natural sciences, it is impossible not to conclude in favor +of the monogenist doctrine.</q> Wagner, quoted in Bib. Sac., 19:607—<q>Species—the +collective total of individuals which are capable of producing one with another an +uninterruptedly fertile progeny.</q> Pickering, Races of Man, 316—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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). +</p> + +<p> +E. B. Tylor, art.: Anthropology, in Encyc. Britannica: <q>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.</q> Darwin, Animals and Plants under Domestication, 1:39—<q>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 (<hi rend='italic'>viz.</hi>, <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Canis +lupus</foreign> and <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Canis latrans</foreign>), 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 +<pb n='481'/><anchor id='Pg481'/> +from one or more extinct species.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Dana, quoted in Burgess, Antiq. and Unity of Race, 185, 186—<q>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.</q> 194—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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 +<pb n='482'/><anchor id='Pg482'/> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> Renouf, Hibbert Lectures, 54—<q>The further back we go into +antiquity, the more closely does the Egyptian type approach the European.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>Addison's disease,</q> 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, <q>the reunion +into one real whole of the parts which have diverged after the fashion of sports</q> is said +to be <q>the unconscious ultimate aim of all the movements</q> which have taken place +since man began his wanderings. <q>With Humboldt we can only hold fast to the external +unity of the race.</q> See Sir Wm. Hunter, The Indian Empire, 223, 410; Encyc. Britannica, +12:808; 20:110; Zöckler, Urgeschichte, 109-132, and in Jahrbuch für deutsche +<pb n='483'/><anchor id='Pg483'/> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>III. Essential Elements of Human Nature.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. The Dichotomous Theory.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Dichotomous, from δίχα, <q>in two,</q> and τέμνω, <q>to cut,</q> = 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: +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 2:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>—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. <hi rend='italic'>Cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Job +27:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>for my life is yet whole in me, And the spirit of God is in my nostrils</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>32:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>there is a spirit in man, And +the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>33:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>The Spirit of God hath made me, And the breath of the +Almighty giveth me life.</hi></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Num. 16:22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Zech. 12:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Jehovah, who ... formeth the spirit of +man within him</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 2:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the spirit of the man which is in him ... the Spirit of God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 12:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the +Father of spirits.</hi></q> 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: <hi rend='italic'>Gen, 35:18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>it came to pass, as her soul was departing (for she died)</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 K. 17:21</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>O +Jehovah my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Eccl. 12:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the dust returneth to the earth +as it was, and the spirit returneth unto God who gave it</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>James 2:26</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the body apart from the spirit is dead.</hi></q> +The first class of passages refutes pantheism; the second refutes materialism. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) The interchangeable use of the terms <q>soul</q> and <q>spirit.</q> +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 41:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>his spirit was troubled</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 42:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>my soul is cast down within me.</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>John 12:27</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Now +is my soul troubled</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>13:21</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he was troubled in the spirit.</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 20:28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>to give his life (ψυχήν) a ransom +for many</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>27:50</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>yielded up his spirit (πνεῦμα).</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 12:23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>spirits of just men made perfect</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> +<hi rend='italic'>Rev. 6:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I saw underneath the altar the souls of them that had been slain for the word of God.</hi></q> In these +passages <q><hi rend='italic'>spirit</hi></q> and <q><hi rend='italic'>soul</hi></q> seem to be used interchangeably. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) The mention of body and soul (or spirit) as together constituting +the whole man. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Mat 10:28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>able to destroy both soul and body in hell</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 5:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>absent in body but present in spirit</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>3 John 2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I pray that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.</hi></q> These texts imply +that body and soul (or spirit) together constitute the whole man. +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi>; Schmid, Bib. Theology N. T., 503; Weiss, Bib. +Theology N. T., 214; Luthardt, Compendium der Dogmatik, 112, 113; Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, +<pb n='484'/><anchor id='Pg484'/> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. The Trichotomous Theory.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +In the following texts, spirit and soul are distinguished from each other: <hi rend='italic'>1 Thess. 5:23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 4:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> Compare <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 2:14</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>Now the natural</hi></q> [Gr. <q><hi rend='italic'>psychical</hi></q>] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>man receiveth not +the things of the Spirit of God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>15:44</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>It is sown a natural</hi></q> [Gr. <q><hi rend='italic'>psychical</hi></q>] <hi rend='italic'>body; it is raised a spiritual body. +If there is a natural</hi> [Gr. <q>psychical</q>] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>body, there is also a spiritual body</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 4:23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>that ye be renewed in the +spirit of your mind</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Jude 19</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>sensual</hi></q> [Gr. <q><hi rend='italic'>psychical</hi></q>], <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>having not the Spirit.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +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, +<q>in three parts,</q> and τέμνω, <q>to cut,</q> = composed of three parts, <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, spirit, soul, and +body) may be mentioned Olshausen, Opuscula, 134, and Com. on <hi rend='italic'>1 Thess., 5:23</hi>; 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 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi>; 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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 <emph>substances</emph>, or three component <emph>parts</emph>—body, +soul and spirit—and that soul and spirit are as distinct from each +other as are soul and body. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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—<q>God is the +Creator <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>ex traduce</foreign> of the animal and intellectual part of every man.... Not so with +the spirit.... It proceeds from God, not by creation, but by emanation.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<pb n='485'/><anchor id='Pg485'/> + +<p> +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: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) Πνεῦμα, as well as ψυχή, is used of the brute creation. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Eccl. 3:21</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>Who knoweth the spirit of man, whether it goeth</hi></q> [marg. <q><hi rend='italic'>that goeth</hi></q>] <hi rend='italic'>upward, and the spirit of the +beast, whether it goeth</hi> [marg. <q><hi rend='italic'>that goeth</hi></q>] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>downward to the earth?</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 16:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q> = the fish. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) ψυχή is ascribed to Jehovah. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Amos 6:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>The Lord Jehovah hath sworn by himself</hi></q> (lit. <q><hi rend='italic'>by his soul</hi></q>) <hi rend='smallcaps'>lxx</hi> <hi rend='italic'>42:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>my chosen +in whom my soul delighteth</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Jer. 9:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Shall I not visit them for these things? saith Jehovah; shall not my soul be +avenged?</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 10:38</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>my righteous one shall live by faith: And if he shrink back, my soul hath no pleasure in +him.</hi></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) The disembodied dead are called ψυχαί. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Rev. 6:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I saw underneath the altar the souls of them that had been slain for the word of God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>20:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>souls +of them that had been beheaded.</hi></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) The highest exercises of religion are attributed to the ψυχή. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Mark 12:30</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>thou shalt love the Lord thy God ... with all thy soul</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Luke 1:46</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>My soul doth magnify +the Lord</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 6:18, 19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the hope set before us: which we have as an anchor of the soul</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>James 1:21</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the +implanted word, which is able to save your souls.</hi></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) To lose this ψυχή is to lose all. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Mark 8:36, 37</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>For what doth it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and forfeit his life</hi></q> [or <q><hi rend='italic'>soul</hi>,</q> ψυχή]? +<q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>For what should a man give in exchange for his life</hi> [or <q><hi rend='italic'>soul</hi>,</q> ψυχή]?</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>1 Thess. 5:23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire</hi></q> = not a scientific enumeration +of the constituent parts of human nature, but a comprehensive sketch of that nature in +its chief relations; compare <hi rend='italic'>Mark 12:30</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>—where none would think of finding +proof of a fourfold division of human nature. On <hi rend='italic'>1 Thess. 5:23</hi>, see Riggenbach (in +Lange's Com.), and Commentary of Prof. W. A. Stevens. <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 4:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>piercing even to the +dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow</hi></q> = not the dividing of soul <emph>from</emph> spirit, or of +joints <emph>from</emph> marrow, but rather the piercing of the soul and of the spirit, even to their +very joints and marrow; <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, to the very depths of the spiritual nature. On <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 4:12</hi>, see +Ebrard (in Olshausen's Com.), and Lünemann (in Meyer's Com.); also Tholuck, Com. +<hi rend='italic'>in loco</hi>. <hi rend='italic'>Jude 19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>sensual, having not the Spirit</hi></q> (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: <q>he has no mind,</q> or of an +unprincipled man: <q>he has no conscience</q>; 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>Spirit</hi>.</q> See Goodwin, Soc. Bib. Exegesis, 1881:85—<q>The +distinction between ψυχή and πνεῦμα is a <emph>functional</emph>, and not a <emph>substantial</emph>, distinction.</q> +Moule, Outlines of Christian Doctrine, 161, 162—<q>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.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<pb n='486'/><anchor id='Pg486'/> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <q>upper story</q> has two +aspects; there is an outlook toward things below, and a skylight through which to see +the stars. <q>Soul</q> says Hovey, <q>is spirit as modified by union with the body.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Porter, Human Intellect, 39—<q>The spirit of man, in addition to its higher endowments, +may also possess the lower powers which vitalize dead matter into a human +body.</q> 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: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Harris, Philos. Basis of Theism, 547—<q>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.</q> Parkhurst, The Pattern +in the Mount, 17-30, on Prov. 20:27—<q>The spirit of man is the lamp of Jehovah</q>—not necessarily +lighted, but capable of being lighted, and intended to be lighted, by the touch of the +divine flame. <hi rend='italic'>Cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 6:22, 23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>The lamp of the body.... If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, +how great is the darkness.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +Schleiermacher, Christliche Glaube, 2:487—<q>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.</q> 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—<q>By +soul we mean only one thing, <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, an incarnate spirit, a spirit with a body. +Thus we never speak of the souls of angels. They are pure spirits, having no bodies.</q> +Lisle, Evolution of Spiritual Man, 72—<q>The animal is the foundation of the spiritual; +it is what the cellar is to the house; it is the base of supplies.</q> Ladd, Philosophy of +Mind, 371-378—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +This view of the soul and spirit as different aspects of the same spiritual +principle furnishes a refutation of six important errors: +</p> + +<pb n='487'/><anchor id='Pg487'/> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) That of the Gnostics, who held that the πνεῦμα is part of the divine +essence, and therefore incapable of sin. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) That of the Apollinarians, who taught that Christ's humanity +embraced only σῶμα and ψυχή, while his divine nature furnished the πνεῦμα. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) That of the Semi-Pelagians, who excepted the human πνεῦμα from +the dominion of original sin. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) That of Placeus, who held that only the πνεῦμα was directly created +by God (see our section on Theories of Imputation). +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) 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 <ref target='Pg490'>490</ref>). +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Tacitus might almost be understood to be a trichotomist when he writes: <q>Si ut +sapientibus placuit, non extinguuntur cum corpora <emph>magnæ</emph> animæ.</q> 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 <q>A silver stream, Breaking with +laughter from the lake divine, Whence all things flow.</q> Another poet, Robert Browning, +in his Death in the Desert, 107, describes body, soul, and spirit, as <q>What does, +what knows, what is—three souls, one man.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>Constat homo +ex duabus naturis, ex natura animæ et ex natura carnis.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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. <q>The first division,</q> he says, <q>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 <foreign lang='el' rend='italic'>psyche</foreign> 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Thomasius, however, in his Christi Person und Werk, 1:164-168, quotes from Luther +the following statement, which is clearly dichotomous: <q>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.</q> Thomasius himself says: <q>Trichotomy, I hold with Meyer, is not Scripturally +sustained.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<pb n='488'/><anchor id='Pg488'/> + +<p> +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 (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 1:31</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good</hi></q>); as intended +to be the dwelling place of the divine Spirit (<hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 6:19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>know ye not that your body is a temple of +the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God?</hi></q>); and as containing the germ of the heavenly +body (<hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 15:44</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 8:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>shall give life also +to your mortal bodies through his Spirit that dwelleth in you</hi></q>—here many ancient authorities read +<q><hi rend='italic'>because of his Spirit that dwelleth in you</hi></q>—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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>IV. Origin of the Soul.</head> + +<p> +Three theories with regard to this subject have divided opinion: +</p> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. The Theory of Preëxistence.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>The great law of the imagination +that likeness in part tends to become likeness of the whole.</q> Augustine hinted +that this illusion of memory may have played an important part in developing the +belief in metempsychosis. +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>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?</q> Letson, The Crowd, believes that the mob is atavistic +and that it bases its action upon inherited impulses: <q>The inherited reflexes +are atavistic memories</q> (quoted in Colegrove, Memory, 204). +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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 +<pb n='489'/><anchor id='Pg489'/> +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.</q> 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; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 20:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>others standing in the market place idle</hi></q> = 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; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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 <q>All this hath been before, All this hath been, I know not +when or where.</q> 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.</q> Robert Browning, La Saisiaz, and Christina: +<q>Ages past the soul existed; Here an age 'tis resting merely, And hence fleets again +for ages.</q> Rossetti, House of Life: <q>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</q>; quoted in Colegrove, Memory, 103-106, who holds the phenomenon due +to false induction and interpretation. +</p> + +<p> +Briggs, School, College and Character, 95—<q>Some of us remember the days when we +were on earth for the first time;</q>—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—<q>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 <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>in vino veritas</foreign> of the +philosophers.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +To the theory of preëxistence we urge the following objections: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<pb n='490'/><anchor id='Pg490'/> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 1:27</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>31</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And God saw +every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> The theory of +preëxistence would still leave it doubtful whether all men are sinners, or whether God +assembles only sinners upon the earth. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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—<q>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 <emph>doing</emph> of the individual +freedom as rather in the <emph>rise</emph> 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?</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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, <q>would contradict holy Scripture if it derived inborn +sinfulness <emph>solely</emph> 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.</q> 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 <q>medium through which the transcendent +self-perversion of the spiritual nature of man is transmitted to his whole temporal +mode of being.</q> 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. +</p> + +<pb n='491'/><anchor id='Pg491'/> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. The Creatian Theory.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Aristotle (De Anima) first gives definite expression to this view. Jerome speaks of +God as <q>making souls daily.</q> 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: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +Creatianism is untenable for the following reasons: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Passages commonly relied upon by creatianists are the following: <hi rend='italic'>Eccl. 12:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the spirit +returneth unto God who gave it</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Is. 57:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the souls that I have made</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Zech. 12:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Jehovah ... who formeth +the spirit of man within him</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 12:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the Father of spirits.</hi></q> But God is with equal clearness +declared to be the former of man's body: see <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 139:13, 14</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>thou didst form my inward parts: +Thou didst cover me</hi></q> [marg. <q><hi rend='italic'>knit me together</hi></q>] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>in my mother's womb. I will give thanks unto thee; for I am fearfully +and wonderfully made: Wonderful are thy works</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Jer. 1:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I formed thee in the belly.</hi></q> Yet we do +not hesitate to interpret these latter passages as expressive of mediate, not immediate, +<pb n='492'/><anchor id='Pg492'/> +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: +<q>There's a divinity that shapes our ends, Rough hew them how we will.</q> +Pfleiderer, Grundriss, 112—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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—<q>The love of +parents to children and of children to parents protests against the doctrine that only +the body is propagated.</q> Aubrey Moore, Science and the Faith, 207,—quoted in Contemp. +Rev., Dec. 1893:876—<q>Instead of the physical derivation of the soul, we stand +for the spiritual derivation of the body.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>nature</emph> is one factor; <emph>nurture</emph> 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—<q>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.</q> Pompilia, the noblest character in Robert Browning's Ring and the Book, +came of <q>a bad lot.</q> Geo. A. Gordon, Christ of To-day, 123-126—<q>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 +<pb n='493'/><anchor id='Pg493'/> +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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +The decisive argument against creatianism is this one, that it makes God the author +of moral evil. See Kahnis, Dogmatik, 3:250—<q>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.</q> The difficulty of supposing +that God immediately creates a pure soul, only to put it into a body that will infallibly +corrupt it—<q>sicut vinum in vase acetoso</q>—has led many of the most thoughtful +Reformed theologians to modify the creatian doctrine by combining it with +traducianism. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>metaphysical generation.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Bowne, Metaphysics, 500—<q>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</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>3. The Traducian Theory.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Tertullian, De Anima: <q>Tradux peccati, tradux animæ.</q> Gregory of Nyssa: <q>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</q> (quoted in Crippen, Hist. +of Christ. Doct., 80). Augustine, De Pec. Mer. et Rem., 3:7—<q>In Adam all sinned, at +the time when in his nature all were still that one man</q>; De Civ. Dei, 13:14—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<pb n='494'/><anchor id='Pg494'/> + +<p> +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: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +With regard to this view we remark: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> 22). Only once is breathed +into man's nostrils the breath of life (2:7, <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> 22; 1 Cor. 11:8. Gen. 4:1; +5:3; 46:26; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> Acts 17:21-26; Heb. 7:10), and after man's formation +God ceases from his work of creation (Gen. 2:2). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 1:27</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him: male and female created +he them</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>22</hi>—of the brute creation: <q><hi rend='italic'>And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters +in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 2:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>and the rib which Jehovah +God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 11:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>For the man is not of +the woman; but the woman of the man</hi></q> (ἐξ ἀνδρός). <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 4:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Eve ... bare Cain</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>5:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Adam ... +begat a son ... Seth</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>46:26</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, that came out of his loins</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Acts 17:26</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>he +made of one</hi></q> [<q>father</q> or <q>body</q>] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>every nation of men</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 7:10</hi>—Levi <q><hi rend='italic'>was yet in the loins of +his father, when Melchisedek met him</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 2:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had made, +<pb n='495'/><anchor id='Pg495'/> +and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.</hi></q> Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:19-29, +adduces also <hi rend='italic'>John 1:13; 3:6</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 1:13; 5:12</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 15:22</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 2:3</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 12:9</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 139:15, 16</hi>. Only +Adam had the right to be a creatianist. Westcott, Com. on Hebrews, 114—<q>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, <emph>plus</emph> the personal responsibility +of the individual, the influence of common thoughts <emph>plus</emph> the power of great men, the +foundation of hope <hi rend='italic'>plus</hi> the condition of judgment.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +It is well to remember that <emph>substance</emph> does not necessarily imply either <emph>extension</emph> or +<emph>figure</emph>. <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Substantia</foreign> is simply that which stands under, underlies, supports, or in other +words that which is the <emph>ground</emph> 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—<q>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 <emph>are</emph> its existence.</q> 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: <q>No lotus without a stem.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Galton, in his Hereditary Genius, and Inquiries into Human Faculty, furnishes +abundant proof of the transmission of mental and spiritual characteristics from father +<pb n='496'/><anchor id='Pg496'/> +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 <q>a chip of the old block.</q> <q>A man is an omnibus, in which all his ancestors +are seated</q> (O. W. Holmes). Variation is one of the properties of living things,—the +other is transmission. <q>On a dissecting table, in the membranes of a new-born +infant's body, can be seen <q>the drunkard's tinge.</q> 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.</q> On heredity and depravity, see Phelps, in Bib. Sac., +Apr. 1884:254—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>Great +wits are sure to madness near allied, And thin partitions do their bounds +divide.</q> 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: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Page-Roberts, Oxford University Sermons: <q>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.</q> The common moral characteristics of the race can only +be accounted for upon the Scriptural view that <q><hi rend='italic'>that which is born of the flesh is flesh</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 3:6</hi>). +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—<q>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.</q> 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: <q>How can a man get away from his ancestors?</q> +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. +<q>It would not do them that service,</q> was the reply; <q>they should have been rocked +in a Quaker cradle, if they were to learn Quakerly ways.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Galton, Natural Inheritance, 104—<q>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 +<pb n='497'/><anchor id='Pg497'/> +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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Brooks, Foundations of Zoölogy, 144-167—In an investigated case, <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>V. The Moral Nature of Man.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<pb n='498'/><anchor id='Pg498'/> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. Conscience.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 (<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>con</foreign> and <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>scio</foreign>) 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—<q>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: <q><hi rend='italic'>It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me</hi></q> +(<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 7:17</hi>).</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Robinson, Principles and Practice of Morality, 173—<q>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, <hi rend='italic'>viz.</hi>, 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.</q> S. S. Times, Apl. 5, 1902:185—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<pb n='499'/><anchor id='Pg499'/> + +<p> +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. <emph>Moral intuition</emph>—the intuitive perception +of the difference between right and wrong, as opposite moral categories. +2. <emph>Accepted law</emph>—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 (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) the intuitive idea, (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) the logical intelligence, +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) experiences of utility, (<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) influences of society and education, and (e) +positive divine revelation. 3. <emph>Judgment</emph>—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. <emph>Command</emph>—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. <emph>Remorse</emph> or <emph>approval</emph>—moral sentiments +either of approbation or disapprobation, in view of past acts or states, +regarded as wrong or right. 6. <emph>Fear</emph> or <emph>hope</emph>—instinctive disposition of +disobedience to expect punishment, and of obedience to expect reward. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Ladd, Philos. of Conduct, 70—<q>The feeling of the ought is primary, essential, unique; +the judgments as to what one ought are the results of environment, education and +reflection.</q> 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 <emph>oughtness</emph> of the ought is certainly intuitive; +the <emph>whyness</emph> of the ought (conformity to God) is possibly intuitive also; the <emph>whatness</emph> of +the ought is less certainly intuitive. Cutler, Beginnings of Ethics, 163, 164—<q>Intuition +tells us <emph>that</emph> we are obliged; <emph>why</emph> we are obliged, and <emph>what</emph> we are obliged to, we must +learn elsewhere.</q> <emph>Obligation</emph>—that which is binding on a man; <emph>ought</emph> is something +owed; <emph>duty</emph> is something due. The intuitive notion of duty (intellect) is matched by +the sense of obligation (feeling). +</p> + +<p> +Bixby, Crisis in Morals, 203, 270—<q>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.</q> Bowne, Principles of Ethics, 156, 188—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Robinson, Princ. and Prac. of Morality, 173—<q>Fear of an omnipotent will is very +different from remorse in view of the nature of the supreme Being whose law we have +violated.</q> 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 +<pb n='500'/><anchor id='Pg500'/> +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: <q>Man's first duty is, not to <emph>follow</emph> his conscience, +but to <emph>enlighten</emph> his conscience.</q> Lowell says that the Scythians used to eat +their grandfathers out of humanity. Paine, Ethnic Trinities, 300—<q>Nothing is so stubborn +or so fanatical as a wrongly instructed conscience, as Paul showed in his own case +by his own confession</q> (<hi rend='italic'>Acts 26:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I verily thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary +to the name of Jesus of Nazareth</hi></q>). +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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 <emph>moral reason</emph>, +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 <emph>moral sentiment</emph>, and not to +conscience proper. The office of conscience is to <q>bear witness</q> (Rom. +2:15). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +In <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 2:15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>—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 <q>that power of mind by which moral law is discovered to each individual</q> +(Calderwood, Moral Philosophy, 77), nor can we speak of <q>Conscience, the Law</q> (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. +</p> + +<p> +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,—<hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>follow our conscience,</q> +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: +<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>include</emph> the law—cannot +itself <emph>be</emph> the law,—because reason only knows, never <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>con</foreign>-knows. Reason +says <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>scio</foreign>; only judgment says <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>conscio</foreign>. +</p> + +<pb n='501'/><anchor id='Pg501'/> + +<p> +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 <emph>are</emph> 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. +</p> + +<p> +This moral reason may become depraved by sin, so that the light becomes darkness +(<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 6:22, 23</hi>) and conscience has only a perverse standard by which to judge. The +<q><hi rend='italic'>weak</hi></q> conscience (<hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 8:12</hi>) is one whose standard of judgment is yet imperfect; the +conscience <q><hi rend='italic'>branded</hi></q> (Rev. Vers.) or <q><hi rend='italic'>seared</hi></q> (A. V.) <q><hi rend='italic'>as with a hot iron</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 4:2</hi>) 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>sprinkled from an evil conscience</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 10:22</hi>), 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 +<q><hi rend='italic'>good conscience</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>1 Pet. 3:16</hi>—of single act; <hi rend='italic'>3:21</hi>—of state) instead of an <q><hi rend='italic'>evil conscience</hi></q> +(<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 10:22</hi>) or a conscience <q><hi rend='italic'>defiled</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Tit. 1:15</hi>) by sin. Here the <q><hi rend='italic'>good conscience</hi></q> is the conscience +which has been obeyed by the will, and the <q><hi rend='italic'>evil conscience</hi></q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>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.</q> In The +Excursion, Wordsworth speaks of conscience as <q>God's most intimate presence in the +soul And his most perfect image in the world.</q> But in his Ode to Duty he more discreetly +writes: <q>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!</q> Here is an allusion to the Hebrew Bath +Kol. <q>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</q> (Hershon's Talmudic Miscellany, 2, note). This phrase, +<q>the echo of God's voice,</q> is a correct description of conscience, and Wordsworth +probably had it in mind when he spoke of duty as <q>the daughter of the voice of God.</q> +Robert Browning describes conscience as <q>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.</q> Jackson, James Martineau, +154—The sense of obligation is <q>a piercing ray of the great Orb of souls.</q> On Wordsworth's +conception of conscience, see A. H. Strong, Great Poets, 365-368. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>our +consciousness of the conscience of God.</q> 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: <q>It is wrong.</q> He asked his mother what it was that told him it was wrong. +<pb n='502'/><anchor id='Pg502'/> +She wiped a tear from her eye with her apron, and taking him in her arms said: <q>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.</q> R. T. Smith, Man's Knowledge of Man and of God, 87, 171—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 (<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 9:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I say the truth in +Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>8:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the Spirit himself beareth +witness with our spirit, that we are children of God</hi></q>). 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 <q>categorical imperative</q> (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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +F. Conscience in its relation to God as holy.—Conscience is not an +original authority. It points to something higher than itself. The +<q>authority of conscience</q> 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> +Because obedience to the dictates of conscience is always relatively right, +Kant could say that <q>an erring conscience is a chimæra.</q> But because the law +accepted by conscience may be absolutely wrong, conscience may in its decisions +greatly err from the truth. S. S. Times: <q>Saul before his conversion was a conscientious +wrong doer. His spirit and character was commendable, while his conduct was +reprehensible.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> 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 +<pb n='503'/><anchor id='Pg503'/> +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: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +R. T. Smith, Man's Knowledge of Man and of God, 161—<q>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.</q> Seth, Ethical Principles, 424—<q>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, <hi rend='italic'><q>whose offspring we are</q> (Acts 17:28)</hi>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Schenkel, Christliche Dogmatik, 1:135-155—<q>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 <emph>in</emph> us; Law affirms God <emph>outside</emph> of +us.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Hopkins, Outline Study of Man, 283-285, Moral Science, 49, Law of Love, 41—<q>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 <emph>science</emph>, but not <emph>conscience</emph>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Peabody, Moral Philos., 41-60—<q>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 <emph>legislator</emph> (as well as judge), is to fail to recognize any objective standard +of right.</q> The Two Consciences, 46, 47—<q>Conscience the Law, and Conscience the Witness. +The latter is the true and proper Conscience.</q> +</p> + +<p> +H. B. Smith, System of Christ. Theology, 178-191—<q>The unity of conscience is not in +its being one faculty or in its performing one function, but in its having one <emph>object</emph>, its +relation to one idea, viz., <emph>right</emph>.... The term <q>conscience</q> no more designates a special +faculty than the term <q>religion</q> does (or than the <q>æsthetic sense</q>).... 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='504'/><anchor id='Pg504'/> +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—<q>The discovery of duty is +as distinctly relative to an objective Righteousness as the perception of form to an +external space</q>; also Types, 2:27-30—<q>We first judge ourselves; then others</q>; 53, 54, +74, 103—<q>Subjective morals are as absurd as subjective mathematics.</q> 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; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> Schwegler, Hist. Philosophy, 233; Haven, Mor. Philos., 41; Fairchild, +Mor. Philos., 75; Gregory, Christian Ethics, 71; Passavant, Das Gewissen; Wm. Schmid, +Das Gewissen. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. Will.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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, <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, +to act out its nature, but he denies the soul's power to choose between motives, <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, 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: <q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +James, Psychology, 1:139—<q>Consciousness is primarily a selecting agency.</q> 2:393—<q>Man +possesses all the instincts of animals, and a great many more besides. Reason, +<hi rend='italic'>per se</hi>, 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.</q> 549—<q>Ideal or moral action +is action in the line of the greatest resistance.</q> 562—<q>Effort of attention is the essential +phenomenon of will.</q> 567—<q>The terminus of the psychological process is volition; +the point to which the will is directly applied is always an idea.</q> 568—<q>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; +<pb n='505'/><anchor id='Pg505'/> +but we also say: <q>Let it be a reality.</q></q> 571—<q>Are the duration and intensity +of this effort fixed functions of the object, or are they not? We answer, <emph>No</emph>, and so +we maintain freedom of the will.</q> 584—<q>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 <emph>epiphenomenon</emph>, but as something from which the +play gets moral support.</q> Alexander, Theories of the Will, 201-214, finds in Reid's +Active Powers of the Human Mind the most adequate empirical defense of indeterminism. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +B. Will and other faculties.—(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) We accept the threefold division of +human faculties into intellect, sensibility, and will. (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) Intellect is the +soul knowing; sensibility is the soul feeling (desires, affections); will is +the soul choosing (end or means). (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. (<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) Logically, +each latter faculty involves the preceding action of the former; the +soul must know before feeling; must know and feel before willing. +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) Yet since knowing and feeling are activities, neither of these is +possible without willing. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Socrates to Theætetus: <q>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.</q> +Dewey, Psychology, 21—<q>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.</q> 364—<q>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.</q> 411—<q>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.</q> Ribot, Diseases of the Will, +73, cites the case of Coleridge, and his lack of power to inhibit scattering and useless +ideas; 114—<q>Volition plunges its roots into the profoundest depths of the individual, +and beyond the individual, into the species and into all species.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>Jedes Denken ist ein Wollen.</q> 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: <q>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.</q> Without will to attend to pertinent material and to reject +the impertinent, we can have no <emph>science</emph>; without will to select and combine the elements +of imagination, we can have no <emph>art</emph>; without will to choose between evil and +good, we can have no <emph>morality</emph>. Ælfric, A. D. 900: <q>The verb <q>to will</q> has no imperative, +for that the will must be always free.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +C. Will and permanent states.—(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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 +<pb n='506'/><anchor id='Pg506'/> +intellect, of affection, of will. (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +I <q>make up</q> my mind. Ladd, Philosophy of Conduct, 152—<q>I will the influential +ideas, feelings and desires, rather than allow these ideas, feelings and desires to influence—not +to say, determine me.</q> All men can say with Robert Browning's Paracelsus: <q>I +have subdued my life to the one purpose Whereto I ordained it.</q> <q>Sow an act, and +you reap a habit; sow a habit, and you reap a character; sow a character, and you reap +a destiny.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> 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. <q>Nothing makes an inroad, without making +a road.</q> By slight efforts of attention to truth which we know ought to influence us, +we may <q><hi rend='italic'>make level in the desert a highway for our God</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Is. 40:3</hi>), or render the soul a hard trodden +ground impervious to <q><hi rend='italic'>the word of the kingdom</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 13:19</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +The word <q>character</q> 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: <q>A character is a completely +fashioned will.</q> We may talk therefore of a <q>generic volition</q> (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—<q>what a man is in the dark</q> (Dwight L. Moody). In this sense, +<q>purpose is the autograph of mind.</q> Duke of Wellington: <q>Habit a second nature? +Habit is ten times nature!</q> When Macbeth says: <q>If 'twere done when 'tis done, Then +'twere well 'twere done quickly,</q> the trouble is that when 'tis done, it is only begun. +Robert Dale Owen gives us the fundamental principle of socialism in the maxim: <q>A +man's character is made for him, not by him.</q> 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 15:18</hi>). 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +D. Will and motives.—(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) +Motives are not <emph>causes</emph>, which compel the will, but <emph>influences</emph>, 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<q>Incentives come from the soul's self: the rest avail not.</q> 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 +<pb n='507'/><anchor id='Pg507'/> +Arnold's accepting, the bribe to betray his country. Richard Lovelace of Canterbury: +<q>Stone walls do not a prison make, Nor iron bars a cage; Minds innocent and quiet take +That for a hermitage.</q> Jonathan Edwards made motives to be <emph>efficient</emph> causes, when +they are only <emph>final</emph> 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: <q>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.</q> Bowne, Principles of Ethics, 135—<q>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.</q> Bowne, Theory of Thought and +Knowledge, 239-244—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The will, in choosing <emph>between</emph> motives, chooses <emph>with</emph> a motive, namely, the motive +chosen. Fairbairn, Philos. Christian Religion, 76—<q>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.</q> New World, 1892:152—<q>It is not the character, but the self that +has the character, to which the ultimate moral decision is due.</q> William Ernest Henly, +Poems, 119—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Julius Müller, Doctrine of Sin, 2:54—<q>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. <hi rend='italic'>Matt. 12:33</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>make the tree good, and +its fruit good</hi></q>—combines both. Acts depend upon nature; but nature again depends upon +the primary decisions of the will (<q><hi rend='italic'>make the tree good</hi></q>). 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.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi>, 67—<q>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 <emph>conditional</emph> and <emph>limited</emph> freedom.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +E. Will and contrary choice.—(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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—<q>to will is present with me</q>). (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +There is no such thing as an act of pure will. Peters, Willenswelt, 126—<q>Jedes Wollen +ist ein Etwas wollen</q>—<q>all willing is a willing of some thing</q>; it has an object +which the mind conceives, which awakens the sensibility, and which the will strives +<pb n='508'/><anchor id='Pg508'/> +to realize. Cause without alternative is not true cause. J. F. Watts: <q>We know causality +only as we know will, <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, 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 <emph>cause</emph>, but only <emph>antecedent</emph>. 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 <emph>make</emph> a +decision, not to <emph>be made</emph> by decisions, to decide between motives, and not to be determined +by motives. Who conducts the trial between motives? Only the self.</q> 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. <q>Unless above himself +he can erect himself, How mean a thing is man!</q> +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> 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—<q>To try to collect the <q>data of ethics</q> 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.</q> Fisher, chapter on the Personality of +God, in Grounds of Theistic and Christian Belief—<q>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 <emph>fatalism</emph>—and not a mere spontaneity, confined to one path by a force acting +from within, which is <emph>determinism</emph>—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 <emph>influence</emph>, but influence is not to be confounded +with <emph>causal</emph> efficiency.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Talbot, on Will and Free Will, Bap. Rev., July, 1882—<q>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.</q> +Ernest Naville, in Rev. Chrétienne, Jan. 1878:7—<q>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 <emph>choice</emph>, not <emph>creation</emph>, 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.</q> Bowne, Metaphysics, 169—<q>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.</q> Porter, Moral +Science, 77-111—Will is <q>not a power to choose without motive.</q> It <q>does not exclude +motives to the contrary.</q> Volition <q>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.</q> Lyall, Intellect, Emotions, and Moral Nature, 581, 592—<q>The will +follows reasons, inducements—but it is not <emph>caused</emph>. 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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<pb n='509'/><anchor id='Pg509'/> + +<p> +F. Will and responsibility.—(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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 <q>bondservant of sin</q> (John 8:31-36) or the <q>servant of righteousness</q> +(Rom. 6:15-23; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> Heb. 12-23—<q>spirits of just men made +perfect</q>). (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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—<q>wilfully forget</q>). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Ladd, Philosophy of Knowledge, 415—<q>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.</q> +R. T. Smith, Man's Knowledge of Man and of God, 69—<q>Making a <emph>will</emph> 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Harris, Philos. Basis of Theism, 349-407—<q>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 <emph>cause</emph>; 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 <emph>character</emph> 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> Tennyson, In Memoriam, +Introduction: <q>Our wills are ours, we know not how; Our wills are ours, to make +them thine.</q> 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: <q><hi rend='italic'>If therefore the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John +8:36</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +Mind, Oct. 1882:567—<q>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 +<pb n='510'/><anchor id='Pg510'/> +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.</q> Morell, +Mental Philosophy, 390—<q>Motives determine the will, and so <emph>far</emph> 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 <emph>far</emph> the man is a free agent.</q> Santayana: <q>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.</q> Sidgwick, Method of Ethics, 51, 65—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +G. Inferences from this view of the will.—(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +There is such a thing as <q>psychical automatism</q> (Ladd, Philos. Mind, 169). Mother: +<q>Oscar, why can't you be good?</q> <q>Mamma, it makes me so tired!</q> 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: <q>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.</q> Yet Dr. +Chamberlain not only grants but claims liberty of choice. Romanes, Mind and Motion, +155-160—<q>Though volitions are largely determined by other and external causes, it +does not follow that they are determined <emph>necessarily</emph>, 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 <emph>motive</emph>—as +distinguished from a <emph>motor</emph>—is the acquiescence of the first cause upon whom that +motive is operating.</q> Fichte: <q>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.</q> Lessing: <q>Kein Mensch muss müssen.</q> Delitzsch: +<q>Der Mensch, wie er jetzt ist, ist wahlfrei, aber nicht machtfrei.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='511'/><anchor id='Pg5411'/> +of Leibnitz. He said it was the freedom of a turnspit, which when once wound +up directed its own movements, <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, was merely automatic. Compare with this the +view of Baldwin, Psychology, Feeling and Will, 373—<q>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.</q> +Shakespeare, Hamlet, 3:4—<q>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.</q> 3:2—<q>Purpose +is but the slave to memory; Of violent birth but poor validity.</q> 4:7—<q>That +we would do, We should do when we would; for this <emph>would</emph> changes And hath +abatements and delays as many As there are tongues, are hands, are accidents.</q> +Goethe: <q>Von der Gewalt die alle Wesen bindet, Befreit der Mensch sich der sich +überwindet.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Scotus Novanticus (Prof. Laurie of Edinburgh), Ethica, 287—<q>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.</q> Maudsley, +Physiology of Mind, 456, quotes Ribot, Diseases of the Will, 133—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Determinism is exemplified in Omar Kháyyám's Rubáiyát: <q>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.</q> +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—<q>The determinist says there +would be no moral quality in actions that did not express previous tendency, <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, 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.</q> Royce, World and Individual, 2:342—<q>Your unique voices in +the divine symphony are no more the voices of moral agents than are the stones of a +mosaic.</q> 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. <q>Johnny, did you give your little sister the choice between those two +apples?</q> <q>Yes, Mamma; I told her she could have the little one or none, and she +chose the little one.</q> Hobson's choice was always the choice of the last horse in the +<pb n='512'/><anchor id='Pg512'/> +row. The bartender with revolver in hand met all criticisms upon the quality of his +liquor with the remark: <q>You'll drink that whisky, and you'll like it too!</q> +</p> + +<p> +Balfour, Foundations of Belief, 22—<q>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.</q> Freedom does not contradict +conservation of energy. Professor Lodge, in Nature, March 26, 1891—<q>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.</q> J. J. Murphy, Nat. +Selection and Spir. Freedom, 170-203—<q>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.</q> James Seth, in Philos. Rev., 3:285, 286—<q>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.</q> See also James Seth, Ethical +Principles, 345-388, and Freedom as Ethical Postulate, 9—<q>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.</q> Shadworth Hodgson: <q>Either liberty is true, and then the categories are +insufficient, or the categories are sufficient, and then liberty is a delusion.</q> 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: <q>The views upon heredity +Of scientists remind one That, shape one's conduct as one may, One's future is +behind one.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>There shall be no Alps!</q> +Dutch William III: <q>I may fall, but shall fight every ditch, and die in the last one!</q> +When God energizes the will, it becomes indomitable. <hi rend='italic'>Phil. 4:13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I can do all things in him +that strengtheneth me.</hi></q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Lotze, Religionsphilosophie, section 61—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Martineau, Study, 2:227—<q>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</q>; Study of Religion, 2:195-324, and especially 240—<q>Where two or more +rival preconceptions enter the field together, they cannot compare themselves <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>inter se</foreign>: +they need and meet a superior: it rests with the mind itself to decide. The decision +will not be <emph>unmotived</emph>, 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.</q> +241—<q>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.</q> 309—<q>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.</q> 311—<q>The whole +<pb n='513'/><anchor id='Pg513'/> +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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +</div> + +<pb n='514'/><anchor id='Pg514'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Chapter II. The Original State Of Man.</head> + +<p> +In determining man's original state, we are wholly dependent upon +Scripture. This represents human nature as coming from God's hand, +and therefore <q>very good</q> (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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 1:31</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Col. 3:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the new +man, that is being renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created him</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 4:24</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the new man that +after God hath been created in righteousness and holiness of truth.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 2:337-399—<q>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 (<q><hi rend='italic'>it is no +longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me</hi></q>—<hi rend='italic'>Gal. 2:20</hi>); 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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Lord Bacon: <q>The sparkle of the purity of man's first estate.</q> Calvin: <q>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.</q> Prof. Hastings: <q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>I. Essentials of Man's Original State.</head> + +<p> +These are summed up in the phrase <q>the image of God.</q> 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 1:26, 27</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> 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 <emph>faculties</emph> (intellect, affection, will); by +virtue of the second, he had <emph>right tendencies</emph> (bent, proclivity, disposition). By virtue +of the first, he was invested with certain <emph>powers</emph>; by virtue of the second, a certain +<emph>direction</emph> was imparted to these powers. As created in the natural image of God, man +had a moral <emph>nature</emph>; as created in the moral image of God, man had a holy <emph>character</emph>. +The first gave him <emph>natural</emph> ability; the second gave him <emph>moral</emph> ability. The Greek +<pb n='515'/><anchor id='Pg515'/> +Fathers emphasized the first element, or <emph>personality</emph>; the Latin Fathers emphasized +the second element, or <emph>holiness</emph>. See Orr, God's Image in Man. +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>Psalm 82:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I said, Ye are gods</hi></q>—words +spoken of imperfect earthly rulers. Thus, in <hi rend='italic'>John 10:34-36</hi>, 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>partakers of the divine nature</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>2 Pet. 1:4</hi>). Hence +the many legends, in heathen religions, of the divine descent of man. <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 11:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the head +of every man is Christ.</hi></q> 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 <emph>worth</emph> does not imply <emph>worthiness</emph>; it implies only capacity for redemption. +<q>The abysmal depths of personality,</q> 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 <q>the deeper depth is out of reach To all, O God, but thee.</q> 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: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. Natural likeness to God, or personality.</head> + +<p> +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). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. <emph>Self</emph>-consciousness and <emph>self</emph>-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 <q>image</q> does not, in man, imply <emph>perfect</emph> representation. +Only Christ is the <q><hi rend='italic'>very image</hi></q> of God (<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 1:3</hi>), the <q><hi rend='italic'>image of the invisible God</hi></q> +(<hi rend='italic'>Col. 1:15</hi>—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. +</p> + +<p> +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 (<hi rend='italic'>Luke +15:8</hi>) 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: <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 9:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>for in the image of God made +he man</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 11:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of +God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>James 3:9</hi>—even men whom we curse <q><hi rend='italic'>are made after the likeness of God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 8:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>thou +hast made him but little lower than God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Pet. 2:17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Honor all men.</hi></q> 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Rev. 22:8, 9</hi>). +</p> + +<pb n='516'/><anchor id='Pg516'/> + +<p> +Sir William Hamilton: <q>On earth there is nothing great but man; In man there is +nothing great but mind.</q> We accept this dictum only if <q>mind</q> can be understood +to include man's moral powers together with the right direction of those powers. +Shakespeare, Hamlet, 2:2—<q>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!</q> Pascal: <q>Man is greater than the universe; +the universe may crush him, but it does not know that it crushes him.</q> +Whiton, Gloria Patri, 94—<q>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.</q> Man can be an <emph>instrument</emph> of God, without being an <emph>agent</emph> of God. <q>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.</q> 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—<q>No excellent soul is exempt from a mixture of madness.</q> Seneca, De +Tranquillitate Animi, 15—<q>There is no great genius without a tincture of madness.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Kant: <q>So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any +other, in every case as an <emph>end</emph>, and never as a <emph>means</emph> only.</q> If there is a divine element +in every man, then we have no right to <emph>use</emph> 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 10:40</hi>). 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 (<hi rend='italic'>John 15:1-6</hi>). Cicero: <q>Homo +mortalis deus.</q> 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Luke 15</hi>). But, on the other +hand, it is folly when man, made in the image of God, <q>blinds himself with clay.</q> 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>merchandise of souls</hi></q> +(<hi rend='italic'>Rev. 18:13</hi>) and we must not juggle with them. +</p> + +<p> +Christ's death for man, by showing the worth of humanity, has recreated ethics. +<q>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.</q> 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: <q>I was not talking to the +coat,—I was talking to the man.</q> Jean Ingelow: <q>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.</q> See Porter, Human +Intellect, 393, 394, 401; Wuttke, Christian Ethics, 2:42; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 2:343. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. Moral likeness to God, or holiness.</head> + +<p> +In addition to the powers of self-consciousness and self-determination +just mentioned, man was created with such a direction of the affections and +<pb n='517'/><anchor id='Pg517'/> +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). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <hi rend='italic'>Eccl. 7:29</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>God +made man upright</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 4:24</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the new man, that after God hath been created in righteousness and holiness +of truth</hi></q>—here Meyer says: <q>κατὰ Θεόν, <q><hi rend='italic'>after God</hi>,</q> <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>ad exemplum Dei</foreign>, after the pattern +of God (<hi rend='italic'>Gal. 4:28</hi>—κατὰ Ἰσαάκ, <q>after Isaac</q> = 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—<q><hi rend='italic'>in +righteousness and holiness of truth</hi>.</q></q> On N. T. <q>truth</q> = rectitude, see Wendt, Teaching of +Jesus, 1:257-260. +</p> + +<p> +Meyer refers also, as a parallel passage, to <hi rend='italic'>Col. 3:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the new man, that is being renewed unto +knowledge after the image of him that created him.</hi></q> Here the <q><hi rend='italic'>knowledge</hi></q> referred to is that knowledge +of God which is the source of all virtue, and which is inseparable from holiness of heart. +<q>Holiness has two sides or phases: (1) it is perception and knowledge; (2) it is inclination +and feeling</q> (Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:97). On <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 4:24</hi> and <hi rend='italic'>Col. 3:10</hi>, the classical +passages with regard to man's original state, see also the Commentaries of DeWette, +Rückert, Ellicott, and compare <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 5:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son +in his own likeness, after his image,</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, in his own sinful likeness, which is evidently contrasted +with the <q><hi rend='italic'>likeness of God</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>verse 1</hi>) in which he himself had been created (An. Par. Bible). +<hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 4:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Christ, who is the image of God</hi></q>—where the phrase <q><hi rend='italic'>image of God</hi></q> is not simply the +<emph>natural</emph>, but also the <emph>moral</emph>, 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. +</p> + +<p> +<q>Couldst thou in vision see Thyself the man God meant, Thou nevermore couldst be +The man thou art—content.</q> 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: <q>Unless the eye were sunlike, how could it +see the sun?</q> 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 <q>the glory and the scandal of +the universe.</q> He has defaced the image of God in his nature, even though that image, +in its natural aspect, is ineffaceable (E. H. Johnson). +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>God must have liked common people,—else he would not have made so many of +them.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +This original righteousness, in which the image of God chiefly consisted, +is to be viewed: +</p> + +<pb n='518'/><anchor id='Pg518'/> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Men every day change their tastes and loves, without changing the essence or substance +of their being. When sin is called a <q>nature,</q> therefore (as by Shedd, in his +Essay on <q>Sin a Nature, and that Nature Guilt</q>), it is only in the sense of being something +inborn (<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>natura</foreign>, from <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>nascor</foreign>). Hereditary tastes may just as properly be denominated +a <q>nature</q> 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: +<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) Nor as a <emph>gift</emph> 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>God cannot give a man actions.</q> We reply: <q>No, but God can +give man dispositions; and he does this at the first creation, as well as at the new +creation (regeneration).</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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—<q>caritas puerilis, non virilis.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>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.</q> The moral likeness +to God can be restored, but only by God himself. God secures this to men by +making <q><hi rend='italic'>the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, ... dawn upon them</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 4:4</hi>). +Pusey made <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 72:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>He will come down like rain upon the mown grass</hi></q>—the image of a world hopelessly +dead, but with a hidden capacity for receiving life. Dr. Daggett: <q>Man is a <q><hi rend='italic'>son +of the morning</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Is. 14:12</hi>), fallen, yet arrested midway between heaven and hell, a prize +between the powers of light and darkness.</q> See Edwards, Works, 2:19, 20, 381-390; +Hopkins, Works, 1:162; Shedd, Hist. Doctrine, 2:50-66; Augustine, De Civitate Dei, +14:11. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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: +</p> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>A. The image of God as including only personality.</head> + +<pb n='519'/><anchor id='Pg519'/> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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—<q>The original state of man was that of child-like +innocence or morally indifferent naturalness, which had in itself indeed the possibility +(<foreign lang='de' rend='italic'>Anlage</foreign>) 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 (<foreign lang='de' rend='italic'>Anlage</foreign>) of real likeness to +God—the endowment of reason which belonged to human personality. The <emph>reality</emph> of +a spirit like that of God has appeared first in the <emph>second</emph> Adam, and has become the +principle of the kingdom of God.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Raymond (Theology, 2:43, 132) is an American representative of the view that the +image of God consists in mere personality: <q>The image of God in which man was +created did not consist in an inclination and determination of the will to holiness.</q> +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. <q><hi rend='italic'>Very good</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 1:31</hi>) 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +In addition to what has already been said in support of the opposite +view, we may urge against this theory the following objections: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <emph>power</emph> to decide for good; God +must give new <emph>love</emph> also. If this be so in the new creation, God could give love +in the first creation also. Holiness therefore is creatable. <q><emph>Underived</emph> holiness is possible +only in God; in its origin, it is <emph>given</emph> both to angels and men.</q> Therefore we pray: +<q><hi rend='italic'>Create in me a clean heart</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 51:10</hi>); <q><hi rend='italic'>Incline my heart unto thy testimonies</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 119:36</hi>). See Edwards, +Eff. Grace, sec. 43-51; Kaftan, Dogmatik, 290—<q>If Adam's perfection was not a moral +perfection, then his sin was no real moral corruption.</q> The <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>animus</foreign> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<pb n='520'/><anchor id='Pg520'/> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<q>Ubi caritas, ibi claritas.</q> 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 <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 8:3</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>if any man loveth God, the same</hi></q> [God] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>is known by him</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 John 4:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>He +that loveth not knoweth not God.</hi></q> See other Scripture references on pages 3, 4. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +God could never create an intelligent being evenly balanced between good and evil—<q>on +the razor's edge</q>—<q>on the fence.</q> The preacher who took for his text <q><hi rend='italic'>Adam, +where art thou?</hi></q> had for his first head: <q>It is every man's business to be somewhere;</q> +for his second: <q>Some of you are where you ought not to be;</q> and for his third: +<q>Get where you ought to be, as soon as possible.</q> 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—<q>Personality is only the basis of the divine image,—it +is not the image itself.</q> Bledsoe says there can be no created virtue or viciousness. +Whedon (On the Will, 388) objects to this, and says rather: <q>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.</q> 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: <q>I sit apart, holding no form of creed, but contemplating all.</q> +And Goethe is probably still alluded to in the words: <q>A glorious devil, large in heart +and brain, That did love beauty only, Or if good, good only for its beauty</q>; see A. H. +Strong, The Great Poets and their Theology, 331; Robert Browning, Christmas Eve: +<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>B. The image of God as consisting simply in man's natural capacity for +religion.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>donum superadditum</foreign> 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. +</p> + +<pb n='521'/><anchor id='Pg521'/> + +<p> +The Roman Catholic doctrine may be roughly and pictorially stated as follows: As +created, man was morally naked, or devoid of positive righteousness (<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>pura naturalia</foreign>, +or <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>in puris naturalibus</foreign>). By obedience he obtained as a reward from God (<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>donum +supernaturale</foreign>, or <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>superadditum</foreign>) a suit of clothes or robe of righteousness to protect +him, so that he became clothed (<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>vestitus</foreign>). 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 (<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>spoliatus</foreign>). But his condition +after differed from his condition before this attack, only as a stripped man differs from +a naked man (<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>spoliatus a nudo</foreign>). 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 <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>in puris naturalibus</foreign> describes the original state, as the phrase <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>spoliatus a nudo</foreign> +describes the difference resulting from man's sin. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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 <q>the very image.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) The concreated opposition between sense and reason which this +theory supposes is inconsistent with the Scripture declaration that the +work of God's hands <q>was very good</q> (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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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 <q>dead through ... trespasses and sins</q> +(Eph. 2:1), as incapable of true obedience (Rom. 8:7—<q>not subject to +the law of God, neither indeed can it be</q>), and as needing to be <q>created +in Christ Jesus for good works</q> (Eph. 2:10). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 +<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>posse non peccare</foreign> was accompanied by a <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>posse peccare</foreign>, 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 +<pb n='522'/><anchor id='Pg522'/> +more indefinite, simply declaring man: <q>Sanctitatem et justitiam in qua <emph>constitutus +fuerat</emph>, amisisse.</q> The Roman Catechism, however (1:2:19), explained the phrase +<q>constitutus fuerat</q> by the words: <q>Tum originalis justitiæ admirabile donum <emph>addidit</emph>.</q> +And Bellarmine (De Gratia, 2) says plainly: <q>Imago, quæ est ipsa natura mentis +et voluntatis, a solo Deo fieri potuit; similitudo autem, quæ in virtute et probitate +consistit, <emph>a nobis quoque</emph> Deo adjuvante perficitur.</q>... (5) <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Moehler (Symbolism, 21-35) holds that the religious faculty—the <q>image of God</q>; +the pious exertion of this faculty—the <q>likeness of God.</q> He seems to favor the view +that Adam received <q>this supernatural gift of a holy and blessed communion with God +at a later period than his creation, <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, only when he had prepared himself for its +reception and by his own efforts had rendered himself worthy of it.</q> He was created +<q>just</q> and acceptable to God, even without communion with God or help from God. +He became <q>holy</q> and enjoyed communion with God, only when God rewarded his +obedience and bestowed the <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>supernaturale donum</foreign>. 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. +</p> + +<p> +So, to quote the words of Shedd, <q>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.</q> 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 (<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>pura naturalia</foreign>) is one of grace and of the Spirit's indwelling—hence, +of direction toward God. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>spoliatus a nudo</foreign>. 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. <q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<pb n='523'/><anchor id='Pg523'/> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>II. Incidents of Man's Original State.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. Results of man's possession of the divine image.</head> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +The spirit presents the divine image immediately: the body, mediately. The scholastics +called the soul the image of God <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>proprie</foreign>; the body they called the image of God +<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>significative</foreign>. Soul is the direct reflection of God; body is the reflection of that reflection. +The <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>os sublime</foreign> manifests the dignity of the endowments within. Hence the word +<q>upright,</q> 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.: <q>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.</q> (Ἄνθρωπος, from ἀνά, +ἄνω, suffix <foreign lang='el' rend='italic'>tra</foreign>, and ὢψ, with reference to the upright posture.) Milton speaks of <q>the +human face divine.</q> S. S. Times, July 28, 1900—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 2:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>3:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Jehovah +God walking in the garden.</hi></q> But see <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 11:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And Jehovah came down to see the city and the tower, which the +children of men builded</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Is. 66:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 K. 8:27</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>behold, heaven +and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee.</hi></q> On the Anthropomorphites, see Hagenbach, Hist. +Doct., 1:103, 308, 491. For answers to Bretschneider and Strauss, see Philippi, Glaubenslehre, +2:364. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Sir Henry Watton's Happy Life: <q>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.</q> +Here we hold to the <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>æquale temperamentum</foreign>. 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 +<pb n='524'/><anchor id='Pg524'/> +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—<q>Man +came into the world a philosopher.... Aristotle was but the rubbish of an +Adam.</q> 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 <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 3:22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 15:46</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>that +is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; then that which is spiritual.</hi></q> On this last text, see +Expositor's Greek Testament. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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 (<hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> 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 <q>let them +have dominion</q> 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 2:19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And the man gave names to all cattle</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 1:26</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 8:5-8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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. <q>Katrina,</q> her father said when he found her, <q>were you not afraid to be alone +here?</q> <q>No, papa,</q> she replied, <q>the big dogs played with me and one of them lay +here and kept me warm.</q> MacLaren, in S. S. Times, Dec. 23, 1893—<q>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.</q> This principle gives the warrant and the +limit to vivisection and to the killing of the lower animals for food (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 9:2, 3.</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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 +<pb n='525'/><anchor id='Pg525'/> +necessarily involved that perfected vision of God which is possible to +beings of confirmed and unchangeable holiness (Mat. 5:8; 1 John 3:2). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 2:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And Jehovah God commanded the man</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>3:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And they heard the voice of Jehovah God walking in +the garden in the cool of the day</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 5:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 John 3:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>We +know that, if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him; for we shall see him even as he is</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 22:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>and +they shall see his his face.</hi></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. Concomitants of man's possession of the divine image.</head> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Eden—pleasure, delight. Tennyson: <q>When high in Paradise By the four rivers the +first roses blew.</q> Streams were necessary to the very existence of an oriental garden. +Hopkins, Script. Idea of Man, 107—<q>Man includes woman. Creation of <emph>a</emph> man without +a woman would not have been the creation of man. Adam called her name Eve but +God called their name Adam.</q> Mat. Henry: <q>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.</q> Robert Burns says +of nature: <q>Her 'prentice hand she tried on man, And then she made the lasses, O!</q> +Stevens, Pauline Theology, 329—<q>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 (<hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 11:11, 12</hi>).</q> Of the Elgin marbles Boswell asked: +<q>Don't you think them indecent?</q> Dr. Johnson replied: <q>No, sir; but your question +is.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +H. H. Bawden suggests that the account of Eve's creation may be the <q>pictorial summary</q> +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 <q>rib</q> 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 <emph>larvæ</emph>. +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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>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 +<pb n='526'/><anchor id='Pg526'/> +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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>She is bone of my bone; she must have been taken from my side when I +slept.</q> 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 <foreign rend='italic'>Pi Mahi</foreign>, <q>the United.</q> Darwin, in the postscript to a letter to +Lyell, written as early as July, 1850, tells his friend that he has <q>a pleasant genealogy +for mankind,</q> and describes our remotest ancestor as <q>an animal which breathed +water, had a swim-bladder, a great swimming tail, an imperfect skull, and was +undoubtedly a hermaphrodite.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Matthew Arnold speaks of <q>the freshness of the early world.</q> Novalis says that <q>all +philosophy begins in homesickness.</q> Shelley, Skylark: <q>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.</q>—<q>The golden conception of a Paradise +is the poet's guiding thought.</q> 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: <q>Such thoughts, the wreck of Paradise, Through +many a dreary age, Upbore whate'er of good or wise Yet lived in bard or sage.</q> +Poetry and music echo the longing for some possession lost. Jessica in Shakespeare's +Merchant of Venice: <q>I am never merry when I hear sweet music.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Wellhausen, on the legend of a golden age, says: <q>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.</q> 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 <emph>to</emph> God shows his descent <emph>from</emph> 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 +<q>golden age</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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 <q>tree of +the knowledge of good and evil</q> (Gen 2:9). The one slight command +best tested the spirit of obedience. Temptation did not necessitate a fall, +<pb n='527'/><anchor id='Pg527'/> +If resisted, it would strengthen virtue. In that case, the <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>posse non peccare</foreign> +would have become the <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>non posse peccare</foreign>. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Thomasius: <q>That evil is a necessary transition-point to good, is Satan's doctrine and +philosophy.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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 +<q>tree of life</q> (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 <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>posse non mori</foreign> might have become a <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>non +posse mori</foreign>. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 15:45</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>The first man Adam became a living soul. The last man +Adam became a life-giving spirit</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 22:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they may have the +right to come to the tree of life.</hi></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +The conclusions we have thus reached with regard to the incidents of +man's original state are combated upon two distinct grounds: +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +For the theory of an originally savage condition of man, see Sir John Lubbock, +Prehistoric Times, and Origin of Civilization: <q>The primitive condition of mankind +was one of utter barbarism</q>; 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 <q>enforced social organization, with written +records, and hence intellectual development and social progress.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +With regard to this view we remark: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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, +<pb n='528'/><anchor id='Pg528'/> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <q>as a secondary action largely and deeply +affecting the development of civilization.</q> So the Duke of Argyll, Unity of Nature: +<q>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.</q> Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 1:467—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>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.</q> Spencer, however, denies that savagery is always +caused by lapse from civilization. +</p> + +<p> +Bib. Sac., 6:715; 29:282—<q>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.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> So Wallace, in Nature, Sept. 7, 1876, vol. 14:408-412. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<q>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.</q> 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. <q>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.</q> Drummond, +Ascent of Man: <q>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.</q> Tennyson: <q>Evolution ever climbing after some ideal good, And Reversion +ever dragging Evolution in the mud.</q> Evolution often becomes devolution, if not +<pb n='529'/><anchor id='Pg529'/> +devilution. A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 104—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Mason, Origins of Invention, 110, 124, 128—<q>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.</q> 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. <q>Netat</q> (one) and <q>neis</q> (two) are the only numerals, higher +numbers being described by combinations of these, as <q>neis-netat</q> for three, <q>neis-i-neis</q> +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 <q>many,</q> as this was the limit reached in counting before the introduction +of English numerals, now in general use in the islands. +</p> + +<p> +Shaler, Interpretation of Nature, 171—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Mark Hopkins, in Princeton Rev. Sept., 1882:194—<q>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.</q> +Tylor instances <q>street Arabs.</q> He compares street Arabs to a ruined house, but +<pb n='530'/><anchor id='Pg530'/> +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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 +<q>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.</q> Ratzel's History of Mankind: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>The +theory of an original promiscuity is rendered extremely doubtful by the habits of many +of the higher animals.</q> E. B. Tylor, in 19th Century, July, 1906—<q>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.</q> Westermarck, History of +Human Marriage: <q>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.</q> Howard, History of Matrimonial +Institutions: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +For references in classic writers to a golden age, see Luthardt, Compendium der +Dogmatik, 115; Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 1:205—<q>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.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> On +petrified civilizations, see Henry George, Progress and Poverty, 433-439—<q>The law of +human progress, what is it but the moral law?</q> On retrogressive development in +nature, see Weismann, Heredity, 2:1-30. But see also Mary E. Case, <q>Did the Romans +Degenerate?</q> 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 +<pb n='531'/><anchor id='Pg531'/> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +This theory is propounded by Comte, in his Positive Philosophy, English transl., 25, +26, 515-636—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +This assumed law of progress, however, is contradicted by the following +facts: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>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 <foreign lang='el' rend='italic'>Pantheos</foreign>, the universal God. The odes compiled +by Confucius testify to the early worship of Shangte, the Supreme Ruler. The Vedas +speak of <q>one unknown true Being, all-present, all-powerful, the Creator, Preserver +and Destroyer of the Universe.</q> And in Egypt, as late as the time of Plutarch, there +were still vestiges of a monotheistic worship.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='532'/><anchor id='Pg532'/> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) <q>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</q> (Fisher). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: +<q>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: <q>Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord.</q> And this +faith could never have proceeded from the Babylonian mountain of gods, that charnel-house +full of corruption and dead men's bones.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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—<q>Man's capacities for degradation are commensurate with his +capacities for improvement</q> (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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +John Stuart Mill suggests that <q>personifying</q> would be a much better term than +<q>theological</q> 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—<q>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.</q> Martineau, Types, 1:487—<q>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,</q>—it comes rather from Hebrew sources; +Essays, Philos. and Theol., 1:24, 62—<q>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?</q> See also Gillett, God in Human Thought, +1:17-23; Rawlinson, in Journ. Christ. Philos., April, 1883:353; Nineteenth Century, +Oct. 1886:473-490. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +</div> + +<pb n='533'/><anchor id='Pg533'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Chapter III. Sin, Or Man's State Of Apostasy.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Section I.—The Law Of God.</head> + +<p> +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 +</p> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>I. Law in General.</head> + +<p> +1. Law is an expression of <emph>will</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +The essential idea of law is that of a general expression of will enforced +by power. It implies: (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) A lawgiver, or authoritative will. (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) Subjects, +or beings upon whom this will terminates. (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) A general command, +or expression of this will. (<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) A power, enforcing the command. +</p> + +<p> +These elements are found even in what we call natural law. The phrase +<q>law of nature</q> 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 <q>law</q> 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 <q>law,</q> +implicitly confesses that a supreme Will has set general rules which control +the processes of the universe. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Wayland, Moral Science, 1, unwisely defines law as <q>a mode of existence or order of +sequence,</q> 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 <q>law</q> itself +includes the idea of force and cause. The word <q>law</q> is from <q>lay</q> (German <foreign lang='de' rend='italic'>legen</foreign>),—something +laid down; German <foreign lang='de' rend='italic'>Gesetz</foreign>, from <foreign lang='de' rend='italic'>setzen</foreign>,—something set or established; +Greek νόμος, from νέμω,—something assigned or apportioned; Latin <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>lex</foreign>, from <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>lego</foreign>,—something +said or spoken. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<q>law</q> is so suggestive of a giver and impresser of law, that it ought to be dropped, and +the word <q>method</q> substituted. The merit of Austin's treatment of the subject is that +he <q>rigorously limits the term <q>law</q> to the commands of a superior</q>; see John Austin, +Province of Jurisprudence, 1:88-93, 220-223. The defects of his treatment we shall note +further on. +</p> + +<p> +J. S. Mill: <q>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 <q>law of nature</q> is generally employed by scientific +men with a sort of tacit reference to the original sense of the word <q>law,</q> namely, the +expression of the will of a superior—the superior in this case being the Ruler of the +<pb n='534'/><anchor id='Pg534'/> +universe.</q> Paley, Nat. Theology, chap. 1—<q>It is a perversion of language to assign +any <emph>law</emph> 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.</q> <q>Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?</q> +<q>Rules do not fulfill themselves, any more than a statute-book can quell a +riot</q> (Martineau, Types, 1:367). +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>The conception +of natural law rests upon the analogy of civil law.</q> Ladd, Philosophy of +Knowledge, 333—<q>Laws are only the more or less frequently repeated and uniform +modes of the behavior of things</q>; Philosophy of Mind, 122—<q>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.</q> See President McGarvey's Criticism +on James Lane Allen's Reign of Law: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +2. Law is a <emph>general</emph> expression of will. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>Every +barber who cuts his majesty shall thereupon be decapitated.</q> <foreign rend='italic'>Einmal ist keinmal</foreign> = +<q>Once is no custom.</q> Dr. Schurman suggests that the word <foreign rend='italic'>meal</foreign> (Mahl) means +originally <foreign rend='italic'>time</foreign> (<foreign rend='italic'>mal</foreign> in <foreign rend='italic'>einmal</foreign>). The measurement of time among ourselves is astronomical; +among our earliest ancestors it was gastronomical, and the reduplication +<emph>mealtime</emph> = 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: <q>That does +not matter,—take one of my suite.</q> Amos, Science of Law, 33, 34—<q>Law eminently +deals in general rules.</q> It knows not persons or personality. It must apply to more +than one case. <q>The characteristic of law is generality, as that of morality is individual +application.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +3. Law implies <emph>power to enforce</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +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, +<pb n='535'/><anchor id='Pg535'/> +the four elements already mentioned exhaust the implications of the term +<q>law</q> as applied to nature. In the case of rational and free agents, however, +law implies in addition: (<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) Duty or obligation to obey; and (<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) +Sanctions, or pains and penalties for disobedience. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<q>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.</q> 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. <q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +4. Law expresses and demands <emph>nature</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +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 (<hi rend='italic'>g</hi>) Is an +expression of the nature of the lawgiver; and (<hi rend='italic'>h</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Diman, Theistic Argument, 106, 107: John Austin, although he <q>rigorously limited +the term law to the commands of a superior,</q> yet <q>rejected Ulpian's explanation of the +law of nature, and ridiculed as fustian the celebrated description in Hooker.</q> 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 (<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>mores</foreign>) come from individual +duty (<emph>due</emph>); 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. +</p> + +<p> +See Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws, book 1, sec. 14—<q>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 +<pb n='536'/><anchor id='Pg536'/> +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.</q> Kant, Metaphysic of Ethics, +169-172—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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: +<q>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</q>; Lord +Bacon: <q>Regula enim legem (ut acus nautica polos) indicat, non statuit.</q> Duke of +Argyll, Reign of Law, 64; H. C. Carey, Unity of Law. +</p> + +<p> +Fairbairn, in Contemp. Rev., Apl. 1895:473—<q>The Roman jurists draw a distinction +between <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>jus naturale</foreign> and <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>jus civile</foreign>, and they used the former to affect the latter. The +<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>jus civile</foreign> was statutory, established and fixed law, as it were, the actual legal environment; +the <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>jus naturale</foreign> was ideal, the principle of justice and equity immanent in man, +yet with the progress of his ethical culture growing ever more articulate.</q> We add +the fact that <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>jus</foreign> in Latin and <foreign lang='de' rend='italic'>Recht</foreign> 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: <q>Never a government on earth made +its own laws. Even constitutions simply declare laws already and actually existing. +Where society falls into anarchy, the <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>lex talionis</foreign> becomes the prevailing principle.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>II. The Law of God in Particular.</head> + +<p> +The law of God is a general expression of the divine will enforced by +power. It has two forms: Elemental Law and Positive Enactment. +</p> + +<p> +1. <hi rend='italic'>Elemental Law</hi>, or law inwrought into the elements, substances, +and forces of the rational and irrational creation. This is twofold: +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Bowne, Theory of Thought and Knowledge, 210—<q>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.</q> Philos. of Theism, 73—<q>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.</q> +Seth, Hegelianism and Personality: <q>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 H<hi rend='vertical-align: sub'>2</hi>O form water? No one knows.</q> +William James: <q>The parts seem shot at us out of a pistol.</q> Rather, we would say, out +of a shotgun. Martineau, Seat of Authority, 33—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Brooks, Foundations of Zoölogy, 126—<q>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.</q> +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 +<pb n='537'/><anchor id='Pg537'/> +when shaken? Yes, but what shakes it? Ladd, Philos. of Knowledge, 310—<q>The +directions and velocities of the stars fall under no common principles that +astronomy can discover. One of the stars—<q>1830 Groombridge</q>—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.</q> 263—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Augustine: <q>Dei voluntas rerum natura est.</q> Joseph Cook: <q>The laws of nature +are the habits of God.</q> 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. +<q>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.</q> Pepper, Outlines of +Syst. Theol., 91—<q>Moral law, unlike natural law, is a standard of action to be adopted +or rejected in the exercise of rational freedom, <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, of moral agency.</q> See also Shedd, +Dogm. Theol., 1:531. +</p> + +<p> +Mark Hopkins, in Princeton Rev., Sept. 1882:190—<q>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 <emph>from</emph> law, +as enforced by <emph>power</emph>; but are free <emph>under</emph> law, as enforced by <emph>punishment</emph>. 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</q> [moral law]. See also Wm. Arthur, Difference +between Physical and Moral Law. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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: (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) A divine Law-giver, +or ordaining Will. (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) Subjects, or moral beings upon whom the +law terminates. (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) General command, or expression of this will in the +moral constitution of the subjects. (<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) Power, enforcing the command. +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) Duty, or obligation to obey. (<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) Sanctions, or pains and penalties +for disobedience. +</p> + +<p> +All these are of a loftier sort than are found in human law. But we need +especially to emphasize the fact that this law (<hi rend='italic'>g</hi>) Is an expression of the +moral nature of God, and therefore of God's holiness, the fundamental +attribute of that nature; and that it (<hi rend='italic'>h</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>Law is king both of mortal and +immortal beings,</q> and when we say: <q>The law will take hold of you,</q> <q>The criminal +is in danger of the law,</q> 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: +<q>If Jehovah be God, worship him; but if Law, worship it.</q> +</p> + +<pb n='538'/><anchor id='Pg538'/> + +<p> +Since moral law merely reflects God, it is not a thing <emph>made</emph>. Men <emph>discover</emph> laws, but +they do not <emph>make</emph> 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)—<q>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.</q> See also Martineau, Types, +2:119, and Study, 1:35. +</p> + +<p> +Curtis, Primitive Semitic Religions, 66, 101—<q>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.</q> H. B. Smith, System, 192—<q>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.</q> 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: <q>Be like God.</q> Salter, First Steps in +Philosophy, 101-126—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Bixby, Crisis in Morals, 191, 201, 285, 286—<q>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 <foreign lang='fr' rend='italic'>en +rapport</foreign> with the Macrocosm. Man must bring his spirit into resemblance to the World-essence, +and into union with it.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> 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). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 19:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>The law of Jehovah is perfect, restoring the soul</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>verse 1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>The heavens declare the glory of God</hi></q>—two +revelations of God—one in nature, the other in the moral law. <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 2:14, 15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>—here the <q><hi rend='italic'>work of the law</hi></q>—, not the ten +<pb n='539'/><anchor id='Pg539'/> +commandments, for of these the heathen were ignorant, but rather the work corresponding +to them, <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, the substance of them. <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 7:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>For we know that the law is spiritual</hi></q>—this, +says Meyer, is equivalent to saying <q>its essence is divine, of like nature with the +Holy Spirit who gave it, a holy self-revelation of God.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 8:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>that the ordinance of the law +might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>10:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>For Christ is the end of the law +unto righteousness to every one that believeth</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Phil. 3:8, 9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 10:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Lo, I am come to do thy will.</hi></q> In Christ <q>the law +appears Drawn out in living characters.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Fleming, Vocab. Philos., 286—<q>Moral laws are derived from the nature and will of +God, and the character and condition of man.</q> 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: <q>Be +like God, or you cannot be truly man.</q> 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. <q>The <q><hi rend='italic'>hands of the living God</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 10:31</hi>) into which we fall, are the laws of +nature.</q> In the spiritual world <q>the same wheels revolve, only there is no iron</q> +(Drummond, Natural Law in the Spiritual World, 27). Wuttke, Christian Ethics, 2:82-92—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +R. W. Emerson, Woodnotes, 57—<q>Conscious Law is King of kings.</q> Two centuries +ago John Norton wrote a book entitled The Orthodox Evangelist, <q>designed for the +begetting and establishing of the faith which is in Jesus,</q> in which we find the following: +<q>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.</q> This is to +make God an arbitrary despot. We should not say that God <emph>makes</emph> law, nor on the +other hand that God <emph>is subject to</emph> law, but rather that God <emph>is</emph> law and <emph>the source</emph> of law. +</p> + +<p> +Bowne, Philos. of Theism, 161—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +Each of the two last-mentioned characteristics of God's law is important +in its implications. We treat of these in their order. +</p> + +<p> +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 +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<pb n='540'/><anchor id='Pg540'/> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +E. G. Robinson, Christ. Theology, 193—<q>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.</q> 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—<q>He who cheats his neighbor believes in tortuosity, and, as +Carlyle says, has the supreme Quack for his god.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +The great speech of Sophocles' Antigone gives us this conception of law: <q>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.</q> 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Ex. 32:19</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>Jer. 36:23</hi>), but the law remained eternal as before in the nature of God +and in the constitution of man. Prof. Walter Rauschenbusch: <q>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: <q>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!</q></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) Not merely negative, or a law of mere prohibition,—since positive +conformity to God is the inmost requisition of law. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q><hi rend='italic'>the law is spiritual</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 7:14</hi>), and requires likeness in +character and life to the spiritual God; <hi rend='italic'>John 4:24</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>God is spirit, and they that worship him must +worship in spirit and truth.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Whatever God gave to man at the beginning he requires of man with interest; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Mat. +25:27</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the bankers, and at my coming I should have received back +mine own with interest.</hi></q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) Not outwardly published,—since all positive enactment is only the +imperfect expression of this underlying and unwritten law of being. +</p> + +<pb n='541'/><anchor id='Pg541'/> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 2:14, 15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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:</hi></q> see Expositor's Greek +Testament, <hi rend='italic'>in loco</hi>: <q><q><hi rend='italic'>written on their hearts</hi>,</q> when contrasted with the law written on the +tables of stone, is equal to <q>unwritten</q>; the Apostle refers to what the Greeks called +ἄγραφος νόμος.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. <hi rend='italic'>Psalm 2:1-4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Why do the nations rage ... against Jehovah ... saying, +Let us break their bonds asunder.... He that sitteth in the heavens will laugh.</hi></q> Salter, First Steps in +Philosophy, 94—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>g</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<q>The Dutch auction</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>h</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +The law, then, has a deeper foundation than that God merely <q>said so.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> 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 <q>Duty not measured by Ability.</q> The +man with the withered hand would not have been justified in refusing to stretch it +forth at Jesus' command (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 12:10-13</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +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 (<hi rend='italic'>Luke 19:23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>wherefore +gavest thou not my money into the bank, and I at my coming should have required it with interest</hi></q>). 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: <q>Save first the holy law of my +God,</q> he says, <q>after that you shall save me!</q> +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>Natura enim non nisi parendo vincitur.</q> So +<pb n='542'/><anchor id='Pg542'/> +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 <q>reconcile the law to my desires.</q> +Marie Corelli says well: <q>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.</q> See Martineau, +Types, 2:120. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>Our rules are written +in blood.</q> Goethe, Was Wir Bringen, 19 Auftritt: <q>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.</q>—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. +</p> + +<p> +The law is a <emph>fence</emph>, 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: <q>I slept, and dreamed that life was Duty; I woke and +found that life was Beauty.</q> <q>Cui servire regnare est.</q> Butcher, Aspects of Greek +Genius, 56—<q>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.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +John Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 2:119—<q>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.</q> J. M. Whiton, The Divine Satisfaction: +<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +The law of God is therefore characterized by: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 119:96</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I have seen an end of all perfection ... thy commandment is exceeding broad</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 3:23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>all +have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>James 4:17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>To him therefore that knoweth to do good, and +<pb n='543'/><anchor id='Pg543'/> +doeth it not, to him it is sin.</hi></q> 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. <q>About right</q> is not <q>all right.</q> <q>The giant hexagonal +pillars of basalt in the Scottish Staffa are identical in form with the microscopic crystals +of the same mineral.</q> So God is our pattern, and goodness is our likeness to him. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 5:22, 28</hi>—the angry word is murder; the sinful look is adultery. <hi rend='italic'>Mark 12:30, 31</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 10:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience +of Christ</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 5:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Be ye therefore imitators of God, as beloved children</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Pet. 1:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Ye shall be holy; for +I am holy.</hi></q> 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 +<hi rend='italic'>Gal. 6:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>let each man prove his own work, and then shall he have his glorying in regard of himself alone, and not +of his neighbor</hi></q>—<q>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.</q> 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 (<hi rend='italic'>James 1:23, 24</hi>). +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 5:48</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mark 12:29, 30</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>The Lord our +God, the Lord is one: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>James 2:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>For whosoever shall keep the whole law, +and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>4:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>One only is the lawgiver and judge.</hi></q> 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 <hi rend='italic'>John 14-17</hi> 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: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>2 Chron. 34:19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Job +42:5, 6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> The revelation of God in <hi rend='italic'>Is. 6:3, 5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Holy, holy, holy, is Jehovah of hosts</hi></q>—causes +the prophet to cry like the leper: <q><hi rend='italic'>Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean +lips.</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 3:20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law cometh the +<pb n='544'/><anchor id='Pg544'/> +knowledge of sin</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>5:20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the law came in besides, that the trespass might abound</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>7:7, 8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Gal. +3:24</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>So that the law is become our tutor,</hi></q> or attendant-slave, <q><hi rend='italic'>to bring us unto Christ, that we might be +justified by faith</hi></q>—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—<q>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.</q> The law inspires fear, but it leads to love. The Rabbins +said that, if Israel repented but for one day, the Messiah would appear. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>average</emph> moral life will inevitably fall <emph>below</emph> the +average. The law, then, leads to Christ. He who is the <emph>ideal</emph> is also the <emph>way</emph> 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 (<hi rend='italic'>John 14:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I am the way, and the truth, and the life</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. +8:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death</hi></q>). Mrs. Browning, +Aurora Leigh: <q>The Christ himself had been no Lawgiver, Unless he had given +the Life too with the Law.</q> Christ <emph>for</emph> us upon the Cross, and Christ <emph>in</emph> us by his +Spirit, is the only deliverance from the curse of the law; <hi rend='italic'>Gal 3:13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Christ redeemed us from +the curse of the law, having become a curse for us.</hi></q> We must see the claims of the law satisfied and +the law itself written on our hearts. We are <q><hi rend='italic'>reconciled to God through the death of his Son</hi>,</q> but +we are also <hi rend='italic'><q>saved by his life</q> (Rom. 5:10</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +Robert Browning, in The Ring and the Book, represents Caponsacchi as comparing +himself at his best with the new ideal of <q>perfect as Father in heaven is perfect</q> suggested +by Pompilia's purity, and as breaking out into the cry: <q>O great, just, good God! +Miserable me!</q> 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: <q>It is necessary to smoke a man out, before you +can bring a higher motive to bear upon him.</q> Barnabas said that Christ was the +answer to the riddle of the law. <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 10:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to every one +that believeth.</hi></q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Law, then, with its picture of spotless innocence, simply reminds man of the heights +from which he has fallen. <q>It is a mirror which reveals derangement, but does not +create or remove it.</q> 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 8:3, 4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>Phil. 3:8, 9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>). Thus law +must prepare the way for grace, and John the Baptist must precede Christ. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +2. <hi rend='italic'>Positive Enactment</hi>, or the expression of the will of God in published +ordinances. This is also two-fold: +</p> + +<pb n='545'/><anchor id='Pg545'/> + +<p> +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). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 5:48</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>22:37-40</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Ex. 20:1-17</hi>—the Ten Commandments; <hi rend='italic'>Mat., chap. 5-8</hi>—the Sermon on the Mount. +<hi rend='italic'>Cf.</hi> Augustine, on <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 57:1</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +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: <q rend='pre'><q><hi rend='italic'>Thou shalt not steal</hi>,</q> is a +moral law which may be stated thus: <hi rend='italic'>thou shalt not take that for thy own property, which +is the property of another</hi>. The contradictory of this proposition would be: <hi rend='italic'>thou mayest +take that for thy own property which is the property of another</hi>. 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 <emph>proper</emph> 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q><q><hi rend='italic'>Thou shalt not tell a lie</hi>,</q> as a rule of morality, may be expressed generally: <hi rend='italic'>thou +shall not by thy outward act make another to believe thy thought to be other than it is</hi>. +The contradictory made universal is: <hi rend='italic'>every man may by his outward act make another to +believe his thought to be other than it is</hi>. 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Kant, Metaphysic of Ethics, 48, 90—<q>Fundamental law of reason: So act, that thy +maxims of will might become laws in a system of universal moral legislation.</q> This is +Kant's categorical imperative. He expresses it in yet another form: <q>Act from maxims +fit to be regarded as universal laws of nature.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. <q>It is not the purpose of revelation to +disclose the whole of our duties.</q> 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Ez. 20:25</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Moreover also I gave them statutes that were not good, and ordinances wherein they should not live</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 19:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mark 10:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>For your hardness +of heart he wrote you this commandment</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 5:17, 18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 2:15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>having abolished in +his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 8:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>if that first covenant had +been faultless, then would no place have been sought for a second.</hi></q> Fisher, Nature and Method of Revelation, +90—<q>After the coming of the new covenant, the keeping up of the old was as +<pb n='546'/><anchor id='Pg546'/> +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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 2:5-35—<q>Jesus repudiates for himself and for his disciples +absolute subjection to O. T. Sabbath law (<hi rend='italic'>Mark 2:27</hi> <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi>); to O. T. law as to external defilements +(<hi rend='italic'>Mark 7:15</hi>); to O. T. divorce law (<hi rend='italic'>Mark 10:2</hi> <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi>). He would <q><emph>fulfil</emph></q> 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>that the Bible had been +written on the principle of that dreadful little book called <q>Don't,</q> which gives a list +of the solecisms you should avoid; she would have understood it so much better than +the present system.</q> Our Savior's words about giving to him that asketh, and turning +the cheek to the smiter (<hi rend='italic'>Mat 5:39-42</hi>) 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>for that which is good unto edifying</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 15:2</hi>). Only +by confounding the divine law with Scripture prohibition could one write as in N. +Amer. Rev., Feb. 1890:275—<q>Sin is the transgression of a divine law; but there is no +divine law against suicide; therefore suicide is not sin.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The written law was imperfect because God could, at the time, give no higher to an +unenlightened people. <q>But to say that the <emph>scope</emph> and <emph>design</emph> 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.</q> 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Num. 19:16</hi>), 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>till he come</hi></q> +(<hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 11:26</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Paul's injunction to women to keep silence in the churches (<hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 14:35</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 2:11,12</hi>) is +to be interpreted by the larger law of gospel equality and privilege (<hi rend='italic'>Col. 3:11</hi>). 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. <q>In the old dispensation Miriam and Deborah and +Huldah were recognized as leaders of God's people, and Anna was a notable prophetess +<pb n='547'/><anchor id='Pg547'/> +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 <hi rend='italic'>Joel 2:28</hi> 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>four virgin daughters, who prophesied</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Acts 21:9</hi>), and Paul +cautioned Christian women to have their heads covered when they prayed or prophesied +in public (<hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 11:5</hi>), 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Acts 18:26</hi>). He welcomed and was grateful for the work of those +women who labored with him in the gospel at Philippi (<hi rend='italic'>Phil. 4:3</hi>). 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.</q> The command <q><hi rend='italic'>And he that heareth let him say, Come</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Rev. 22:17</hi>) is addressed +to women also. See Ellen Batelle Dietrick, Women in the Early Christian Ministry; +<hi rend='italic'>per contra</hi>, see G. F. Wilkin, Prophesying of Women, 183-193. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>III. Relation of the Law to the Grace of God.</head> + +<p> +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 <q>the institution of equity, the faculty +of discretionary punishment, and the prerogative of pardon.</q> +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Amos, Science of Law, 29-46, shows how <q>the institution of equity, the faculty of +discretionary punishment, and the prerogative of pardon</q> all involve expressions of +will above and beyond what is contained in mere statute. Century Dictionary, on +Equity: <q>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.</q> <q>Summa lex, summa injuria,</q> is sometimes +true. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +Applying now to the divine law this illustration drawn from human law, +we remark: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) The law of God is a <emph>general</emph> 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Lord Bacon, Confession of Faith: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) The law of God, accordingly, is a <emph>partial</emph>, 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +The chief error of all pantheistic theology is the assumption that law is an exhaustive +expression of God: Strauss, Glaubenslehre, 1:31—<q>If nature, as the self-realization of +<pb n='548'/><anchor id='Pg548'/> +the divine essence, is equal to this divine essence, then it is infinite, and there can be +nothing above and beyond it.</q> This is a denial of the transcendence of God (see notes +on Pantheism, pages 100-105). Mere law is illustrated by the Buddhist proverb: <q>As +the cartwheel follows the tread of the ox, so punishment follows sin.</q> Denovan: +<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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—<q>what the law could not do +... God</q> did). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Murphy, Scientific Bases, 303-327, esp. 315—<q>To impersonal law, it is indifferent whether +its subjects obey or not. But God desires, not the punishment, but the destruction, of +sin.</q> Campbell, Atonement, Introd., 28—<q>There are two regions of the divine self-manifestation, +one the reign of law, the other the kingdom of God.</q> C. H. M.: <q>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 <q>ten +words.</q> Not the law, but only Christ, is the perfect image of God</q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 1:17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>For the +law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ</hi></q>). 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) Grace is to be regarded, however, not as abrogating law, but as +republishing and enforcing it (Rom. 3:31—<q>we establish the law</q>). 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—<q>that the +ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us</q>). Even grace has its law +(Rom. 8:2—<q>the law of the Spirit of life</q>); another higher law of +grace, the operation of individualizing mercy, overbears the <q>law of sin +and of death,</q>—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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Hooker, Eccl. Polity, 1:155, 185, 194—<q>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.</q> 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—<q>God is the only being who cannot forgive +sins.... Punishment is not the execution of a sentence, but the occurrence of an +effect.</q> Robertson, Lect. on Genesis, 100—<q>Deeds are irrevocable,—their consequences +are knit up with them irrevocably.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Bradford, Heredity, 233, quotes from Huxley the terrible utterance: <q>Nature always +checkmates, without haste and without remorse, never overlooking a mistake, or +making the slightest allowance for ignorance.</q> Bradford then remarks: <q>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, +<pb n='549'/><anchor id='Pg549'/> +but grace brings salvation to those who accept the terms of salvation—terms strictly +in accord with the laws revealed by science.</q> God revealed himself, we add, not only +in law but in life; see <hi rend='italic'>Deut. 1:6, 7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Ye have dwelt long enough in this mountain</hi></q>—the mountain of +the law; <q><hi rend='italic'>turn you and take your journey</hi></q>—<hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, see how God's law is to be applied to life. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) 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 +<q>the perfect law, the law of liberty</q> (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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>I +spoke as I saw. I report as man may of God's work—All's Love, yet all's Law.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Dorner, Person of Christ, 1:64, 78—<q>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 +(<foreign lang='de' rend='italic'>dem Sollen fehlte das Seyn, das Wollen</foreign>). The Christian λόγος is λόγος ἀληθειας—νόμος +τέλειος τῆς ἐλευθερίας—an operative and effective word, as that of creation.</q> +Chaucer, The Persones Tale: <q>For sothly the lawe of God is the love of God.</q> S. S. +Times, Sept. 14, 1901:595—<q>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.</q> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Section II.—Nature Of Sin.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>I. Definition of Sin.</head> + +<p> +Sin is lack of conformity to the moral law of God, either in act, disposition, +or state. +</p> + +<p> +In explanation, we remark that (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) This definition regards sin as predicable +only of rational and voluntary agents. (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) It assumes, however, +that man has a rational nature below consciousness, and a voluntary nature +apart from actual volition. (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. (<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +In our discussion of the Will (pages <ref target='Pg504'>504-513</ref>), 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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +<pb n='550'/><anchor id='Pg550'/> +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 <q>choice</q> is <emph>elective +preference</emph>, exercised so soon as the child is born (Park) and reasserting itself in all +the subordinate choices of life; while the Old School <q>state</q> is not a dead, passive, +mechanical thing, but is a <emph>state of active movement</emph>, 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. +</p> + +<p> +The soul may not always be conscious, but it may always be active. At his creation +man <q><hi rend='italic'>became a living soul</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 2:7</hi>), 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 <q>sin</q> to the sphere of momentary +act, whether conscious or unconscious. +</p> + +<p> +E. G. Robinson: <q>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.</q> Dorner, Hist. Doct. Person Christ, 5:162—<q>The +knowledge of sin has justly been termed the β and ψ of philosophy.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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 <ref target='Pg504'>504-513</ref>); and of Law as requiring the conformity of +man's nature to God's holiness (pages <ref target='Pg537'>537-544</ref>); 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <q>dramatic +sundering of the ego.</q> 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 +<q>Life is divided into two realms—a night-life of genius, and a day-life of consciousness.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Du Prel, Philosophy of Mysticism, propounds the thesis: <q>The ego is not wholly +embraced in self-consciousness,</q> and claims that there is much of psychical activity +within us of which our common waking conception of ourselves takes no account. +Thus when <q>dream dramatizes</q>—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—<q>The soul is only imperfectly in +possession of its organs, and is able to report only a small part of its activities in +consciousness.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<pb n='551'/><anchor id='Pg551'/> + +<p> +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. <q>Each of us,</q> he says, <q>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.</q> +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: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>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 <q>soul</q> 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi>, speaks of <q>psychical automatism.</q> Yet this automatism is possible only +to self-conscious and cognitively remembering minds. It is always the <q>I</q> that puts +itself into <q>that other.</q> We could not conceive of the other self except under the +figure of the <q>I.</q> 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; <hi rend='italic'>versus</hi> Sir +Wm. Hamilton, who adopts the maxim: <q>Non sentimus, nisi sentiamus nos sentire</q> +(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). +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>John 1:4, 9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>In him was life, and the life was the light of men.... There was the true light, even the light which +lighteth every man.</hi></q> See a further statement in A. H. Strong, Cleveland Sermon, May, 1904, +with regard to the old and the new view as to sin:—<q rend='pre'>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, +<pb n='552'/><anchor id='Pg552'/> +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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. Proof.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +A. From Scripture. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) The words ordinarily translated <q>sin,</q> or used as synonyms for it, +are as applicable to dispositions and states as to acts (חטאה and ἁμαρτία = +a missing, failure, coming short [<hi rend='italic'>sc.</hi> of God's will]). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +See <hi rend='italic'>Num. 15:28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>sinneth unwittingly</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 51:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>cleanse me from my sin</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Behold, I was brought +forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 7:17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>sin which dwelleth in me</hi></q>; compare +<hi rend='italic'>Judges 20:16</hi>, where the literal meaning of the word appears: <q><hi rend='italic'>sling stones at a hair-breadth, and not +miss</hi></q> (חטא). In a similar manner, משע [<hi rend='smallcaps'>lxx</hi> ἀσέβεια] = separation from, rebellion +against [sc. God]; see <hi rend='italic'>Lev. 16:16, 21</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> Delitzsch on <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 32:1</hi>. עון [<hi rend='smallcaps'>lxx</hi> ἀδικία] = bending, +perversion [sc. of what is right], iniquity; see <hi rend='italic'>Lev. 5:17</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>John 7:18</hi>. 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(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 <q>transgression of the +law,</q> but, as both context and etymology show, <q>lack of conformity to +law</q> or <q>lawlessness</q>—Rev. Vers.). +</p> + +<pb n='553'/><anchor id='Pg553'/> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +See <hi rend='italic'>1 John 5:17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>All unrighteousness is sin</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 14:23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>whatsoever is not of faith is sin</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>James 4:17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>To +him therefore that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.</hi></q> Where the sin is that of +<emph>not doing</emph>, sin cannot be said to consist in <emph>act</emph>. It must then at least be a <emph>state</emph>. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) Moral evil is ascribed not only to the thoughts and affections, but +to the heart from which they spring (we read of the <q>evil thoughts</q> and +of the <q>evil heart</q>—Mat. 15:19 and Heb. 3:12). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +See also <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 5:22</hi>—anger in the heart is murder; <hi rend='italic'>28</hi>—impure desire is adultery. <hi rend='italic'>Luke +6:45</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>the evil man out of the evil treasure</hi></q> [of his heart] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>bringeth forth that which is evil.</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 3:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>an +evil heart of unbelief</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Is. 1:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Jer. 17:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>The +heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceedingly corrupt: who can know it?</hi></q>—here the sin that cannot +be known is not sin of act, but sin of the heart. <q>Below the surface stream, shallow +and light, Of what we <emph>say</emph> we feel; below the stream, As light, of what we <emph>think</emph> we +feel, there flows, With silent current, strong, obscure and deep, The central stream of +what we feel <emph>indeed</emph>.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) The state or condition of the soul which gives rise to wrong desires +and acts is expressly called sin (Rom. 7:8—<q>Sin ... wrought in me ... +all manner of coveting</q>). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>John 8:34</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Every one that committeth sin is the bondservant of sin</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 7:11, 13, 14, 17, 20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>sin ... +beguiled me ... working death to me ... I am carnal, sold under sin ... sin which dwelleth in me.</hi></q> 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: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Alexander, Theories of the Will, 85—<q>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, <emph>must</emph> man keep the moral law? +but why is he so <emph>incapable</emph> 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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) 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—<q>when +the commandment came, sin revived, and I died</q>—if sin +<q>revived,</q> it must have had previous existence and life, even though it +did not manifest itself in acts of conscious transgression). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 7:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>apart from the law sin is dead</hi></q>—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 <q><hi rend='italic'>hidden faults</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 19:12</hi>)—infirmities, imperfections, evil tendencies +and desires—which also cannot all be classed as <emph>acts</emph> of transgression. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) 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—<q>sin reigned in death</q>; 6:12—<q>let +not therefore sin reign in your mortal body</q>). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +In <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:21</hi>, 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 +<pb n='554'/><anchor id='Pg554'/> +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 <q>reign</q> nor <q>dwell</q>; a disposition or state can. Maudsley, Sleep, its Psychology, +makes the damaging confession: <q>If we were held responsible for our dreams, there is +no living man who would not deserve to be hanged.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>g</hi>) 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; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> Luke 2:24). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +The sin-offering for sins of ignorance (<hi rend='italic'>Lev. 4:14, 20, 31</hi>), the trespass-offering for sins of +omission (<hi rend='italic'>Lev. 5:5, 6</hi>), and the burnt offering to expiate general sinfulness (<hi rend='italic'>Lev. 1:3</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> +<hi rend='italic'>Luke 2:22-24</hi>), all witness that sin is not confined to mere act. <hi rend='italic'>John 1:29</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the Lamb of God, who +taketh away the sin,</hi></q> not the sins, <q><hi rend='italic'>of the world</hi></q>. 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +B. From the common judgment of mankind. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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, <q>hateful temper,</q> <q>wicked pride,</q> <q>bad character.</q> +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +As the beatitudes (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 5:1-12</hi>) 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>works of +the flesh</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Gal. 5:19</hi>) with the <q><hi rend='italic'>fruit of the Spirit</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>5:22</hi>). In both, dispositions and states predominate. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +The <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>mens rea</foreign> is essential to the idea of crime. The <q><hi rend='italic'>idle-word</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Mat 12:36</hi>) 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Edwards: <q>Guilt consists in having one's heart wrong, and in doing wrong from the +heart.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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 +<pb n='555'/><anchor id='Pg555'/> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +C. From the experience of the Christian. +</p> + +<p> +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 +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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 +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<q>Intelligentia prima est, ut te noris peccatorem.</q> Compare David's experience, <hi rend='italic'>Ps. +51:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: And in the hidden part thou wilt make me to know wisdom</hi></q>—with +Paul's experience in <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 7:24</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of +this death?</hi></q>—with Isaiah's experience (<hi rend='italic'>6:5</hi>), when in the presence of God's glory he uses +the words of the leper (<hi rend='italic'>Lev. 13:45</hi>) and calls himself <q><hi rend='italic'>unclean</hi>,</q> and with Peter's experience +(<hi rend='italic'>Luke 5:8</hi>) when at the manifestation of Christ's miraculous power he <q><hi rend='italic'>fell down at Jesus' +<pb n='556'/><anchor id='Pg556'/> +knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.</hi></q> So the publican cries: <hi rend='italic'><q>God, be thou merciful +to me the sinner</q> (Luke 18:13)</hi>, and Paul calls himself the <q><hi rend='italic'>chief</hi></q> of sinners (<hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 1:15</hi>). 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: <q>What we do outwardly is only the revelation of our inner +nature.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +It may be doubted whether any repentance is genuine which is not repentance for +<emph>sin</emph> rather than for <emph>sins</emph>; compare <hi rend='italic'>John 16:8</hi>—the Holy Spirit <q><hi rend='italic'>will convict the world in respect of +sin</hi>/</q> 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 <q>often wrote to Staupitz: <q>Oh, my sins, my sins!</q> 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.</q> Luther's conscience would not accept the comfort that he <emph>wished</emph> +to be without sin, and therefore had no real sin. When he thought himself too great a +sinner to be saved, Staupitz replied: <q>Would you have the semblance of a sinner and +the semblance of a Savior?</q> +</p> + +<p> +After twenty years of religious experience, Jonathan Edwards wrote (Works 1:22, +23; also 3:16-18): <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Edwards continues: <q>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: <q>Infinite upon infinite—infinite upon infinite!</q> 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>cuique in arte sua credendum est</q> 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: <q>It is a striking fact in Scripture that statements of the depth and power of sin +are chiefly from the regenerate.</q> Another has said that <q>a serpent is never seen at its +whole length until it is dead.</q> Thomas à Kempis (ed. Gould and Lincoln, 142)—<q>Do +<pb n='557'/><anchor id='Pg557'/> +not think that thou hast made any progress toward perfection, till thou feelest that +thou art less than the least of all human beings.</q> Young's Night Thoughts: <q>Heaven's +Sovereign saves all beings but himself That hideous sight—a naked human heart.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Law's Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life: <q>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.</q> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Of Cromwell, as a representative of the Puritans, Green says (Short History of the +English People, 454): <q>The vivid sense of the divine Purity close to such men, made +the life of common men seem sin.</q> Dr. Arnold of Rugby (Life and Corresp., App. D.): +<q>In a deep sense of moral evil, more perhaps than anything else, abides a saving +knowledge of God.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. Inferences.</head> + +<p> +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 <q>the +voluntary transgression of known law.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. <q>Voluntary</q> +is a term broader then <q>volitional,</q> 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Will, as we have seen, includes preference (θέλημα, <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>voluntas</foreign>, <foreign lang='de' rend='italic'>Wille</foreign>) as well as volition +(βουλή, <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>arbitrium</foreign>, <foreign lang='de' rend='italic'>Willkür</foreign>). 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 <q>elective preference</q>) 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 <q>whatever springs from will we are responsible +for</q> (Shedd, Discourses and Essays, 243). Julius Müller, 2:51—<q>We speak of +self-consciousness and reason as something which the ego <emph>has</emph>, but we identify the will +<emph>with</emph> the ego. No one would say, <q>my will has decided this or that,</q> although we do say, +<q>my reason, my conscience teaches me this or that.</q> The will is the very man himself, +as Augustine says: <q>Voluntas est in omnibus; imo omnes nihil aliud quam voluntates +sunt.</q></q> +</p> + +<p> +For other statements of the relation of disposition to will, see Alexander, Moral +Science, 151—<q>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</q>; see also pages 201, 207, 208. +Edwards on the Affections, 3:1-22; on the Will, 3:4—<q>The affections are only certain +modes of the exercise of the will.</q> A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, 234—<q>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.</q> 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 +<pb n='558'/><anchor id='Pg558'/> +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 <ref target='Pg504'>504-513</ref>. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Joseph Cook: <q>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.</q> Weismann, Heredity, 2:8—<q>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.</q> (<hi rend='italic'>Cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 51:6; 19:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the inward parts +... the hidden parts ... hidden faults</hi></q>—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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +We cannot excuse disobedience by saying: <q>I forgot.</q> God's commandment is: +<q><hi rend='italic'>Remember</hi></q>—as in <hi rend='italic'>Ex. 20:8</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>2 Pet. 3:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>For this they wilfully forget.</hi></q> <q>Ignorantia legis neminem +excusat.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 2:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>as many as have sinned without the law shall also perish without the law</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>Luke 12:48</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten</hi></q> [though] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>with few stripes.</hi></q> +The aim of revelation and of preaching is to bring man <q><hi rend='italic'>to himself</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Luke 15:17</hi>)—to +show him what he has been doing and what he is. Goethe: <q>We are never deceived: we +deceive ourselves.</q> Royce, World and Individual, 2:359—<q>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 <emph>consciously to choose to forget</emph>, +through a narrowing of the field of attention, an Ought that one already recognizes.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>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 [<hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, a volitional] transgression of law</q>—a view, says Hase (Hutterus +Redivivus, 11th ed., 162-164), <q>which is derived from the necessary methods of civil +tribunals, and which is incompatible with the orthodox doctrine of original sin.</q> +<pb n='559'/><anchor id='Pg559'/> +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. <hi rend='italic'>Per contra</hi>, 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>II. The Essential Principle of Sin.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +In the preceding section on the Definition of Sin, we showed that sin is +a <emph>state</emph>, and a state of the <emph>will</emph>. We now ask: What is the nature of this +state? and we expect to show that it is essentially a <emph>selfish</emph> state of the will. +</p> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. Sin as Sensuousness.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +For statement of the view here opposed, see Schleiermacher, Der Christliche Glaube, +1:361-364—<q>Sin is a prevention of the determining power of the spirit, caused by the +independence (Selbständigkeit) of the sensuous functions.</q> 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, <q>a positive opposition of the flesh to the +spirit.</q> Pfleiderer, Prot. Theol. seit Kant, 113,—says that Schleiermacher here repeats +Spinoza's <q>inability of the spirit to control the sensuous affections.</q> Pfleiderer, Philos. +Religion, 1:230—<q>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 <emph>original</emph> +sinfulness.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +John Fiske, Destiny of Man, 103—<q>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.</q> Thus man is a sphynx in whom the human has not +yet escaped from the animal. So Bowne, Atonement, 69, declares that sin is <q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<pb n='560'/><anchor id='Pg560'/> + +<p> +In refutation of this view, it will be sufficient to urge the following considerations: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +This has been called the <q>caged-eagle theory</q> of man's existence; it holds that the +body is a prison only, or, as Plato expressed it, <q>the tomb of the soul,</q> 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 <q>justly +accuse Their Maker, or their making, or their fate</q> (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 <q>the passions +wild and strong.</q> And Samuel Johnson was wrong when he said that <q>Every +man is a rascal so soon as he is sick.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +See A. H. Strong, Christ in Creation, 163-180, on The Fall and the Redemption of Man, +in the Light of Evolution: <q>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.</q> See also D. W. Simon, in Bib. Sac., Jan. 1897:1-20—<q>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.</q> Marlowe very properly makes his Faustus to be tempted +by sensual baits only after he has sold himself to Satan for power. +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>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.</q> We add that reparation for past sin and renewing power from above must +follow probation, in order to make education possible. +</p> + +<pb n='561'/><anchor id='Pg561'/> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> Lisle, Evolution of Spiritual Man, 39, and in Bib. Sac., July, 1892: 431-452—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <q>Sorrows of Werther,</q> 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: <q>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.</q> It has been said that Goethe's first commandment to +genius was: <q>Thou shalt love thy neighbor and thy neighbor's wife.</q> 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: <q>They are like the stars in the sky,—the +longer you look, the more of them you discover.</q> 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 +<q>a Narcissus in love with himself.</q> Like George Eliot's <q>Dinah,</q> in Adam Bede, +Goethe's <q>Confessions of a Beautiful Soul,</q> 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—<q>Goethe, the high priest of culture, loathes +Luther, the preacher of righteousness</q>; S. Law Wilson, Theology of Modern Literature, +149-156. +</p> + +<p> +Napoleon was not a markedly sensual man, but <q>his self-sufficiency surpassed the +self-sufficiency of common men as the great Sahara desert surpasses an ordinary sand +patch.</q> He wantonly divulged his amours to Josephine, with all the details of his ill-conduct, +and when she revolted from them, he only replied: <q>I have the right to meet +all your complaints with an eternal I.</q> When his wars had left almost no able-bodied +<pb n='562'/><anchor id='Pg562'/> +men in France, he called for the boys, saying: <q>A boy can stop a bullet as well as a +man,</q> and so the French nation lost two inches of stature. Before the battle of Leipzig, +when there was prospect of unexampled slaughter, he exclaimed: <q>What are the lives +of a million of men, to carry out the will of a man like me?</q> His most truthful epitaph +was: <q>The little butchers of Ghent to Napoleon the Great</q> [butcher]. Heine represents +Napoleon as saying to the world: <q>Thou shalt have no other gods before me.</q> +Memoirs of Madame de Rémusat, 1:225—<q>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: <q>I am the I am.</q> And no one seemed to be scandalized.</q> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>I am delivered from the trammels of the body, and am myself +without contradiction.</q> At the age of seventy-five Goethe wrote to Eckermann: <q>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.</q> Shedd, Dogm. Theology, +2:743—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) 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). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +In the use of the term <q><emph>flesh</emph>,</q> 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 <q>carnal mind,</q> or <hi rend='italic'><q>mind of the flesh</q> (Rom. 8:7)</hi>, 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 <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 1:26</hi>—σάρξ—<q>the purely human element in +man, as opposed to the divine principle</q>; Pope, Theology, 2:65—σάρξ—<q>the whole +being of man, body, soul, and spirit, separated from God and subjected to the creature</q>; +Julius Müller, Proof-texts, 19—σάρξ—<q>human nature as living in and for itself, sundered +from God and opposed to him.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>James 1:14, 15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>desire, when it hath conceived, beareth sin</hi></q>—innocent desire—for it comes in +before the sin—innocent constitutional propensity, not yet of the nature of depravity, +is only the <emph>occasion</emph> 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: <q>Thou must not understand <q>flesh</q> +as though that only were <q>flesh</q> which is connected with unchastity. St. Paul uses +<q>flesh</q> of the whole man, body and soul, reason and all his faculties included, because +all that is in him longs and strives after the <q>flesh</q>.</q> Melanchthon: <q>Note that <q>flesh</q> +signifies the entire nature of man, sense and reason, without the Holy Spirit.</q> Gould, +<pb n='563'/><anchor id='Pg205'/> +Bib. Theol. N. T., 76—<q>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 (<hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. +15:38-49</hi>). This resurrection of the body is an integral part of immortality.</q> On σάρξ, +see Thayer, N. T. Lexicon, 571; Kaftan, Dogmatik, 319. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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—<q>That which is an inherent and necessary power in the creation +cannot be a contradiction of its highest law.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. Sin as Finiteness.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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—<q>Erhebung +des Menschen zur freien Vernunft.</q> The Fall was a fall up, and not down. +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>Its impress upon the human soul is the +indispensable background against which shall be set hereafter the eternal joys of +heaven</q>; 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 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi>—<q>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 <q>where sin abounded, +grace shall much more abound.</q>... Modern culture protests against the Puritan +enthronement of goodness above truth.... For the decalogue it would substitute the +wider new commandment of Goethe: <q>Live resolutely in the Whole, in the Good, in +the Beautiful.</q> 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Royce, World and Individual, 2:364-384—<q>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 +<pb n='564'/><anchor id='Pg564'/> +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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +We object to this theory that +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Goethe, Carlyle, and Emerson are representatives of this view in literature. Goethe +spoke of the <q>idleness of wishing to jump off from one's own shadow.</q> 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 <q>the wisest man the world has +seen who was without humility and faith, and who lacked the wisdom of a child.</q> +Speaking of Goethe's Faust, Hutton says: <q>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.</q> On +Goethe, see Hutton, Essays, 2:1-79; Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 1:490; A. H. Strong, Great +Poets and their Theology, 279-331. +</p> + +<p> +Carlyle was a Scotch Presbyterian <emph>minus</emph> 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 <q>twenty-nine millions—mostly fools.</q> 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: <q>President of the Heaven-and-Hell-Amalgamation Society.</q> Froude +calls him <q>a Calvinist without the theology</q>—a believer in predestination without grace. +On Carlyle, see S. Law Wilson, Theology of Modern Literature, 131-178. +</p> + +<p> +Emerson also is the worshiper of successful force. His pantheism is most manifest in +his poems <q>Cupido</q> and <q>Brahma,</q> and in his Essays on <q>Spirit</q> and on <q>The Over-soul.</q> +Cupido: <q>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.</q> Brahma: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Emerson taught that man's imperfection is not sin, and that the cure for it lies in +education. <q>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.</q> His +view of Jesus is found in his Essays, 2:263—<q>Jesus would absorb the race; but Tom +Paine, or the coarsest blasphemer, helps humanity by resisting this exuberance of +power.</q> In his Divinity School Address, he banished the person of Jesus from genuine +religion. He thought <q>one could not be a man if he must subordinate his nature to +Christ's nature.</q> 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—<q>Emerson's pantheism +<pb n='565'/><anchor id='Pg565'/> +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 <q>the test of mental +sanity.</q></q> On Emerson, see S. L. Wilson, Theology of Modern Literature, 97-123. +</p> + +<p> +We may call this theory the <q>green-apple theory</q> 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 +<q>the asymptote of God,</q>—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—<q>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.</q> E. H. Johnson, Syst. Theol., 141—<q>It is not the privilege of +the Infinite alone to be good.</q> Dorner, System, 1:119, speaks of the moral career +which this theory describes, as <q>a <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>progressus in infinitum</foreign>, where the constant approach +to the goal has as its reverse side an eternal separation from the goal.</q> In his <q>Transformation,</q> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>What is rational is real, and +what is real is rational.</q> Seth, Hegelianism and Personality, remarks that this principle +ignores <q>the riddle of the painful earth.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Biedermann's Dogmatik is based upon the Hegelian philosophy. At page 649 we read: +<q>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.</q> 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 +<pb n='566'/><anchor id='Pg566'/> +good is. Bring good, and evil disappears. Herbert Spencer's Evolutionary Ethics fits +in with such a system, for he says: <q>A perfect man in an imperfect race is impossible.</q> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>John 12:6</hi>—Judas, <q><hi rend='italic'>having the bag, made away with what was put therein</hi>.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +E. H. Johnson: <q>Sins are not men's limitations, but the active expressions of a perverse +nature.</q> 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 <q>tout comprendre est tout pardonner.</q> Such doctrine obliterates +all moral distinctions. Gilbert, Bab Ballads, <q>My Dream</q>: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 3:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave +me of the tree, and I did eat.</hi></q> 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 <q>das Gewordene,</q> but <q>das Gemachte,</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<pb n='567'/><anchor id='Pg567'/> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>3. Sin as Selfishness.</head> + +<p> +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: +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Bossuet, describing heathendom, says: <q>Every thing was God but God himself.</q> Sin +goes further than this, and says: <q>I am myself all things,</q>—not simply as Louis XVI: +<q>I am the state,</q> but: <q>I am the world, the universe, God.</q> Heinrich Heine: <q>I am +no child. I do not want a heavenly Father any more.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> +Caird, Evolution of Religion, 1:78—<q>Every self, once awakened, is naturally a despot, +and <q>bears, like the Turk, no brother near the throne.</q></q> Every one has, as Hobbes +said, <q>an infinite desire for gain or glory,</q> and can be satisfied with nothing but a +whole universe for himself. Selfishness—<q>homo homini lupus.</q> James Martineau: +<q>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.</q> Comte's +religion is a <q>synthetic idealization of our existence</q>—a worship, not of God, but of +humanity; and <q>the festival of humanity</q> among Positivists—Walt Whitman's <q>I +celebrate myself.</q> 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 <q>a turning away from the love of God to self-seeking.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>I could not love thee, dear, so much, Loved I not honor +more,</q> so Christian friends can say: <q>Our loves in higher love endure.</q> 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: <q>Your +goodness must have some edge to it, else it is none.</q> See Newman Smyth, Christian +Ethics, 327-370, on duties toward self as a moral end. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='568'/><anchor id='Pg568'/> +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—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Love desires only <emph>the best</emph> for its object, and the best is <emph>God</emph>. The golden rule bids us +give, not what others desire, but what they need. <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 15:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Let each one of us please his neighbor +for that which is good, unto edifying.</hi></q> Deutsche Liebe: <q>Nicht Liebe die fragt: Willst du +mein sein? Sondern Liebe die sagt: Ich muss dein sein.</q> 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—<q>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?</q> +Wordsworth, Prelude, 546—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>happiness</emph> +of the self, but for the <emph>worth</emph> 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—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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 +<pb n='569'/><anchor id='Pg569'/> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <q>world-love</q>; +still others consider it as enmity to God. In opposing the view that sensuality +is the essence of sin, Julius Müller says: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>Humani +generis proprium est odisse quem læseris.</q> In sin, self-affirmation and self-surrender +are not coördinate elements, as Dorner holds, but the former conditions the latter. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> See also Harris, in Jour. +Spec. Philos., 21:350-451; Dinsmore, Atonement in Literature and Life, 69-86. +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>A man may be possessed of himself, as of a devil.</q> Shakespeare depicts +this insolence of infatuation in Shylock, Macbeth, and Richard III. Troilus and Cressida, +<pb n='570'/><anchor id='Pg570'/> +4:4—<q>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.</q> Yet Robert G. Ingersoll said that Shakespeare holds crime to be the +mistake of ignorance! N. P. Willis, Parrhasius: <q>How like a mounting devil in the +heart Rules unrestrained ambition!</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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—<q>Some lower +affection is supreme.</q> And the underlying motive which leads to this substitution is +self-gratification. There is no such thing as disinterested sin, for <q><hi rend='italic'>every one that loveth is +begotten of God</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>1 John 4:7</hi>). Thomas Hughes, The Manliness of Christ: Much of the heroism +of battle is simply <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> F. W. Robertson on Genesis, 57—<q>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.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Ib.</hi>, 91—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Although we cannot, with Augustine, call the virtues of the heathen <q>splendid +vices</q>—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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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, +<pb n='571'/><anchor id='Pg571'/> +imparting aspirations and impulses foreign to unregenerate humanity, and +preparing the way for the soul's surrender to truth and righteousness. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 8:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the mind of the flesh is enmity against God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Acts 17:27, 28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he is not far from each one of us: +for in him we live, and move, and have our being</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 2:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>John 1:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the light which lighteth every man.</hi></q> 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 <hi rend='italic'>Mark 10:21, 22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And Jesus looking upon him loved him +... he went away sorrowful</hi></q>—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. +</p> + +<p> +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 (<hi rend='italic'>John 13:8</hi>), 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—<q>Sin is the +violation of the God-willed moral order of the world by the self-will of the individual.</q> +Tophel on the Holy Spirit, 17—<q>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.</q> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Elizabeth Barrett wrote to Robert Browning after she had accepted his proposal of +marriage: <q>Henceforth I am yours for everything but to do you harm.</q> George +Harris, Moral Evolution, 138—<q>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.</q> Hutton: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Tennyson, in In Memoriam, speaks of <q>Fantastic beauty such as lurks In some wild +poet when he works Without a conscience or an aim.</q> 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—<q>Conscience may act as human, before it is discovered to be divine.</q> +See J. D. Stoops, in Jour. Philos., Psych., and Sci. Meth., 2:512—<q>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.</q> Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 2:122—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>Seven Deadly Sins</q> (Pride, Envy, +<pb n='572'/><anchor id='Pg572'/> +Anger, Sloth, Avarice, Gluttony, Lust), see Wetzer und Welte, Kirchenlexikon, and +Orby Shipley, Theory about Sin, preface, xvi-xviii. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +C. This view accords best with Scripture. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) The law requires love to God as its all-embracing requirement. (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) +The holiness of Christ consisted in this, that he sought not his own will or +glory, but made God his supreme end. (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) The Christian is one who has +ceased to live for self. (<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) The tempter's promise is a promise of selfish +independence. (<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) The prodigal separates himself from his father, and +seeks his own interest and pleasure. (<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) The <q>man of sin</q> illustrates +the nature of sin, in <q>opposing and exalting himself against all that is +called God.</q> +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 22:37-39</hi>—the command of love to God and man; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 13:8-10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>love therefore is the +fulfilment of the law</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Gal. 5:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor +as thyself</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>James 2:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the royal law.</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>John 5:30</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>my judgment is righteous; because I seek not mine +own will, but the will of him that sent me</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>7:18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 15:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Christ +also pleased not himself.</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 14:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>none of us liveth to himself, and none dieth to himself</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 5:15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Gal. 2:20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me.</hi></q> +Contrast <hi rend='italic'>2 Tim. 3:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>lovers of self.</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 3:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Luke +15:12, 13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>give me the portion of thy substance ... gathered all together and took his journey into a far country.</hi></q> +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>2 Thess. 2:3, 4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +Contrast <q><hi rend='italic'>the man of sin</hi></q> who <q><hi rend='italic'>exalteth himself</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>2 Thess. 2:3, 4</hi>) with the Son of God who <q><hi rend='italic'>emptied +himself</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Phil. 2:7</hi>). On <q><hi rend='italic'>the man of sin</hi></q>, see Wm. Arnold Stevens, in Bap. Quar. Rev., +July, 1889:328-360. Ritchie, Darwin, and Hegel, 24—<q>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.</q> John Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 2:53-73—<q>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.</q> Milton describes man +as <q>affecting Godhead, and so losing all.</q> Of the sinner, we may say with Shakespeare, +Coriolanus, 5:4—<q>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.</q> No one of us, +then, can sign too early <q>the declaration of dependence.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +See Harris, in Bib. Sac., 18:148—<q>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 +<pb n='573'/><anchor id='Pg573'/> +benevolence; (4) self-righteousness, instead of humility and reverence.</q> All sin is +either explicit or implicit <q><hi rend='italic'>enmity against God</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 8:7</hi>). All true confessions are like +David's (<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 51:4</hi>)—<q><hi rend='italic'>Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, And done that which is evil in thy sight.</hi></q> Of all +sinners it might be said that they <q><hi rend='italic'>Fight neither with small nor great, save only with the king of Israel</hi></q> +(<hi rend='italic'>1 K. 22:31</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +Not every sinner is conscious of this enmity. Sin is a principle in course of development. +It is not yet <q><hi rend='italic'>full-grown</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>James 1:15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the sin, when it is full-grown, bringeth forth death</hi></q>). +Even now, as James Martineau has said: <q>If it could be known that God was dead, the +news would cause but little excitement in the streets of London and Paris.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Section III.—Universality Of Sin.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>I. Every human being who has arrived at moral consciousness +has committed acts, or cherished dispositions, contrary to the +divine law.</head> + +<p> +1. <hi rend='italic'>Proof from Scripture.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +The universality of transgression is: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) Set forth in direct statements of Scripture. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>1 K. 8:46</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>there is no man that sinneth not</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 143:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>enter not into judgment with thy servant; For in +thy sight no man living is righteous</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Prov. 20:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my +sin?</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Eccl. 7:20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Surely there is not a righteous man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Luke 11:13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>If +ye, then, being evil</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 3:10, 12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>There is none righteous, no, not one.... There is none that doeth good, +no, not so much as one</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>19, 20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Gal. 3:22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the scripture shut up +all things under sin</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>James 3:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>For in many things we all stumble</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 John 1:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>If we say that we have no +sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.</hi></q> Compare <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 6:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>forgive us our debts</hi></q>—given as a +prayer for all men; <hi rend='italic'>14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>if ye forgive men their trespasses</hi></q>—the condition of our own forgiveness. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) Implied in declarations of the universal need of atonement, regeneration, +and repentance. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Universal need of atonement: <hi rend='italic'>Mark 16:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved</hi></q> (Mark +16:9-20, though probably not written by Mark, is nevertheless of canonical authority); +<hi rend='italic'>John 3:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not +perish</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>6:50</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>This is the bread which cometh down out of heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>12:47</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I came not to judge the world, but to save the world</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Acts 4:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> Universal +need of regeneration: <hi rend='italic'>John 3:3, 5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> Universal need of repentance: +<hi rend='italic'>Acts 17:30</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>commandeth men that they should all everywhere repent.</hi></q> Yet Mrs. Mary Baker +G. Eddy, in her <q>Unity of Good,</q> speaks of <q>the illusion which calls sin real and man +a sinner needing a Savior.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<pb n='574'/><anchor id='Pg574'/> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) Shown from the condemnation resting upon all who do not accept +Christ. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>John 3:18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only +begotten Son of God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>36</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him</hi></q>; +Compare <hi rend='italic'>1 John 5:19</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>the whole world lieth in</hi></q> [<hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, in union with] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>the evil one</hi></q>; see Annotated +Paragraph Bible, <hi rend='italic'>in loco</hi>. Kaftan, Dogmatik, 318—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +In <hi rend='italic'>Mat 9:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick</hi></q>—Jesus means +those who in their own esteem are whole; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I came not to call the righteous, but sinners</hi></q>—<q>if +any were truly righteous, they would not need my salvation; if they think themselves +so, they will not care to seek it</q> (An. Par. Bib.). In <hi rend='italic'>Luke 10:30-37</hi>—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 <hi rend='italic'>Acts 10:35</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>in every +nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him</hi></q>—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) <emph>that</emph> he was saved, and (2) <emph>how</emph> he was +saved; and Peter was sent to tell him of the fact, and of the method, of his salvation +in Christ. In <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 2:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>—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 (<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 3:9</hi>)—<q><hi rend='italic'>we before laid to the charge both of Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +So with regard to the words <q><hi rend='italic'>perfect</hi></q> and <q><hi rend='italic'>upright</hi>,</q> as applied to godly men. We shall +see, when we come to consider the doctrine of Sanctification, that the word <q><hi rend='italic'>perfect</hi>,</q> 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 <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 2:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>we speak wisdom among the perfect</hi></q> (Am. Rev.: +<q><hi rend='italic'>among them that are full-grown</hi></q>); <hi rend='italic'>Phil. 3:15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be thus minded</hi></q>—<hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, +to press toward the goal—a goal expressly said by the apostles to be not yet attained +(<hi rend='italic'>v. 12-14</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +<q>Est deus in nobis; agitante calescimus illo.</q> God is the <q>spark that fires our clay.</q> +S. S. Times, Sept. 21, 1901:609—<q>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.</q> A. H. Strong, Christ in Creation, 287-290—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +2. <hi rend='italic'>Proof from history, observation, and the common judgment of +mankind.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) History witnesses to the universality of sin, in its accounts of the +universal prevalence of priesthood and sacrifice. +</p> + +<pb n='575'/><anchor id='Pg575'/> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +See references in Luthardt, Fund. Truths, 161-172, 335-339. Baptist Review, 1882:343—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Chinese proverb: <q>There are but two good men; one is dead, and the other is not yet +born.</q> Idaho proverb: <q>The only good Indian is a dead Indian.</q> But the proverb +applies to the white man also. Dr. Jacob Chamberlain, the missionary, said: <q>I never +but once in India heard a man deny that he was a sinner. But once a Brahmin interrupted +me and said: <q>I deny your premisses. I am not a sinner. I do not need to do +better.</q> For a moment I was abashed. Then I said: <q>But what do your neighbors +say?</q> Thereupon one cried out: <q>He cheated me in trading horses</q>; another: <q>He +defrauded a widow of her inheritance.</q> The Brahmin went out of the house, and I +never saw him again.</q> A great nephew of Richard Brinsley Sheridan, Joseph Sheridan +Le Fanu, when a child, wrote in a few lines an <q>Essay on the Life of Man,</q> which ran +as follows: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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: <q>No +man is perfect</q>; <q>Every man has his weak side</q>, or <q>his price</q>; and +every great name in literature has attested its truth. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Seneca, De Ira, 3:26—<q>We are all wicked. What one blames in another he will find +in his own bosom. We live among the wicked, ourselves being wicked</q>; Ep., 22—<q>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.</q> Ovid, Met., 7:19—<q>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.</q> Cicero: <q>Nature +has given us faint sparks of knowledge; we extinguish them by our immoralities.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Shakespeare, Othello, 3:3—<q>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?</q> +Henry VI., II:3:3—<q>Forbear to judge, for we are sinners all.</q> Hamlet, 2:2, compares +God's influence to the sun which <q>breeds maggots in a dead dog, Kissing carrion,</q>—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—<q>We are arrant knaves all.</q> Timon of Athens, 1:2—<q>Who +lives that's not depraved or depraves?</q> +</p> + +<p> +Goethe: <q>I see no fault committed which I too might not have committed.</q> Dr. +Johnson: <q>Every man knows that of himself which he dare not tell to his dearest +friend.</q> 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: <q>God knows I'm +no thing I would be, Nor am I even the thing I could be.</q> Huxley: <q>The best men of +the best epochs are simply those who make the fewest blunders and commit the fewest +sins.</q> And he speaks of <q>the infinite wickedness</q> which has attended the course of +human history. Matthew Arnold: <q>What mortal, when he saw, Life's voyage done, +his heavenly Friend, Could ever yet dare tell him fearlessly:—I have kept uninfringed +<pb n='576'/><anchor id='Pg576'/> +my nature's law: The inly written chart thou gavest me, to guide me, I have kept by +to the end?</q> Walter Besant, Children of Gibeon: <q>The men of ability do not desire a +system in which they shall not be able to do good to themselves first.</q> <q>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.</q> Yet Confucius declares that <q>man is born +good.</q> He confounds conscience with will—the <emph>sense</emph> of right with the <emph>love</emph> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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, <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, 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—<q>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</q>; for it is simple fact that <q>no +human creature, in any country or grade of civilization, has ever glorified God to the +extent of his knowledge of God.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +3. <hi rend='italic'>Proof from Christian experience.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +See Goodwin's experience, in Baird, Elohim Revealed, 409; Goodwin, member of the +Westminster Assembly of Divines, speaking of his conversion, says: <q>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.</q> Töllner's experience, +in Martensen's Dogmatics: Töllner, though inclined to Pelagianism, says: <q>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,</q>—and he had named only deliberate transgressions;—<q>he +who does not allow that he is similarly guilty, let him look deep into his +own heart.</q> John Newton sees the murderer led to execution, and says: <q>There, but +for the grace of God, goes John Newton.</q> Count de Maistre: <q>I do not know what +the heart of a villain may be—I only know that of a virtuous man, and that is frightful.</q> +Tholuck, on the fiftieth anniversary of his professorship at Halle, said to his +students: <q>In review of God's manifold blessings, the thing I seem most to thank him +for is the conviction of sin.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Roper Ascham: <q>By experience we find out a short way, by a long wandering.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Luke +15:25-32</hi> 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—<q>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: <q><hi rend='italic'>Lo, these many years do I serve thee</hi></q> (δουλεύω—as a bondservant), +<q><hi rend='italic'>and I never transgressed a commandment of thine.</hi></q> 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.</q> Sir J. R. Seelye, Ecce +Homo: <q>No virtue can be safe, unless it is enthusiastic.</q> Wordsworth: <q>Heaven +rejects the love Of nicely calculated less or more.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. <q>No +<pb n='577'/><anchor id='Pg577'/> +man,</q> he says, <q>can come to the throne of God and say: <q>I am a better man than +Rousseau.</q>... 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: +<q>Here is what I did, what I thought, and what I was.</q></q> <q>Ah,</q> said he, just before he +expired, <q>how happy a thing it is to die, when one has no reason for remorse or self-reproach!</q> +And then, addressing himself to the Almighty, he said: <q>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!</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>wrap the drapery of his +couch about him, and lie down to pleasant dreams.</q> 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: <q>I have +never been a great sinner.</q> Yet at that very time he was living in open adultery. +Tennyson, Sea Dreams: <q>With all his conscience and one eye askew, So false, he partly +took himself for true.</q> Contrast the utterance of the apostle Paul: <hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 1:15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Christ +Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief</hi>.</q> It has been well said that <q>the greatest +of sins is to be conscious of none.</q> Rowland Hill: <q>The devil makes little of sin, that +he may retain the sinner.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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. <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 90:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Thou hast +set ... Our secret sins in the light of thy countenance</hi></q> = 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>II. Every member of the human race, without exception, possesses +a corrupted nature, which is a source of actual sin, and is itself +sin.</head> + +<p> +1. <hi rend='italic'>Proof from Scripture.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +A. The sinful acts and dispositions of men are referred to, and explained +by, a corrupt nature. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +By <q>nature</q> we mean that which is <emph>born</emph> 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 +<pb n='578'/><anchor id='Pg578'/> +from <hi rend='italic'>Luke 6:43-45</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>there is no good tree that bringeth forth corrupt fruit.... the evil man out of the evil +treasure</hi></q> [of his heart] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>bringeth forth that which is evil</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 12:34</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, +being evil, speak good things?</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 58:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>The wicked are estranged from the womb: They go astray as soon as +they are born, speaking lies.</hi></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +This corrupt nature (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) belongs to man from the first moment of his +being; (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) underlies man's consciousness; (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) cannot be changed by +man's own power; (<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) first constitutes him a sinner before God; (<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) is +the common heritage of the race. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 51:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me</hi></q>—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—<q>David confesses that sin begins with the life of man; that not only his +works, but the man himself, is guilty before God.</q> Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:94—<q>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.</q> (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 19:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Who can discern his errors? +Clear thou me from hidden faults</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>51:6, 7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Jer. 13:23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, +that are accustomed to do evil</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 7:24</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of +this death?</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 51:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Jer. 17:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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,</hi></q>—only +God can fully know the native and incurable depravity of the human heart; see +Annotated Paragraph Bible, <hi rend='italic'>in loco</hi>, (<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Job 14:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? +not one</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 3:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>That which is born of the flesh is flesh,</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, human nature sundered from God. +Pope, Theology, 2:53—<q>Christ, who knew what was in man, says: <q><hi rend='italic'>If ye then, being evil</hi></q> +(<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 7:11</hi>), and <q><hi rend='italic'>That which is born of the flesh is flesh</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 3:6</hi>), that is—putting the two together—<q>men +are evil, because they are born evil.</q></q> +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>We are spirits clad in veils; Man by man was never seen; +All our deep communing fails To remove the shadowy screen.</q> In the heart of every +one of us is that fearful <q>black drop,</q> 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 <q>This ineradicable taint of sin, this boundless Upas, this +all-blasting tree.</q> +</p> + +<p> +E. G. Robinson, Christ. Theol., 161, 162—<q>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: <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 51:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive +me.</hi></q> Conscience traces guilt to its seat in the inherited nature.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +B. All men are declared to be by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3). +Here <q>nature</q> signifies something inborn and original, as distinguished +from that which is subsequently acquired. The text implies that: (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) Sin +is a nature, in the sense of a congenital depravity of the will. (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) This +nature is guilty and condemnable,—since God's wrath rests only upon that +which deserves it. (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) All men participate in this nature and in this consequent +guilt and condemnation. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Eph. 2:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.</hi></q> Shedd: <q>Nature here is not substance +created by God, but corruption of that substance, which corruption is created by +man.</q> <q>Nature</q> (from <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>nascor</foreign>) may denote anything inborn, and the term may just +as properly designate inborn evil tendencies and state, as inborn faculties or substance. +<q><emph>By nature</emph></q> therefore = <q>by birth</q>; compare <hi rend='italic'>Gal. 2:15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Jews by nature.</hi></q> E. G. Robinson: +<q>Nature = not οὐσία, or essence, but only qualification of essence, as something born +<pb n='579'/><anchor id='Pg579'/> +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 <q>voluntary transgression of known law,</q> the +definition of course disposes of original sin.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +The opposite view can be found in Stevens, Pauline Theology, 152-157. Principal Fairbairn +also says that inherited sinfulness <q>is <emph>not</emph> transgression, and is <emph>without</emph> guilt.</q> +Ritschl, Just. and Recon., 344—<q>The predicate <q>children of wrath</q> 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.</q> Meyer interprets +the verse; <q>We <emph>become</emph> children of wrath by following a natural propensity.</q> He +claims the doctrine of the apostle to be, that man incurs the divine wrath by his <emph>actual</emph> +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—<q>We were by nature such that we became +through our own act children of wrath.</q> <q>But,</q> says Smith, <q>if the apostle had +meant this, he could have said so; there is a proper Greek word for <q>became</q>; the +word which is used can only be rendered <q>were.</q></q> So <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 7:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>else were your children +unclean</hi></q>—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 <q>double-dyed villain.</q> He is corrupted by nature +and afterwards by practice. The colored physician in New Orleans advertised that his +method was <q>first to remove the disease, and then to eradicate the system.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +For the proper interpretation of <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 2:3</hi>, see Julius Müller, Doct. of Sin, 2:278, and +Commentaries of Harless and Olshausen. See also Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 3:212 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi>; +Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, 1:289; and an excellent note in the Expositor's +Greek N.T., <hi rend='italic'>in loco</hi>. <hi rend='italic'>Per contra</hi>, see Reuss, Christ. Theol. in Apost. Age, 2:29, 79-84; +Weiss, Bib. Theol. N.T., 239. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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 (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) Sin exists in the case of infants prior to moral consciousness, +and therefore in the nature, as distinguished from the personal +activity. (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) It is therefore certain +that a sinful, guilty, and condemnable nature belongs to all mankind. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:12-14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>—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—<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:12-19</hi>—under Imputation of Sin, pages 625-627. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +2. <hi rend='italic'>Proof from Reason.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +Three facts demand explanation: (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) The universal existence of sinful +<pb n='580'/><anchor id='Pg580'/> +dispositions in every mind, and of sinful acts in every life. (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) The preponderating +tendencies to evil, which necessitate the constant education of +good impulses, while the bad grow of themselves. (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>Why don't you do +right instead of doing wrong?</q> and the child answers: <q>Because it makes me so +tired,</q> or <q>Because I do wrong without trying.</q> Nothing runs itself, unless it is going +down hill. <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Mrs. Humphrey Ward's novel, Robert Elsmere, represents the milk-and-water school +of philanthropists. <q>Give man a chance,</q> they say; <q>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.</q> But God's +indictment is found in <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 8:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the mind of the flesh is enmity against God.</hi></q> G. P. Fisher: <q>Of the +ideas of natural religion, Plato, Plutarch and Cicero found in the fact that they are in +man's <emph>reason</emph>, but not obeyed and realized in man's <emph>will</emph>, 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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +The greatest thinkers of the world have certified to the correctness of this conclusion. +See Aristotle's doctrine of <q>the slope,</q> described in Chase's Introduction to Aristotle's +Ethics, XXXV and 32—<q rend='pre'>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 <emph>all we can see is +the slope</emph>. 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>Compare the passage in the Ethics, 1:11—<q>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 +<pb n='581'/><anchor id='Pg581'/> +opposed to this and goes against it.</q>—Compare this passage with Paul, in <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 7:23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Wuttke, Christian Ethics, 1:102—<q>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.</q> He does not +tell <q>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</q> (Nic. Eth., 3:6, 7; 5:12; 7:2, 3; +10:10). The good nature, he says, <q>is evidently not within our power, but is by some +kind of divine causality conferred upon the truly happy.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Plato speaks of <q>that blind, many-headed wild beast of all that is evil within thee.</q> +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)—<q>There is a rising up of part of the soul against the whole of the soul.</q> +Meno, 89—<q>The cause of corruption is from our parents, so that we never relinquish +their evil way, or escape the blemish of their evil habit.</q> Horace, Ep., 1:10—<q>Naturam +expellas furca, tamen usque recurret.</q> Latin proverb: <q>Nemo repente fuit turpissimus.</q> +Pascal: <q>We are born unrighteous; for each one tends to himself, and the bent +toward self is the beginning of all disorder.</q> Kant, in his Metaphysical Principles of +Human Morals, speaks of <q>the indwelling of an evil principle side by side with the +good one, or the radical evil of human nature,</q> and of <q>the contest between the good +and the evil principles for the control of man.</q> <q>Hegel, pantheist as he was, declared +that original sin is the nature of every man,—every man begins with it</q> (H. B. +Smith). +</p> + +<p> +Shakespeare, Timon of Athens, 4:3—<q>All is oblique: There's nothing level in our +cursed natures, But direct villainy.</q> All's Well, 4:3—<q>As we are in ourselves, how +weak we are! Merely our own traitors.</q> Measure for Measure, 1:2—<q>Our natures +do pursue, Like rats that ravin down their proper bane, A thirsty evil, and when we +drink, we die.</q> Hamlet, 3:1—<q>Virtue cannot so inoculate our old stock, but we shall +relish of it.</q> Love's Labor Lost, 1:1—<q>Every man with his affects is born, Not by +might mastered, but by special grace.</q> Winter's Tale, 1:2—<q>We should have +answered Heaven boldly, Not guilty; the imposition cleared Hereditary ours</q>—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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +S. T. Coleridge, Omniana, at the end: <q>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.</q> 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: <q>He finds a baseness in his blood, At such strange war with what is good, +He cannot do the thing he would.</q> Robert Browning, Gold Hair: a Legend of Pornic: +<q>The faith that launched point-blank her dart At the head of a lie—taught Original +Sin, The corruption of Man's Heart.</q> Taine, Ancien Régime: <q>Savage, brigand and +madman each of us harbors, in repose or manacled, but always living, in the recesses +of his own heart.</q> Alexander Maclaren: <q>A great mass of knotted weeds growing in +a stagnant pool is dragged toward you as you drag one filament.</q> Draw out one sin, +and it brings with it the whole matted nature of sin. +</p> + +<p> +Chief Justice Thompson, of Pennsylvania: <q>If those who preach had been lawyers +previous to entering the ministry, they would know and say far more about the depravity +<pb n='582'/><anchor id='Pg582'/> +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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Section IV.—Origin Of Sin In The Personal Act Of Adam.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Chandler, Spirit of Man, 76—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>a priori</foreign> 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 <q>at no time has revelation refused to +employ such human conceptions for the investiture and conveyance of the higher +spiritual truths.</q> Sylvester Burnham: <q>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.</q> See vol. 1, +page 241 of this work, with quotations from Denney, Studies in Theology, 218, and +Gore, in Lux Mundi, 356. Euripides: <q>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!</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>I. The Scriptural Account of the Temptation and Fall in Genesis +3:1-7.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. Its general, character not mythical or allegorical, but historical.</head> + +<p> +We adopt this view for the following reasons:—(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) There is no intimation +in the account itself that it is not historical. (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) As a part of a +<pb n='583'/><anchor id='Pg583'/> +historical book, the presumption is that it is itself historical. (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) The +later Scripture writers refer to it as a veritable history even in its details. +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. (<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +See <hi rend='italic'>John 8:44</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 11:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the serpent beguiled Eve in his craftiness</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>Rev. 20:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the dragon, the old serpent, which is the Devil and Satan.</hi></q> H. B. Smith, System, 261—<q>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.</q> 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: <q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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.: <q>To know good, without the power to do it; to +know evil, without the power to avoid it.</q> Bible Com., 1:40—The tree of life was +symbol of the fact that <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> McIlvaine refers to Lord Bacon, Works, 1:82, +162. See also Pope, Theology, 2:10, 11; Boston Lectures for 1871:80, 81. +</p> + +<p> +Griffith-Jones, Ascent through Christ, 142, on the tree of the knowledge of good and +evil—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<pb n='584'/><anchor id='Pg584'/> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. The course of the temptation, and the resulting fall.</head> + +<p> +The stages of the temptation appear to have been as follows: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 3:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?</hi></q> Satan emphasizes the <emph>limitation</emph>, +but is silent with regard to the generous <emph>permission</emph>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>Of every tree of the garden</hi></q> [but +one] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>thou mayest freely eat</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>2:16</hi>). C. H. M., <hi rend='italic'>in loco</hi>: <q>To admit the question <q><hi rend='italic'>hath God said?</hi></q> +is already positive infidelity. To add to God's word is as bad as to take from it. <q><hi rend='italic'>Hath +God said?</hi></q> is quickly followed by <q><hi rend='italic'>Ye shall not surely die.</hi></q> 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.</q> The command was simply: <q><hi rend='italic'>thou shalt not eat of it</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 2:17</hi>). In +her rising dislike to the authority she had renounced, she exaggerates the command +into: <q><hi rend='italic'>Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 3:3</hi>). Here is already self-isolation, +instead of love. Matheson, Messages of the Old Religions, 318—<q>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.</q> Dr. +C. H. Parkhurst: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 3:4, 5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>3:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>—so +<q>taking the word of a Professor of Lying, that he does not lie</q> (John Henry +Newman). Hooker, Eccl. Polity, book I—<q>To live by one man's will became the +cause of all men's misery.</q> Godet on <hi rend='italic'>John 1:4</hi>—<q>In the words <q><emph>life</emph></q> and <q><emph>light</emph></q> 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.</q> Obedience is the way to knowledge, and +the sin of Paradise was the seeking of light without life; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>John 7:17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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—<q>did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her</q> = 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 +<pb n='585'/><anchor id='Pg585'/> +desires, and sins of the desires led to the outward act of transgression +(James 1:15). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>James 1:15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Then the lust, when it hath conceived, beareth sin.</hi></q> Baird, Elohim Revealed, 888—<q>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.</q> 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; <hi rend='italic'>Acts 5:7-11</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +Philippi, Glaubenslehre: <q>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.... <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 3:22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>The man has become as one of us</hi></q> in his condition +of self-centered activity,—thereby losing all real likeness to God, which consists in +having the same aim with God himself. <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>De te fabula narratur</foreign>; it is the condition, not +of one alone, but of all the race.</q> 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: +<q>'Twas but a little drop of sin We saw this morning enter in, And lo, at eventide a +world is drowned!</q> Farrar, Fall of Man: <q>The guilty wish of one woman has swollen +into the irremediable corruption of a world.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>II. Difficulties connected with the Fall considered as the personal +Act of Adam.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. How could a holy being fall?</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <q>exercise +system,</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Emmons was really a pantheist: <q>Since God,</q> he says, <q>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 +<pb n='586'/><anchor id='Pg586'/> +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 <hi rend='italic'>Whence came evil?</hi> and that is: It came +from the great first Cause of all things</q>; see Nathaniel Emmons, Works, 2:683. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>It was fitting that the +transaction should so take place that it might not appear to be from God as the apparent +fountain.</q> Yet <q>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</q>; +see Allen, Jonathan Edwards, 304. Encyc. Britannica, 7:690—<q>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.</q> Edwards on Trinity, Fisher's edition, 44—<q>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.</q> Shedd, Dogm. Theol., +2:50—<q>God did not withdraw the common supporting grace of his Spirit from Adam +until after transgression.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Pfleiderer, Grundriss, 123—<q>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.</q> Pfleiderer appears to make this +sinfulness concreated, and guiltless, because proceeding from God. Hill, Genetic +Philosophy, 288—<q>The wide discrepancy between precept and practice gives rise to the +theological conception of <emph>sin</emph>, 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 +<emph>innocence</emph>, 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Professor James Hadley: <q>Every man is more or less insane.</q> 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—<q>Evil has no substance of its own, but is only the defect, excess, perversion or +corruption of that which has substance.</q> 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—<q>Sin explained is sin defended.</q> All these explanations fail to explain, +and throw the blame of sin upon God, as directly or indirectly its cause. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +<pb n='587'/><anchor id='Pg587'/> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Sin is a <q><hi rend='italic'>mystery of lawlessness</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>2 Thess. 2:7</hi>), at the beginning, as well as at the end. Neander, +Planting and Training, 388—<q>Whoever explains sin nullifies it.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>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.</q> The word <q>cussedness</q> +has become an apt word here. The Standard Dictionary defines it as <q>1. Cursedness, +meanness, perverseness; 2. resolute courage, endurance: <q>Jim Bludsoe's voice was +heard, And they all had trust in his cussedness And knowed he would keep his word.</q></q> +(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. +</p> + +<p> +Hodge, Essays and Reviews, 30—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +H. B. Smith, System, 262—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +263—<q>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 <hi rend='italic'>which we know</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>viz.</hi>, the sinner's immanent +preference of the world, where we know there is an antecedent ground in the bias to +<pb n='588'/><anchor id='Pg588'/> +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.</q> 264—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. How could God justly permit Satanic temptation?</head> + +<p> +We see in this permission not justice but benevolence. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 13:28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>An enemy hath done this.</hi></q> <q>God permitted Satan to divide the guilt with man, +so that man might be saved from despair.</q> See Trench, Studies in the Gospels, 16-29. +Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 103—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) Such temptation has in itself no tendency to lead the soul astray. If +<pb n='589'/><anchor id='Pg589'/> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <q><hi rend='italic'>fell upon the rocky places, where they had not much earth</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 13:5, 6</hi>), that <q><hi rend='italic'>were scorched</hi></q> +when <q><hi rend='italic'>the sun was risen</hi></q>; and our Lord attributes their failure, not to the sun, but to their +lack of root and of soil: <q><hi rend='italic'>because they had no root</hi>,</q> <q><hi rend='italic'>because they had no deepness of earth.</hi></q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +C. H. Spurgeon: <q>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!</q> +</p> + +<p> +Lyman Abbott: <q>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.</q> E. G. Robinson, +Christ. Theology, 123—<q>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.</q> John Milton, Areopagitica: <q>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</q> (puppet shows). Robert Browning, Ring and the Book, 204 (Pope, 1183)—<q>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 <q>Lead us into no such temptations. Lord</q>? 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!</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>3. How could a penalty so great be justly connected with disobedience +to so slight a command?</head> + +<p> +To this question we may reply: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) So slight a command presented the best test of the spirit of +obedience. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Cicero: <q>Parva res est, at magna culpa.</q> 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: +<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +John Hall, Lectures on the Religious rise of Property, 10—<q>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, <q>three barley-corns,</q> <q>a fat capon,</q> or <q>a shilling,</q> is the consideration +<pb n='590'/><anchor id='Pg590'/> +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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) The sanction attached to the command shows that man was not left +ignorant of its meaning or importance. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 2:17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>Cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 3:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the tree which is in the +midst of the garden</hi></q>; and see Dodge, Christian Theology, 206, 207—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>III. Consequences of the Fall, so far as respects Adam.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. Death.</head> + +<p> +This death was twofold. It was partly: +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. <q><hi rend='italic'>The law of the Spirit of life</hi></q> +(<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 8:2</hi>) began to work even then, and grace began to counteract the effects of the +Fall. Christ has now <q><hi rend='italic'>abolished death</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>2 Tim. 1:10</hi>) by taking its terrors away, and by turning +it into the portal of heaven. He will destroy it utterly (<hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 15:26</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> Chandler, The Spirit of Man, 45-47—<q>The +<pb n='591'/><anchor id='Pg591'/> +first stage in the fall was the disintegration of spirit into body and mind; and the second +was the enslavement of mind to body.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +But this death was also, and chiefly, +</p> + +<p> +B. Spiritual death, or the separation of the soul from God.—In this +are included: (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='592'/><anchor id='Pg592'/> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<q>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 <q><hi rend='italic'>the good seed ... the sons +of the kingdom</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 13:38</hi>). 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 <emph>knowledge</emph>: the persisting and comprehensive +harmony of phenomena, and the interpretation of all the facts; (2) in its <emph>aim</emph>, +the moral regeneration of the world; (3) in its <emph>methods</emph>, adapting itself to man as an +ethical being, capable of endless progress; (4) in its conception of normal <emph>society</emph>, 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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +See Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 3:61-73; Shedd, Sermons to the Natural Man, 202-230, +esp. 205—<q>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.</q> And yet the +question <q><hi rend='italic'>Adam, where art thou?</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 3:9</hi>), says C. J. Baldwin, <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Dale, Ephesians, 40—<q>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 <q><hi rend='italic'>partakers of the divine nature</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>2 Pet. 1:4</hi>), 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>in Christ</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Eph. 1:3</hi>).</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. Positive and formal exclusion from God's presence.</head> + +<p> +This included: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) The cessation of man's former familiar intercourse with God, and +<pb n='593'/><anchor id='Pg593'/> +the setting up of outward barriers between man and his Maker (cherubim +and sacrifice). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<q>In die Welt hinausgestossen, Steht der Mensch verlassen da.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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 <emph>sinless</emph> 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <q><hi rend='italic'>unto the Lord</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 4:3, 4</hi>), and when Cain fled, he is said to have gone out <q><hi rend='italic'>from +the presence of the Lord</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 4:16</hi>). 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Section V.—Imputation Of Adam's Sin To His Posterity.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) The Scriptures teach that the transgression of our first parents constituted +their posterity sinners (Rom. 5:19—<q>through the one man's +disobedience the many were made sinners</q>), 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—<q>the judgment came of one [offence] unto condemnation</q>). +It is because of Adam's sin that we are born depraved and +subject to God's penal inflictions (Rom. 5:12—<q>through one man sin +entered into the world, and death through sin</q>; Eph. 2:3—<q>by nature +children of wrath</q>). 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 <q>in Adam all die</q> (1 Cor. 15:22) and +<q>that death passed unto all men, for that all sinned</q> when <q>through one +man sin entered into the world</q> (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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Amiel says that <q>the best measure of the profundity of any religious doctrine is given +by its conception of sin and of the cure of sin.</q> 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. +<pb n='594'/><anchor id='Pg594'/> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +We should not permit our use of the term <q>imputation</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Dr. E. G. Robinson used to say that <q>imputed righteousness and imputed sin are as +absurd as any notion that ever took possession of human nature.</q> 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.; <hi rend='italic'>e. g.</hi>, +<hi rend='italic'>Neh. 1:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I confess the sins of the children of Israel, which we have sinned against thee. Yea, I and my father's house +have sinned</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Jer. 3:25</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>14:20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>We acknowledge, O Jehovah, our wickedness, and the iniquity of our +fathers; for we have sinned against thee.</hi></q> The word <q><hi rend='italic'>imputed</hi></q> is itself found in the N. T.; <hi rend='italic'>e. g.</hi>, +<hi rend='italic'>2 Tim. 4:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>At my first defence no one took my part: may it not be laid to their account,</hi></q> or <q><hi rend='italic'>imputed to them</hi></q>—μὴ +αὐτοῖς λογισθείη. <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>sin is not imputed when there is no law</hi></q>—οὐκ ἐλλογᾶται. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> Frederick +Denison Maurice: <q>I wish to confess the sins of the time as my own.</q> Moberly, +Atonement and Personality, 87—<q>The phrase <q>solidarity of humanity</q> 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.</q> Royce, World and +Individual, 2:404—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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, +<pb n='595'/><anchor id='Pg595'/> +198, and The Age of Faith, 235—<q>Stephen prays: <q><hi rend='italic'>Lord, lay not this sin to their charge</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Acts 7:60</hi>). +To whose charge then? We all have a share in one another's sins. We too stood by +and consented, as Paul did. <q>My sins gave sharpness to the nails, And pointed every +thorn</q> 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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +On race-responsibility, see H. R. Smith, System of Theology, 288-302—<q>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, <emph>as</emph> 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 <emph>a</emph> sin are irrelevant here.</q> Dr. Smith quotes Edwards, +2:309—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The watchword of a large class of theologians—popularly called <q>New School</q>—is +that <q>all sin consists in sinning,</q>—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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<pb n='596'/><anchor id='Pg596'/> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Over against the maxim: <q>All sin consists in sinning,</q> we put the more correct +statement: Personal sin consists in sinning, but in Adam's first sinning the race also +sinned, so that <q><hi rend='italic'>in Adam all die</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 15:22</hi>). Denney, Studies in Theology, 86—<q>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.</q> Leslie Stephen: +<q>Man not dependent on a race is as meaningless a phrase as an apple that does not grow +on a tree.</q> <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Wm. Adams Brown: <q>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.</q> Mrs. Lydia Avery Coonley Ward: <q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='597'/><anchor id='Pg597'/> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>I. Theories of Imputation.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. The Pelagian Theory, or Theory of Man's natural Innocence.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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, <q>death passed unto all men, for that all sinned,</q> +signifies: <q>all incurred eternal death by sinning after Adam's example.</q> +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +In Pelagius' Com. on <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:12</hi>, 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. +<q>Non pleni nascimur</q>: 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. +<pb n='598'/><anchor id='Pg598'/> +Grace, on the Pelagian theory, is simply the grace of <emph>creation</emph>—God's originally +endowing man with his high powers of reason and will. While Augustinianism regards +human nature as <emph>dead</emph>, and Semi-Pelagianism regards it as <emph>sick</emph>, Pelagianism proper +declares it to be <emph>well</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:43 (Syst. Doct., 2:338)—<q>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.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Ib.</hi>, 1:626 +(Syst. Doct., 2:188, 189)—<q>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.</q> See <hi rend='italic'>Ib.</hi>, 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +Of the Pelagian theory of sin, we may say: +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +As slavery was <q>the sum of all villainy,</q> 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. <q>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: <q>Da +quod jubes, et jube quod vis</q>—<q>Give what thou commandest, and command what thou +wilt.</q> From this he was led to formulate the gospel according to St. Cicero, so perfectly +does the Pelagian doctrine reproduce the Pagan teaching.</q> 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. <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 2:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, +which God afore prepared that we should walk in them</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 15:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Ye did not choose me, but I chose you</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1:13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>who +were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.</hi></q> H. Auber: +<q>And every virtue we possess, And every victory won, And every thought of holiness, +Are his alone.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Augustine had said that <q>Man is most free when controlled by God alone</q>—<q>[Deo] +solo dominante, liberrimus</q> (De Mor. Eccl., xxi). Gore, in Lux Mundi, 320—<q>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.</q> Pelagianism, on the +contrary, is man's declaration of independence. Harnack, Hist. Dogma, 5:200—<q>The +essence of Pelagianism, the key to its whole mode of thought, lies in this proposition of +Julian: <q>Homo libero arbitrio emancipatus a Deo</q>—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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +B. It contradicts Scripture in denying: (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) that evil disposition and +state, as well as evil acts, are sin; (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) that such evil disposition and state +are inborn in all mankind; (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) that men universally are guilty of overt +transgression so soon as they come to moral consciousness; (<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) that no +man is able without divine help to fulfil the law; (<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) that all men, without +<pb n='599'/><anchor id='Pg599'/> +exception, are dependent for salvation upon God's atoning, regenerating, +sanctifying grace; (<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) that man's present state of corruption, +condemnation, and death, is the direct effect of Adam's transgression. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +The Westminster Confession, ch. vi. § 4, declares that <q>we are utterly indisposed, +disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil.</q> To Pelagius, +on the contrary, sin is a mere incident. He knows only of <emph>sins</emph>, not of <emph>sin</emph>. 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 <emph>character</emph> 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. <hi rend='italic'>John 3:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>That which is born of the flesh is flesh</hi></q>—<q>that +which comes of a sinful and guilty stock is itself, from the very beginning, sinful and +guilty</q> (Dorner). Witness the tendency to degradation in families and nations. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>anima +naturaliter Christiana.</q> The tendency has come down to modern times: Crane, +The Religion of To-morrow, 246—<q>It is only when children grow up, and begin to +absorb their environment, that they lose their artless loveliness.</q> 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 <q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Prof. G. A. Coe tells us that <q>all children are within the household of God</q>; that +<q>they are already members of his kingdom</q>; that <q>the adolescent change</q> is <q>a step +not <emph>into</emph> the Christian life, but <emph>within</emph> the Christian life.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Schaff, on the Pelagian controversy, in Bib. Sac., 5:205-243—The controversy +<q>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.</q> See this Compendium, page 89. +</p> + +<p> +Allen, Religious Progress, 98-100—<q>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 +<pb n='600'/><anchor id='Pg600'/> +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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +C. It rests upon false philosophical principles; as, for example: (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) +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; (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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; (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) that ability is the measure of obligation,—a principle +which would diminish the sinner's responsibility, just in proportion to his +progress in sin; (<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) that law consists only in positive enactment; whereas it +is the demand of perfect harmony with God, inwrought into man's moral +nature; (<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) Neander, Church History, 2:564-625, holds one of the fundamental principles of +Pelagianism to be <q>the ability to choose, equally and at any moment, between good +and evil.</q> 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.—<q>Volition is an everlasting <q>tick,</q> <q>tick,</q> and swinging of the pendulum, but +no moving forward of the hands of the clock follows.</q> <q>There is no continuity of +moral life—no <emph>character</emph>, in man, angel, devil, or God.</q>—(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) See art. on Power of +Contrary Choice, in Princeton Essays, 1:212-233; Pelagianism holds that no confirmation +in holiness is possible. Thornwell, Theology: <q>The sinner is as free as the saint; +the devil as the angel.</q> Harris, Philos. Basis of Theism, 399—<q>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.</q> <q>By mere volition the soul now a +<emph>plenum</emph> can become a <emph>vacuum</emph>, or now a <emph>vacuum</emph> can become a <emph>plenum</emph>.</q> On the Pelagian +view of freedom, see Julius Müller, Doctrine of Sin, 37-44. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 79:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Remember not against us the iniquities of our forefathers</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>106:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>We have sinned with our +fathers.</hi></q> Notice the analogy of individuals who suffer from the effects of parental mistakes +or of national transgression. Julius Müller, Doct. Sin, 2:316, 317—<q>Neither the +<emph>atomistic</emph> nor the <emph>organic</emph> view of human nature is the complete truth.</q> 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)—<q rend='pre'>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'>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 +<pb n='601'/><anchor id='Pg601'/> +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: <q><hi rend='italic'>Am I my brother's keeper?</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 4:9</hi>), and thinks to construct a +constant equation between individual misfortune and <emph>individual</emph> 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>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: <q><hi rend='italic'>That which is born of the flesh is flesh</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 3:6</hi>). 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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. The Arminian Theory, or Theory of voluntarily appropriated +Depravity.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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, <q>death passed unto all men, for +that all sinned,</q> signifies that physical and spiritual death is inflicted upon +all men, not as the penalty of a common sin in Adam, but because, by +<pb n='602'/><anchor id='Pg602'/> +divine decree, all suffer the consequences of that sin, and because all +personally consent to their inborn sinfulness by acts of transgression. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <q>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.</q> Many so-called Arminians, such as Whitby and John +Taylor, were rather Pelagians. +</p> + +<p> +John Wesley, however, greatly modified and improved the Arminian doctrine. Hodge, +Syst. Theol., 2:329, 330—<q>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.</q> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<q>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 <q>the free gift,</q> the +effects of the <q>righteousness</q> 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>obligation</emph> to restore +man's ability, and yet they inconsistently speak of this ability as a <emph>gracious</emph> ability. +Two passages from Raymond's Theology show the inconsistency of calling that <q>grace,</q> +which God is bound in justice to bestow, in order to make man responsible: 2:84-86—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Compare with this the following passage of the same work in which this <q>grace</q> is +called a debt: 2:317—<q>The relations of the posterity of Adam to God are substantially +those of newly created beings. Each individual person is obligated to God, and +<pb n='603'/><anchor id='Pg603'/> +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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +With regard to the Arminian theory we remark: +</p> + +<p> +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: (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) that this gift +of the Holy Spirit of itself removes the depravity or condemnation derived +from Adam's fall; (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) that without this gift man would not be responsible +for being morally imperfect; and (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) that at the beginning of moral life +men consciously appropriate their inborn tendencies to evil. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +John Wesley adduced in proof of universal grace the text: <hi rend='italic'>John 1:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the light which lighteth +every man</hi></q>—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 <q><hi rend='italic'>the Spirit of Christ</hi></q> +(<hi rend='italic'>1 Pet. 1:11</hi>). 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 <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:12-19</hi> and of <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 2:3</hi>; it only puts side by side with +that depravity and condemnation influences and impulses which counteract the evil +and urge the sinner to repentance: <hi rend='italic'>John 1:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness +apprehended it not.</hi></q> John Wesley also referred to <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>through one act of righteousness the free +gift came unto all men to justification of life</hi></q>—but here the <q>all men</q> is conterminous with <q>the many</q> +who are <q><hi rend='italic'>made righteous</hi></q> in <hi rend='italic'>verse 19</hi>, and with the <q><hi rend='italic'>all</hi></q> who are <q><hi rend='italic'>made alive</hi></q> in <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 15:22</hi>; in +other words, the <q><hi rend='italic'>all</hi></q> in this case is <q>all believers</q>: else the passage teaches, not universal +gift of the Spirit, but universal salvation. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>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.</q> How little the Arminian +means by <q>sin,</q> can be inferred from the saying of Bishop Simpson that <q>Christ inherited +sin.</q> He meant of course only physical and intellectual infirmity, without a tinge +of guilt. <q>A child inherits its parent's nature,</q> it is said, <q>not as a punishment, but +by natural law.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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 +<q>original grace,</q> 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.</q> Dabney, +Theology, 315, 316—<q>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, +<pb n='604'/><anchor id='Pg604'/> +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.</q> A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 187 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi>, +denies the universal gift of the Spirit, quoting <hi rend='italic'>John 14:17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>whom the world cannot receive; for it +beholdeth him not, neither knoweth him</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>16:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>if I go, I will send him unto you</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, 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 <hi rend='italic'>Mark 16:15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Go ye into all the world, and preach,</hi></q> +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 <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 6:3</hi> implies a wider striving +of the Holy Spirit. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +B. It contradicts Scripture in maintaining: (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) that inherited moral +evil does not involve guilt; (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) that the gift of the Spirit, and the regeneration +of infants, are matters of justice; (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) that the effect of grace is +simply to restore man's natural ability, instead of disposing him to use that +ability aright; (<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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; (<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) that physical death is not the just penalty +of sin, but is a matter of arbitrary decree. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) See Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:58 (System of Doctrine, 2:352-359)—<q>With Arminius, +original sin is original <emph>evil</emph> only, not <emph>guilt</emph>. 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) H. B. Smith's Review of Whedon on the Will, in Faith and Philosophy, 359-399—<q>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.</q> See Bib. Sac., 20:327, 328. +According to Whedon, Com. on <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:12</hi>, <q>the condition of an infant apart from +Christ is that of a sinner, <emph>as one sure to sin</emph>, yet never actually condemned before personal +apostasy. This <emph>would</emph> 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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) Notice that this <q>gracious</q> 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. <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 4:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>who maketh thee to differ?</hi></q> 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. +<q>Grace</q> is a word much used by Arminians. Methodist Doctrine and Discipline, +Articles of Religion, viii—<q>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 +<pb n='605'/><anchor id='Pg605'/> +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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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 <emph>originate</emph> faith, but to <emph>reward</emph> 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—<q>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 <emph>chance</emph> of salvation: chance of salvation is chance of damnation.</q> +Grace is not a <emph>reward</emph> for good deeds done, but a <emph>power</emph> 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 <q>error of Arminianism which makes the grace of God lackey it +after the will of man</q>; see Masson, Life of Milton, 1:277. Arminian converts say: <q>I +gave my heart to the Lord</q>; Augustinian converts say: <q>The Holy Spirit convicted +me of sin and renewed my heart.</q> Arminianism tends to self-sufficiency; Augustinianism +promotes dependence upon God. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +C. It rests upon false philosophical principles, as for example: (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) That +the will is simply the faculty of volitions. (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) That previous certainty of any given moral act is +incompatible with its freedom. (<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) That ability is the measure of obligation. +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) That law condemns only volitional transgression. (<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) That +man has no organic moral connection with the race. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) Raymond says: <q>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 <emph>from</emph> an act is as essential to responsibility as freedom <emph>to</emph> 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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Julius Müller, Doctrine of Sin, 2:28—<q>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, <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, 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.</q> 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 <q>moral necessity</q> of good, so it can through sin reach a <q>moral necessity</q> +of evil. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) Park: <q>The great philosophical objection to Arminianism is its denial of the +<emph>certainty</emph> 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, +<pb n='606'/><anchor id='Pg606'/> +antecedently to choice, to decide the choice. It was the whole aim of Edwards to +refute the idea that man would not <emph>certainly</emph> 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 <q>power to the +contrary</q> 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 <q>power to the contrary</q> is <emph>uncertainty</emph> 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) Whedon, On the Will, 338-360, 388-395—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Raymond, Syst. Theol., 2:86-89, holds it <q>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.</q> J. J. Murphy, Nat. +Selection and Spir. Freedom, 26-33—<q>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.</q> 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 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi> +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>3. The New School Theory, or Theory of uncondemnable Vitiosity.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='607'/><anchor id='Pg607'/> +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, <q>death passed unto all men, for that all sinned,</q> +signifies: <q>spiritual death passed on all men, because all men have actually +and personally sinned.</q> +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +The idealistic philosophy of Edwards enables us to understand his conception of the +relation of the race to Adam. He believed in <q>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 <emph>on that ground</emph> God imputes +it to them.</q> Hagenbach, Hist. Doct., 2:435-448, esp. 436, quotes from Edwards: <q>The +guilt a man has upon his soul at his first existence is one and simple, <hi rend='italic'>viz.</hi>: the guilt of +the original apostasy, the guilt of the sin by which the species first rebelled against God.</q> +Interpret this by other words of Edwards: <q>The child and the acorn, which come into +existence in the course of nature, are truly immediately created by God</q>—<hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, continuously +created (quoted by Dodge, Christian Theology, 188). Allen, Jonathan +Edwards, 310—<q>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.</q> Adam becomes not the head of +humanity but its generic type. Hence arises the New School doctrine of exclusively +individual sin and guilt. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>nature</emph>. He tended to Berkeleyanism as applied to mind. Hence +the chief good was in happiness—a form of <emph>sensibility</emph>. Virtue is voluntary <emph>choice</emph> of +this good. Hence union of <emph>acts</emph> and <emph>exercises</emph> with Adam was sufficient. This God's will +might make identity of <emph>being</emph> with him. Baird, Elohim Revealed, 250 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi>, says well, that +<q>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.</q> This divergence from the truth led +to the Exercise-system of Hopkins and Emmons, who not only denied moral character +prior to individual choices (<hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, 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. +</p> + +<p> +N. W. Taylor, of New Haven, agreed with Hopkins and Emmons that there is no +<pb n='608'/><anchor id='Pg608'/> +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 <q>not only can if he will, but he can if he won't.</q> He can, but, without +the Spirit, will not. He said: <q>Man can, whatever the Holy Spirit does or does not +do</q>; but also: <q>Man will not, unless the Holy Spirit helps</q>; <q>If I were as eloquent +as the Holy Ghost, I could convert sinners as fast as he.</q> 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—<q>The +error of Pelagius was not in asserting that man <emph>can</emph> obey God without grace, but in +saying that man does <emph>actually</emph> obey God without grace.</q> 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, <hi rend='italic'>viz.</hi>, 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 <emph>moral</emph> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Dr. Park, of Andover, was understood to teach that the disordered state of the sensibilities +and faculties with which we are born is the <emph>immediate</emph> occasion of sin, while +Adam's transgression is the <emph>remote</emph> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Both Ritschl and Pfleiderer lean toward the New School interpretation of sin. +Ritschl, Unterricht, 25—<q>Universal death was the consequence of the sin of the first +man, and the death of his posterity proved that they too had sinned.</q> Thus death is +universal, not because of natural generation from Adam, but because of the individual +sins of Adam's posterity. Pfleiderer, Grundriss, 122—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +To the New School theory we object as follows: +</p> + +<p> +A. It contradicts Scripture in maintaining or implying: (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) That the vitiosity which predisposes to sin is a part of each +man's nature as it proceeds from the creative hand of God. (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) That +<pb n='609'/><anchor id='Pg609'/> +physical death in the human race is not a penal consequence of Adam's +transgression. (<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. (<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) That we are neither +condemned upon the ground of actual inbeing in Adam, nor justified upon +the ground of actual inbeing in Christ. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 +<emph>consequences</emph> as well as the <emph>penalty</emph> of sin. +</p> + +<p> +But to say that infants are pure contradicts <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>all sinned</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 7:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>else were +your children unclean</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 2:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>by nature children of wrath.</hi></q> That Christ's atonement removes +natural consequences of sin is nowhere asserted or implied in Scripture. See, <hi rend='italic'>per +contra</hi>, H. B. Smith, System, 271, where, however, it is only maintained that Christ saves +from all the <emph>just</emph> consequences of sin. But all <emph>just</emph> 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 <q>voluntary transgression of known +law.</q> It is difficult to say, upon this theory, what sort of a <emph>choice</emph> the infant makes of +sin, or what sort of a <emph>known law</emph> it violates. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<q>sinned in the same sense in which believers were crucified to the world and died +unto sin when Christ died upon the cross.</q> But we protest that to make Christ's +death the mere <emph>occasion</emph> of the death of the believer, and Adam's sin the mere <emph>occasion</emph> +of the sins of men, is to ignore the central truths of Paul's teaching—the <emph>vital union</emph> of +the believer with Christ, and the <emph>vital union</emph> of the race with Adam. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +B. It rests upon false philosophical principles, as for example: (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) That +the soul is immediately created by God. (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) That the law of God consists +<pb n='610'/><anchor id='Pg610'/> +wholly in outward command. (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) That present natural ability to obey the +law is the measure of obligation. (<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) That man's relations to moral law +are exclusively individual. (<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) That the will is merely the faculty of individual +and personal choices. (<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) That the will, at man's birth, has no +moral state or character. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +See Baird, Elohim Revealed, 250 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi>—<q>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. <emph>The law addresses the +nature.</emph> 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>that holy thing</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Luke 1:35</hi>, marg.).</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>for that all sinned,</hi></q> he remarks: <q>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 <q>the necessary consequence</q> 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 +<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 3:23</hi>, ἥμαρτον certainly does not denote such a definite past act filling only one point +of time.</q> But we reply that the context determines that in <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:12</hi>, ἥμαρτον does denote +such a definite past act; see our interpretation of the whole passage, under the Augustinian +Theory, pages <ref target='Pg625'>625-627</ref>. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +C. It impugns the justice of God: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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 +<pb n='611'/><anchor id='Pg611'/> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<q>Man kills a snake,</q> says Raymond, <q>because it is a snake, and not because it is to +blame for being a snake,</q>—which seems to us a new proof that the advocates of innocent +depravity regard infants, not as moral beings, but as mere animals. <q>We must +distinguish automatic excellence or badness,</q> says Raymond again, <q>from moral desert, +whether good or ill.</q> This seems to us a doctrine of punishment without guilt. Princeton +Essays, 1:138, quote Coleridge: <q>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.</q> Baird, Elohim Revealed, 488—So, +it seems, <q>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 <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:12-19</hi>, which is based upon the opposite doctrine, +and it is also contrary to the justice of God, who punishes only those who deserve it.</q> +See Julius Müller, Doct. Sin. 2:67-74. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +D. Its limitation of responsibility to the evil choices of the individual +and the dispositions caused thereby is inconsistent with the following facts: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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 +<pb n='612'/><anchor id='Pg612'/> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Wm. Adams Brown: <q>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.</q> H. B. Smith, System, 350, note—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>Causa causæ est causa causati.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>4. The Federal Theory, or Theory of Condemnation by Covenant.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +In execution of this sentence of condemnation, God immediately creates +each soul of Adam's posterity with a corrupt and depraved nature, which +<pb n='613'/><anchor id='Pg613'/> +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, <q>death passed unto all men, for that all sinned,</q> +signifies: <q>physical, spiritual, and eternal death came to all, because all +were regarded and treated as sinners.</q> +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 (<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>fœdus</foreign>, 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. +</p> + +<p> +So Anselm says: <q>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.</q> +After the first sin <q>this nature was propagated just as it had made itself by sinning.</q> +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 <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>sine +natura</foreign>, 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 <emph>person</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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, <emph>is</emph> this participation. But Hopkins and Emmons regarded +the sinful inclination, not as a <emph>real</emph> participation, but only as a <emph>constructive</emph> 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 <q>the immemorial doctrine of the church of God.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>In imputation +there is, first, an ascription of something to those concerned; secondly, a determination +to deal with them accordingly.</q> The ground for this imputation is <q>the union +between Adam and his posterity, which is twofold,—a natural union, as between father +and children, and the union of representation, <emph>which is the main idea here insisted on</emph>.</q> +123—<q>As in Christ we are constituted righteous by the imputation of righteousness, so +<pb n='614'/><anchor id='Pg614'/> +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.</q> 162—Turretin is quoted: <q>The foundation, therefore, of imputation +is not merely the <emph>natural</emph> connection which exists between us and Adam—for, were +this the case, all his sins would be imputed to us, but principally the <emph>moral</emph> and <emph>federal</emph>, +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.</q> The +oneness results from contract; the natural union is frequently not mentioned at all. +Marck: All men sinned in Adam, <q><foreign rend='italic'>eos representante</foreign>.</q> The acts of Adam and of Christ +are ours <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>jure representationis</foreign>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +G. W. Northrup makes the order of the Federal theory to be: <q>(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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +To the Federal theory we object: +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>covenant</q> is used, is too precarious +and too obviously metaphorical to afford the basis for a scheme of +imputation (see Henderson, Com. on Minor Prophets, <hi rend='italic'>in loco</hi>). In Heb. +8:8—<q>new covenant</q>—there is suggested a contrast, not with an +Adamic, but with the Mosaic, covenant (<hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> verse 9). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +In <hi rend='italic'>Hosea 6:7</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>they like Adam</hi></q> [marg. <q><hi rend='italic'>men</hi></q>] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>have transgressed the covenant</hi></q> (Rev. Ver.)—the +correct translation is given by Henderson, Minor Prophets: <q><hi rend='italic'>But they, like men that break a +covenant, there they proved false to me</hi>.</q> <hi rend='smallcaps'>lxx</hi>: αὐτοὶ δέ εἰσιν ὡς ἄνθρωπος παραβαίνων διαθήκην. +De Wette: <q>Aber sie übertreten den Bund nach Menschenart; daselbst sind sie mir +treulos.</q> Here the word <foreign lang='he' rend='italic'>adam</foreign>, translated <q>man,</q> either means <q>a man,</q> or <q>man,</q> +<hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, generic man. <q>Israel had as little regard to their covenants with God as men of +unprincipled character have for ordinary contracts.</q> <q>Like a man</q>—as men do. +Compare <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 82:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>ye shall die like men</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Hosea 8:1, 2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>they have transgressed my covenant</hi></q>—an +allusion to the Abrahamic or Mosaic covenant. <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 8:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +B. It contradicts Scripture, in making the first result of Adam's sin to +be God's <emph>regarding and treating</emph> the race as sinners. The Scripture, on +the contrary, declares that Adam's offense <emph>constituted</emph> 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 <q>passed unto all men,</q> not because all were regarded and treated +as sinners, but <q>because all sinned</q> (Rom. 5:12). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +For a full exegesis of the passage <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:12-19</hi>, see note to the discussion of the Theory +of Adam's Natural Headship, pages <ref target='Pg625'>625-627</ref>. Dr. Park gave great offence by saying +that the so-called <q>covenants</q> of law and of grace, referred in the Westminster Confession +as made by God with Adam and Christ respectively, were really <q>made in Holland.</q> +The word <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>fœdus</foreign>, in such a connection, could properly mean nothing more than <q>ordinance</q>; +<pb n='615'/><anchor id='Pg615'/> +see Vergil, Georgics, 1:60-63—<q>eterna fœdera.</q> E. G. Robinson, Christ. +Theol., 185—<q>God's <q>covenant</q> with men is simply his method of dealing with them +according to their knowledge and opportunities.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +C. It impugns the justice of God by implying: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +See Baird, Elohim Revealed, 544—<q>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,</q>—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—<q>Hollaz held that God treats men in accordance with what he foresaw all +would do, if they were in Adam's place</q> (<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>scientia media</foreign> and <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>imputatio metaphysica</foreign>). +Birks, Difficulties of Belief, 141—<q>Immediate imputation is as unjust as <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>imputatio +metaphysica</foreign>, <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, 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.</q> Justification can be gratuitous, but not condemnation. +<q>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</q> (Fisher). +</p> + +<p> +Professor Moses Stuart characterized this theory as one of <q>fictitious guilt, but veritable +damnation.</q> 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—<q>It is illogical to say +that society originated in a contract; for contract presupposes society.</q> Unus homo, +nullus homo—without society, no persons. T. H. Green, Prolegomena to Ethics, 351—<q>No +individual can make a conscience for himself. He always needs a society to make +it for him....</q> 200—<q>Only through society is personality actualized.</q> Boyce, Spirit of +Modern Philosophy, 209, note—<q>Organic Interrelationship of individuals is the condition +even of their relatively independent selfhood.</q> We are <q><hi rend='italic'>members one of another</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Rom. +12:15</hi>). Schurman, Agnosticism, 176—<q>The individual could never have developed into +a personality but for his training through society and under law.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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 +<pb n='616'/><anchor id='Pg616'/> +the author of sin. Imputation of sin cannot precede and account for corruption; +on the contrary, corruption must precede and account for imputation. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +By God's act we became depraved, as a penal consequence of Adam's act imputed to +us solely as <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>peccatum alienum</foreign>. Dabney, Theology, 342, says the theory regards the soul +as originally pure until imputation. See Hodge on <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:13</hi>; Syst. Theol., 2:203, 210; +Thornwell, Theology, 1:343-349; Chalmers, Institutes, 1:485, 487. The Federal theory +<q>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.</q> 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: <q>Zweifle an der Sonne Klarheit, Zweifle an der Sterne Licht, +Leser, nur an meiner Wahrheit Und an deiner Dummheit, nicht.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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: <q rend='pre'>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>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: <q>He who lives +quite alone is either a beast or a god.</q></q> 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 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi>; 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>5. Theory of Mediate Imputation, or Theory of Condemnation for +Depravity.</head> + +<p> +This theory was first maintained by Placeus (1606-1655), professor of +<pb n='617'/><anchor id='Pg617'/> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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, +<q>death passed unto all men, for that all sinned,</q> signifies: <q>death physical, +spiritual, and eternal passed upon all men, because all sinned by possessing +a depraved nature.</q> +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +See Placeus, De Imputatione Primi Peccati Adami, in Opera, 1:709—<q>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.</q> 710—So this soul <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Herzog, Encyclopædia, art.: Placeus—<q>In the title of his works we read <q>Placæus</q>; +he himself, however, wrote <q>Placeus,</q> which is the more correct Latin form [of the +French <q>de la Place</q>]. 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.</q> Fisher, Discussions, 389—<q>Mere +native corruption is the whole of original sin. Placeus justifies his use of the +term <q>imputation</q> by <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 2:26</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>If therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall not +his uncircumcision be reckoned</hi></q> [imputed] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>for circumcision?</hi></q> 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>On the whole, he favored the theory of Mediate +Imputation. There is a note which reads thus: <q>Neither Mediate nor Immediate Imputation +is wholly satisfactory.</q> Understand by <q>Mediate Imputation</q> 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 <q>not wholly satisfactory.</q></q> +Dr. Smith himself says, 316—<q rend='pre'>Original sin is a doctrine respecting the moral conditions +of human nature as from Adam—generic: and it is not a doctrine respecting personal +<pb n='618'/><anchor id='Pg618'/> +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, <hi rend='italic'>e. g.</hi>, in the last adjudication), and a generic moral condition—the +antecedent ground of such personal character.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>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 <emph>the fact</emph> 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 <emph>not to be separated</emph> from the existence of this evil disposition. +And this guilt is what is imputed to us.</q> See art. on H. B. Smith, in Presb. Rev., 1881; +<q>He did not fully acquiesce in Placeus's view, which makes the corrupt nature by +descent the only ground of imputation.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +The theory of Mediate Imputation is exposed to the following objections: +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +The theory holds that we are responsible for the effect, but not for the cause—<q>post +Adamum, non propter Adamum.</q> But, says Julius Müller, Doct. Sin, 2:209, 331—<q>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 <hi rend='italic'>vice versa</hi>.</q> Thornwell, +Theology, 1:348, 349—This theory <q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Dr. Hovey, Outlines of Theology, objects to the theory of Mediate Imputation, +because: <q>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.</q> +It is unjust to hold us guilty of the effect, if we be not first guilty of the +cause. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='619'/><anchor id='Pg619'/> +of the race in Adam (Rom. 5:16, 18). It moreover does violence to the +Scripture in its unnatural interpretation of <q>all sinned,</q> 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi>—<q>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.</q> And afterwards: +<q>Derivation of evil disposition (or rather co-existence) is in consequence of the union,</q>—but +<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Edwards quotes Stapfer: <q>The Reformed divines do not hold immediate and mediate +imputation <emph>separately</emph>, but always together.</q> And still further, 2:493—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>6. The Augustinian Theory, or Theory of Adam's Natural Headship.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>not the same +in kind merely, but the same as flowing to us continuously from him.</q> +</p> + +<pb n='620'/><anchor id='Pg620'/> + +<p> +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—<q>death passed unto all men, for that all sinned,</q> +signifies: <q>death physical, spiritual, and eternal passed unto all men, +because all sinned in Adam their natural head.</q> +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Milton, Par. Lost, 9:414—<q>Where likeliest he [Satan] might find The only two of +mankind, but in them The whole included race, his purpos'd prey.</q> Augustine, De Pec. +Mer. et Rem., 3:7—<q>In Adamo omnes tune peccaverunt, quando in ejus natura adhuc +omnes ille unus fuerunt</q>; De Civ. Dei, 13, 14—<q>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.</q> +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, <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Mozley on Predestination, 402—<q>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—<q>Malitia naturalis.... in aliis minor, in aliis +major est</q>); in some, the individual seems to add to original sin (De Correp. et Gratia, +c. 13—<q>Per liberum arbitrium alia insuper addiderunt, alii majus, alii minus, sed omnes +mali.</q> De Grat. et Lib. Arbit., 2:1—<q>Added to the sin of their birth sins of their own +commission</q>; 2:4—<q>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</q>).</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Allen, Continuity of Christian Thought, Introduction, very erroneously declares that +<q>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.</q> 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: <q>Thus the Stoic, Neo-Platonic immanence, with +Augustine, supplants the Platonico-Aristotelian and Athanasian transcendence.</q> Alexander, +Theories of the Will, 90—<q>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 +<pb n='621'/><anchor id='Pg621'/> +sin in Adam's posterity as due to inherited evil will.</q> Harnack, Wesen des +Christenthums, +161—<q>To this day in Catholicism inward and living piety and the expression of +it is in essence wholly Augustinian.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>It is not a crime, but a condition and a disease.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>universalia +ante rem</foreign>, which is extreme realism; nor to <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>universalia post rem</foreign>, which is nominalism; +but to <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>universalia in re</foreign>, 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 <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>universalia in re</foreign>, but insist that the universals +must be recognized as <emph>realities</emph>, as truly as the individuals are</q> (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. +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>We all existed in Adam in our elementary invisible substance. +The <foreign rend='italic'>Seyn</foreign> of all was there, though the <foreign rend='italic'>Daseyn</foreign> was not; the <foreign rend='italic'>noumenon</foreign>, though not the +<foreign rend='italic'>phenomenon</foreign>, was in existence.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<q>imputation</q> 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—<q>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.</q> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Thornwell, Theology, 1:343—<q>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.</q> Secretan, +in his Work on Liberty, held to a <emph>collective</emph> life of the race in Adam. He was +<pb n='622'/><anchor id='Pg622'/> +answered by Naville, Problem of Evil: <q>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 (<foreign lang='fr' rend='italic'>solidairement</foreign>) responsible for the fall of the human race.</q> Bersier, +The Oneness of the Race, in its Fall and in its Future: <q>If we are commanded to +love our neighbor as ourselves, it is because our neighbor is ourself.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi>, <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> 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. +<hi rend='italic'>Per contra</hi>, 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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: +</p> + +<p> +A. It puts the most natural interpretation upon Rom. 5:12-21. In +verse 12 of this passage—<q>death passed unto all men, for that all sinned</q>—the +great majority of commentators regard the word <q>sinned</q> 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—<q>law,</q> <q>transgression,</q> <q>trespass,</q> <q>judgment ... of one unto +condemnation,</q> <q>act of righteousness,</q> <q>justification</q>). As the explanation +of this universal subjection to penalty, we are referred to Adam's +sin. By that one act (<q>so,</q> verse 12)—the <q>trespass of the one</q> man +(v. 15, 17), the <q>one trespass</q> (v. 18)—death came to all men, because +all [not <q>have sinned</q>, but] sinned (πάντες ἥμαρτον—aorist of instantaneous +past action)—that is, all sinned in <q>the one trespass</q> of <q>the one</q> man. +Compare 1 Cor. 15:22—<q>As in Adam all die</q>—where the contrast with +physical resurrection shows that physical death is meant; 2 Cor. 5:14—<q>one +died for all, therefore all died.</q> 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Beyschlag, N. T. Theology, 2:58-60—<q>To understand the apostle's view, we must +follow the exposition of Bengel (which is favored also by Meyer and Pfleiderer): +<q><hi rend='italic'>Because they</hi>—viz., in Adam—<hi rend='italic'>all have sinned</hi></q>; 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.</q> Ritschl: <q>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;</q> in other words, Paul's teaching it does not make +it binding upon our faith. Philippi, Com. on Rom., 168—Interpret <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>one +sinned for all, therefore all sinned</hi>,</q> by <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 5:15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>one died for all, therefore all died.</hi></q> Evans, +in Presb. Rev., 1883:294—<q><hi rend='italic'>by the trespass of the one the many died</hi>,</q> <q><hi rend='italic'>by the trespass of the one, death reigned +<pb n='623'/><anchor id='Pg623'/> +through the one</hi>,</q> <q><hi rend='italic'>through the one man's disobedience</hi></q>—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. +</p> + +<p> +Prof. George B. Stevens, Pauline Theology, 32-40, 129-139, denies that Paul taught the +sinning of all men in Adam: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <q><hi rend='italic'>in Christ</hi></q> 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 <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 5:14</hi> 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 <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:14</hi>, the individual and conscious sins to which the New School +theory attaches the condemning sentence are expressly excluded, and in <hi rend='italic'>verses 15-19</hi> the +judgment is declared to be <q><hi rend='italic'>of one trespass</hi>.</q> Prof. Wm. Arnold Stevens, of Rochester, says +well: <q>Paul teaches that Adam's sin is ours, not potentially, but actually.</q> Of +ἥμαρτον, he says: <q>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 <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 3:23</hi>—πάντες +γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται. In <hi rend='italic'>5:12</hi>, the context determines with great probability +that the aorist is used in the first of these senses.</q> We may add that interpreters are +not wanting who so take ἥμαρτον in <hi rend='italic'>3:23</hi>; see also margin of Rev. Version. But since +the passage <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:12-19</hi> is so important, we reserve to the close of this section a treatment +of it in greater detail. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='624'/><anchor id='Pg624'/> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Alvah Hovey, Manual of Christian Theology, 175 (2d ed.)—<q>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.</q> +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 <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>malum metaphysicum</foreign> of Spinoza; see Pfleiderer, Prot. Theol. seit Kant, 113. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Sterrett, Reason and Authority in Religion, 20—<q>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.</q> Chapman, +Jesus Christ and the Present Age, 43—<q>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.</q> +E. G. Robinson: <q>The tendency of modern theology [in the last generation] +was to individualization, to make each man <q>a little Almighty.</q> 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.</q> Goethe said that +while humanity ever advances, individual man remains the same. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>Heredity is God working in us, and environment +is God working around us.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +<pb n='625'/><anchor id='Pg625'/> +The Augustinian theory may therefore be called an ethical or theological +interpretation of certain incontestable and acknowledged biological facts. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Ribot, Heredity, 1—<q>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.</q> Griffith-Jones, Ascent +through Christ, 202-218—<q>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.</q> Simon, +Reconciliation, 154 sq.—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Bowne, Theory of Thought and Knowledge, 134—<q>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.</q> 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. <q>A +basal intelligence</q> here <q>posits individuals.</q> And so with the relation of men to +Adam. Here too there is <q>a law inherent in reality</q>—the regular working of the +divine will, according to which like produces like, and a sinful germ reproduces itself. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <q><hi rend='italic'>all sinned</hi></q> 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 <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:12-19</hi> 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Exposition of Rom. 5:12-19.</hi>—<hi rend='italic'>Parallel between the salvation in Christ and the ruin +that has come through Adam</hi>, 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 +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Verse 12</hi>: <q><hi rend='italic'>as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed unto all men, +for that all sinned,</hi></q> so (as we may complete the interrupted sentence) by one man righteousness +<pb n='626'/><anchor id='Pg626'/> +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 <hi rend='italic'>verse 14</hi>; (2) from the allusion to +<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 3:19</hi>; (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; <hi rend='italic'>John 8:44</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 15:21</hi>. That it is spiritual, is evident from <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:18, 21</hi>, +where ζωή is the opposite of θάνατος, and from <hi rend='italic'>2 Tim. 1:10</hi>, where the same contrast occurs. +The οὔτος in <hi rend='italic'>verse 12</hi> shows the mode in which historically death has come to all, namely, +that the <emph>one</emph> 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 <hi rend='italic'>verse 14</hi> teaches. +</p> + +<p> +Ἥμαρτον mentions the particular reason why all men died, <hi rend='italic'>viz.</hi>, 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, <q>because, when Adam sinned, all men sinned +in and with him.</q> This is proved by the succeeding explanatory context (<hi rend='italic'>verses 15-19</hi>), 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 <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 15:22</hi>. The senses <q>all were sinful,</q> <q>all +became sinful,</q> are inadmissible, for ἁμαρτάνειν is not ἁμαρτωλὸν γίγνεσθαι or εἶναι. The +sense <q>death passed upon all men, because all have consciously and personally sinned,</q> +is contradicted (1) by <hi rend='italic'>verse 14</hi>, 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, <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, individual and conscious transgressions; +and (2) by <hi rend='italic'>verses 15-19</hi>, 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 <q>were +accounted and treated as sinners</q>; 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, +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Verse 13</hi> begins a demonstration of the proposition, in <hi rend='italic'>Verse 12</hi>, 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 <emph>Mosaic</emph> 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Verse 14</hi>. Nor could it have been personal and conscious violation of an <emph>unwritten</emph> 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, <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 2:17</hi>. The relation between their sin and +Adam's is not that of <emph>resemblance</emph>, but of <emph>identity</emph>. Had the sin by which death came +upon them been one <emph>like</emph> 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>through one man</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>verse 12</hi>), and judgment +would have come upon all men to condemnation through millions of trespasses, and not +<q><hi rend='italic'>through one trespass</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>v. 18</hi>). The object, then, of the parenthetical digression in <hi rend='italic'>verses 13</hi> and +<hi rend='italic'>14</hi> is to prevent the reader from supposing, from the statement that <q>all men sinned,</q> +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 <emph>similar</emph> (ὁμοίος) to Adam's, +but Adam's <emph>identical</emph> sin, the very same sin numerically of the <q><hi rend='italic'>one man</hi>.</q> 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 (<hi rend='italic'>versus</hi> Current Discussions in Theology, +5:277, 278). They did not sin <emph>like</emph> Adam, but they <q>sinned <emph>in</emph> him, and fell <emph>with</emph> him, in +that first transgression</q> (Westminster Larger Catechism, 22). +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Verses 15-17</hi> show how the work of grace differs from, and surpasses, the work of sin. +<pb n='627'/><anchor id='Pg627'/> +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 <q>the many</q> who die in Adam +are not conterminous with <q><hi rend='italic'>the many</hi></q> who live in Christ; see <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 15:22</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 25:46</hi>; also, +see note on <hi rend='italic'>verse 18</hi>, below. Τοὺς πολλούς here refers to the same persons who, in <hi rend='italic'>verse 17</hi>, +are said to <q><hi rend='italic'>receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness</hi>.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Verse 16</hi> notices a numerical +difference between the condemnation and the justification. Condemnation results from +<emph>one</emph> offense; justification delivers from <emph>many</emph> offences. <hi rend='italic'>Verse 17</hi> enforces and explains +<hi rend='italic'>verse 16</hi>. 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Verse 18</hi> resumes the parallel between Adam and Christ which was commenced in <hi rend='italic'>verse 12</hi>, +but was interrupted by the explanatory parenthesis in <hi rend='italic'>verses 13-17</hi>. <q><hi rend='italic'>As through one trespass ... unto +all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness ... unto all men unto justification of</hi> +[necessary to] <hi rend='italic'>life</hi>.</q> Here the <q><hi rend='italic'>all men to condemnation</hi></q>—the οἱ πολλοί in <hi rend='italic'>verse 15</hi>; and the <q><hi rend='italic'>all +men unto justification of life</hi></q>—the τοὺς πολλούς in <hi rend='italic'>verse 15</hi>. There is a totality in each case; but, +in the former case, it is the <q><hi rend='italic'>all men</hi></q> who derive their physical life from Adam,—in the +latter case, it is the <q><hi rend='italic'>all men</hi></q> who derive their spiritual life from Christ (compare <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. +15:22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive</hi></q>—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). +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Verse 19.</hi> <q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> The many were constituted sinners because, +according to <hi rend='italic'>verse 12</hi>, 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>one trespass</hi>,</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Κατασταθήσονται has the same signification as in the first part of the verse. Δίκαιοι +κατασταθήσονται means simply <q>shall be justified,</q> and is used instead of δικαιωθήσονται, +in order to make the antithesis of ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν more perfect. This being <q><hi rend='italic'>constituted +righteous</hi></q> presupposes the fact of a union between ὁ εἶς and οἱ πολλοί, <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, between +Christ and believers, just as the being <q><hi rend='italic'>constituted sinners</hi></q> presupposed the fact of a union +between ὁ εἶς and οἱ πολλοί, <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, between all men and Adam. The future κατασταθήσονται +refers to the succession of believers; the <emph>justification</emph> of all was, ideally, complete +already, but actually, it would await the times of individual believing. <q><hi rend='italic'>The many</hi></q> who +shall be <q><hi rend='italic'>constituted righteous</hi></q>—not all mankind, but only <q><hi rend='italic'>the many</hi></q> to whom, in <hi rend='italic'>verse 15</hi>, +grace abounded, and who are described, in <hi rend='italic'>verse 17</hi>, as <q><hi rend='italic'>they that receive abundance of grace and of +the gift of righteousness</hi>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>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</q> +(Shedd). For a different interpretation (ἡμαρτον—sinned personally and individually), +see Kendrick, in Bap. Rev., 1885:48-72. +</p> + +</quote> + +<pb n='628'/><anchor id='Pg628'/> + +<!-- +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{0.7cm} p{0.9cm} p{0.9cm} p{0.9cm} p{0.9cm} p{0.9cm} p{0.9cm}'; + tblcolumns: 'lw(6) lw(7) lw(7) lw(7) lw(7) lw(7) lw(7)'"> +<row><cell></cell><cell></cell><cell>No Condemnation Inherited.</cell><cell></cell> + <cell></cell><cell>Condemnation Inherited.</cell><cell></cell></row> +<row><cell></cell><cell>Pelagian.</cell><cell>Arminian.</cell><cell>New School.</cell> + <cell>Federal.</cell><cell>Placean.</cell><cell>Augustinian.</cell></row> +<row><cell>I. Origin of the soul.</cell><cell>Immediate Creation.</cell> + <cell>Immediate creation.</cell><cell>Immediate creation.</cell> + <cell>Immediate creation.</cell><cell>Immediate creation.</cell> + <cell>Immediate creation.</cell></row> +<row><cell>II. Man's state at birth.</cell><cell>Innocent, and able to obey God.</cell> + <cell>Depraved, but still able to co-operate with the Spirit.</cell> + <cell>Depraved and vicious, but this not sin.</cell> + <cell>Depraved, unable, and condemnable.</cell> + <cell>Depraved, unable, and condemnable.</cell> + <cell>Depraved, unable, and condemnable.</cell></row> +<row><cell>III. Effects of Adam's sin.</cell> + <cell>Only upon himself.</cell> + <cell>To corrupt his posterity physically and intellectually. No guilt of Adam's sin imputed.</cell> + <cell>To communicate visiosity to the whole race.</cell> + <cell>To insure condemnation of his fellows in covenant, and their creation as depraved.</cell> + <cell>Natural connection of depravity in all his descendants.</cell> + <cell>Guilt of Adam's sin, corruption, and death.</cell></row> +<row><cell>IV. How did all sin?</cell> + <cell>By following Adam's example.</cell> + <cell>By consciously ratifying Adam's own deed, in spite of the Spirit's aid.</cell> + <cell>By voluntary transgression of known law.</cell> + <cell>By being accounted sinners in Adam's sin.</cell> + <cell>By possessing a depraved nature.</cell> + <cell>By having part in the sin of Adam, as seminal head of the race.</cell></row> +<row><cell>V. What is corruption?</cell> + <cell>Only of evil habit, in each case.</cell> + <cell>Evil tendencies kept in spite of the Spirit.</cell> + <cell>Uncondemnable, but evil tendencies.</cell> + <cell>Condemnable, evil disposition and state.</cell> + <cell>Condemnable, evil disposition and state.</cell> + <cell>Condemnable, evil disposition and state.</cell></row> +<row><cell>VI. What is imputed?</cell> + <cell>Every man's own sins.</cell> + <cell>Only man's own sins and ratifying of this nature.</cell> + <cell>Man's individual acts of transgression.</cell> + <cell>Adam's sin, man's own corruption, and man's own sins.</cell> + <cell>Only depraved nature and man's own sin.</cell> + <cell>Adam's sin, our depravity, and our own sins.</cell></row> +<row><cell>VII. What is the death incurred?</cell> + <cell>Spiritual and eternal.</cell> + <cell>Physical and spiritual death by decree.</cell> + <cell>Spiritual and eternal death only.</cell> + <cell>Physical, spiritual, and eternal.</cell> + <cell>Physical, spiritual, and eternal.</cell> + <cell>Physical, spiritual, and eternal.</cell></row> +<row><cell>VIII. How are men saved?</cell> + <cell>By following Christ's example.</cell> + <cell>By co-operating with the Spirit given to all.</cell> + <cell>By accepting Christ under influence of truth presented by the Spirit.</cell> + <cell>By being accounted righteous through the act of Christ.</cell> + <cell>By becoming possessors of a new nature in Christ.</cell> + <cell>By Christ's work, with whom we are one.</cell></row> +</table> +--> + +<p>No Condemnation Inherited.</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{0.9cm} p{2cm} p{2cm} p{2cm}'; + tblcolumns: 'lw(15) lw(16) lw(16) lw(16)'"> +<row><cell></cell><cell>Pelagian.</cell><cell>Arminian.</cell><cell>New School.</cell></row> +<row><cell></cell></row> +<row><cell>I. Origin of the soul.</cell><cell>Immediate Creation.</cell> + <cell>Immediate creation.</cell><cell>Immediate creation.</cell></row> +<row><cell>II. Man's state at birth.</cell><cell>Innocent, and able to obey God.</cell> + <cell>Depraved, but still able to co-operate with the Spirit.</cell> + <cell>Depraved and vicious, but this not sin.</cell></row> +<row><cell>III. Effects of Adam's sin.</cell> + <cell>Only upon himself.</cell> + <cell>To corrupt his posterity physically and intellectually. No guilt of Adam's sin imputed.</cell> + <cell>To communicate visiosity to the whole race.</cell></row> +<row><cell>IV. How did all sin?</cell> + <cell>By following Adam's example.</cell> + <cell>By consciously ratifying Adam's own deed, in spite of the Spirit's aid.</cell> + <cell>By voluntary transgression of known law.</cell></row> +<row><cell>V. What is corruption?</cell> + <cell>Only of evil habit, in each case.</cell> + <cell>Evil tendencies kept in spite of the Spirit.</cell> + <cell>Uncondemnable, but evil tendencies.</cell></row> +<row><cell>VI. What is imputed?</cell> + <cell>Every man's own sins.</cell> + <cell>Only man's own sins and ratifying of this nature.</cell> + <cell>Man's individual acts of transgression.</cell></row> +<row><cell>VII. What is the death incurred?</cell> + <cell>Spiritual and eternal.</cell> + <cell>Physical and spiritual death by decree.</cell> + <cell>Spiritual and eternal death only.</cell></row> +<row><cell>VIII. How are men saved?</cell> + <cell>By following Christ's example.</cell> + <cell>By co-operating with the Spirit given to all.</cell> + <cell>By accepting Christ under influence of truth presented by the Spirit.</cell></row> +</table> + +<p>Condemnation Inherited.</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{0.9cm} p{2cm} p{2cm} p{2cm}'; + tblcolumns: 'lw(15) lw(16) lw(16) lw(16)'"> +<row><cell></cell><cell>Federal.</cell><cell>Placean.</cell><cell>Augustinian.</cell></row> +<row><cell></cell></row> +<row><cell>I. Origin of the soul.</cell> + <cell>Immediate creation.</cell><cell>Immediate creation.</cell> + <cell>Immediate creation.</cell></row> +<row><cell>II. Man's state at birth.</cell> + <cell>Depraved, unable, and condemnable.</cell> + <cell>Depraved, unable, and condemnable.</cell> + <cell>Depraved, unable, and condemnable.</cell></row> +<row><cell>III. Effects of Adam's sin.</cell> + <cell>To insure condemnation of his fellows in covenant, and their creation as depraved.</cell> + <cell>Natural connection of depravity in all his descendants.</cell> + <cell>Guilt of Adam's sin, corruption, and death.</cell></row> +<row><cell>IV. How did all sin?</cell> + <cell>By being accounted sinners in Adam's sin.</cell> + <cell>By possessing a depraved nature.</cell> + <cell>By having part in the sin of Adam, as seminal head of the race.</cell></row> +<row><cell>V. What is corruption?</cell> + <cell>Condemnable, evil disposition and state.</cell> + <cell>Condemnable, evil disposition and state.</cell> + <cell>Condemnable, evil disposition and state.</cell></row> +<row><cell>VI. What is imputed?</cell> + <cell>Adam's sin, man's own corruption, and man's own sins.</cell> + <cell>Only depraved nature and man's own sin.</cell> + <cell>Adam's sin, our depravity, and our own sins.</cell></row> +<row><cell>VII. What is the death incurred?</cell> + <cell>Physical, spiritual, and eternal.</cell> + <cell>Physical, spiritual, and eternal.</cell> + <cell>Physical, spiritual, and eternal.</cell></row> +<row><cell>VIII. How are men saved?</cell> + <cell>By being accounted righteous through the act of Christ.</cell> + <cell>By becoming possessors of a new nature in Christ.</cell> + <cell>By Christ's work, with whom we are one.</cell></row> +</table> + +</div> + +</div> + +<pb n='629'/><anchor id='Pg629'/> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>II.—Objections to the Augustinian Doctrine of Imputation.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +A. That there can be no sin apart from and prior to consciousness. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +B. That man cannot be responsible for a sinful nature which he did +not personally originate. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <emph>in Adam</emph>, though that fall could not be repeated in the case of any one of his +descendants. Hovey, Outlines, 129—<q>Shall we say that <emph>will</emph> is the cause of sin in holy +beings, while <emph>wrong desire</emph> is the cause of sin in unholy beings? Augustine held this.</q> +Pepper, Outlines, 112—<q>We do not fall each one by himself. We were so on probation +in Adam, that his fall was our fall.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +C. That Adam's sin cannot be imputed to us, since we cannot repent +of it. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='630'/><anchor id='Pg630'/> +truth it is this nature, as self-corrupted and averse to God, for which the +Christian most deeply repents. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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—<q>Adam sinned in one point of view as a person, in +another as man (<hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, 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 <emph>nature</emph>. 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 <emph>persons</emph> 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.</q>—more briefly, in +Adam a person made nature sinful; in his posterity, nature makes persons sinful. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father</q> +(Ez. 18:20; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <q><hi rend='italic'>the third and +fourth generation</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Ex. 20:5</hi>). 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 (<hi rend='italic'>18:20</hi>), <q><hi rend='italic'>the son +shall not bear the iniquity of the father,</hi></q> like Christ's denial that blindness was due to the blind +man's individual sins or those of his parents (<hi rend='italic'>John 9:2, 3</hi>), simply shows that God does +not impute to us the sins of our immediate ancestors; it is not inconsistent with the doctrine +<pb n='631'/><anchor id='Pg631'/> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>To inherit a temperament is to inherit a secondary +trait.</q> H. B. Smith, System, 296—<q>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.</q> Mozley +on Predestination, 179—<q>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.</q> 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: <q>The apple does not fall far from the tree.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +E. That if Adam's sin and condemnation can be ours by propagation, +the righteousness and faith of the believer should be propagable also. +</p> + +<p> +We reply that no merely personal qualities, whether of sin or righteousness, +are communicated by propagation. Ordinary generation does not +transmit <emph>personal</emph> guilt, but only that guilt which belongs to the whole +<emph>species</emph>. So personal faith and righteousness are not propagable. <q>Original +sin is the consequent of man's <emph>nature</emph>, whereas the parents' grace is a +<emph>personal</emph> excellence, and cannot be transmitted</q> (Burgesse). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <emph>personal</emph> +is propagated (Thomas Aquinas, 2:629). Anselm (De Concept. Virg. et Origin. Peccato, +98) will not decide the question. <q>The original nature of the tree is propagated—not +the nature of the graft</q>—when seed from the graft is planted. Burgesse: +<q>Learned parents do not convey learning to their children, but they are born in ignorance +as others.</q> Augustine: <q>A Jew that was circumcised begat children not circumcised, +but uncircumcised; and the seed that was sown without husks, yet produced +corn with husks.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>effort</emph> 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 <emph>environment</emph>, 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 <emph>innate +tendency</emph> 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 <emph>affluents</emph> of the stream of humanity; +Weismann holds, on the contrary, that acquired characters are not transmitted, and +that individual men are only <emph>effluents</emph> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Weismann, Heredity, 2:14, 266-270, 482—<q>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.</q> 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—<q>Three additional cases of cats which +<pb n='632'/><anchor id='Pg632'/> +have lost their tails having tailless kittens afterwards.</q> In his Weismannism, Romanes +writes: <q>The truly scientific attitude of mind with regard to the problem of heredity +is to say with Galton: <q>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 <emph>inherited</emph>, in the correct sense of that word.</q></q> This seems to class both Romanes +and Galton on the side of Weismann in the controversy. Burbank, however, says that +<q>acquired characters are transmitted, or I know nothing of plant life.</q> +</p> + +<p> +A. H. Bradford, Heredity, 19, 20, illustrates the opposing views: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The conclusion best warranted by science seems to be that of Wallace, in the Forum, +August, 1890, namely, that there is always a <emph>tendency</emph> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Bascom, Comparative Psychology, chap. VII—<q>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.</q> Shaler, Interpretation of Nature, 88—<q>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.</q> +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. <hi rend='italic'>Dale, Ephesians, 189</hi>—<q>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.</q> See A. M. Marshall, Biological Lectures, 273; Mivart, in +Harper's Magazine, March, 1895:682; Bixby, Crisis in Morals, 176. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='633'/><anchor id='Pg633'/> +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.) +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 6:19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 4:22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>waxeth corrupt +after the lusts of deceit</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>James 1:15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Then the lust, when it hath conceived, beareth sin: and the sin, when it is +full-grown, bringeth forth death</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Tim. 3:13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>evil men and impostors shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and +being deceived.</hi></q> See Meyer on <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 1:24</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto +uncleanness.</hi></q> All effects become in their turn causes. Schiller: <q>This is the very curse of +evil deed, That of new evil it becomes the seed.</q> Tennyson, Vision of Sin: <q>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.</q> Whiton, Is Eternal Punishment +Endless, 52—<q>The punishment of sin essentially consists in the wider spread and +stronger hold of the malady of the soul. <hi rend='italic'>Prov. 5:22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>His own iniquities shall take the wicked.</hi></q> +The habit of sinning holds the wicked <q><hi rend='italic'>with the cords of his sin</hi>.</q> Sin is self-perpetuating. +The sinner gravitates from worse to worse, in an ever-deepening fall.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Wisdom, 11:16—<q>Wherewithal a man sinneth, by the same also he shall be punished.</q> +Shakespeare, Richard II, 5:5—<q>I wasted time, and now doth time waste me</q>; Richard +III, 4:2—<q>I am in so far in blood, that sin will pluck on sin</q>; Pericles, 1:1—<q>One sin +I know another doth provoke; Murder's as near to lust as flame to smoke;</q> King +Lear, 5:3—<q>The gods are just, and of our pleasant vices Make instruments to scourge +us.</q> <q>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</q> (James Russell Lowell). Mrs. Humphrey Ward, David Grieve, +410—<q>After all, there's not much hope when the craving returns on a man of his age, +especially after some years' interval.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <emph>bound</emph> by motives nor by character. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>What we +inherit may be said to fix our trial, but not our fate. We belong to God as well as to +the past.</q> <q><hi rend='italic'>All souls are mine</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Ez. 18:4</hi>); <q><hi rend='italic'>Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 18:37</hi>). +Thomas Fuller: <q>1. Roboam begat Abia; that is, a bad father begat a bad son; 2. Abia +<pb n='634'/><anchor id='Pg634'/> +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.</q> Butcher, Aspects of Greek Genius, 121—Among the Greeks, <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Julius Müller, Doc. Sin, 2:316—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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 (<hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Identification of the individual with the nation or the race: <hi rend='italic'>Is. 6:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Lam. 3:42</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>We +have transgressed and have rebelled</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Ezra 9:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I am ashamed and blush to lift up my face to thee, my God; for +our iniquities are increased over our head</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Neh. 1:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I confess the sins of the children of Israel.... Yea, I and +my father's house have sinned.</hi></q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +H. B. Smith, System, 296, 297—<q>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.... <hi rend='italic'>Jer. 32:18</hi> 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 <q>consequences</q> of family or tribal or national or race +relations,—<q>Evil becomes cosmical by reason of fastening on relations which were +originally adapted to making good cosmical:</q> but then God's <emph>plan</emph> 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='635'/><anchor id='Pg635'/> +all things clear; see Fisher, Nature and Method of Revelation, 151-157. Bradford, +Heredity, 34, quotes from Elam, A Physician's Problems, 5—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Pascal: <q>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.</q> 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 +<emph>sins</emph> as rooted in <emph>sin</emph> can properly recognize the evil of them. To such they are <emph>symptoms</emph> +of an apostasy from God so deep-seated and universal that nothing but infinite grace +can deliver us from it. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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: (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) A constitution which made a common +fall possible may have been indispensable to any provision of a common salvation. +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) Our chance for salvation as sinners under grace may be better +than it would have been as sinless Adams under law. (<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. (<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) There is also a <emph>physical</emph> and <emph>natural</emph> 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 +<emph>moral</emph> union with God which the race has lost by the fall. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Stearns, in N. Eng., Jan. 1882:95—<q>The silence of Scripture respecting the precise +connection between the first great sin and the sins of the millions of individuals who +<pb n='636'/><anchor id='Pg636'/> +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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Stahl, Philosophie des Rechts, quoted in Olshausen's Com. on <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:12-21</hi>—<q>Adam is +the original <emph>matter</emph> of humanity; Christ is its original <emph>idea</emph> 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +H. E. Robins, Harmony of Ethics with Theology, 51—<q>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.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> William Ashmore, on the New +Trial of the Sinner, in Christian Review, 26:245-264—<q>There is a gospel of nature commensurate +with the law of nature; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 3:22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>unto all, and upon all them that believe</hi></q>; the first <q><emph>all</emph></q> +is unlimited; the second <q><emph>all</emph></q> is limited to those who believe.</q> +</p> + +<p> +R. W. Dale, Ephesians, 180—<q>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 +<pb n='637'/><anchor id='Pg637'/> +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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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. <hi rend='italic'>Per contra</hi>, see Moxom, in Bap. Rev., 1881:273-287; Park, +Discourses, 210-233; Bradford, Heredity, 237. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Section VI.—Consequences Of Sin To Adam's Posterity.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>I. Depravity.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: +</p> + +</quote> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. Depravity partial or total?</head> + +<p> +The Scriptures represent human nature as totally depraved. The phrase +<q>total depravity,</q> however, is liable to misinterpretation, and should not +be used without explanation. By the total depravity of universal humanity +we mean: +</p> + +<p> +A. Negatively,—not that every sinner is: (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) Destitute of conscience,—for +the existence of strong impulses to right, and of remorse for wrong-doing, +show that conscience is often keen; (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) devoid of all qualities +pleasing to men, and useful when judged by a human standard,—for the +<pb n='638'/><anchor id='Pg638'/> +existence of such qualities is recognized by Christ; (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) prone to every +form of sin,—for certain forms of sin exclude certain others; (<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) intense +as he can be in his selfishness and opposition to God,—for he becomes +worse every day. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>John 8:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And they, when they heard it, went out one by one, beginning from the eldest, even unto the +last</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 7:53-8:11</hi>, 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: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Mark 10:21</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And Jesus looking upon him loved him.</hi></q> These very qualities, however, may +show that their possessors are sinning against great light and are the more guilty; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> +<hi rend='italic'>Mal. 1:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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?</hi></q> John Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 2:75—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 23:23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 2:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +The sin of miserliness may exclude the sin of luxury; the sin of pride may exclude the +sin of sensuality. Shakespeare, Othello, 2:3—<q>It hath pleased the devil Drunkenness +to give place to the devil Wrath.</q> 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: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 15:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Tim. 3:13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>evil men and impostors shall wax +worse and worse.</hi></q> Depravity is not simply being deprived of good. Depravation (<foreign rend='italic'>de</foreign>, and +<foreign rend='italic'>pravus</foreign>, 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 +<q><hi rend='italic'>the light which lighteth every man</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 1:9</hi>). Prof. Wm. Adams Brown: <q>In so far as God's +Spirit is at work among men and they receive <q><hi rend='italic'>the Light which lighteth every man</hi>,</q> 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. <q><hi rend='italic'>It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 11:24</hi>).</q> +</p> + +<p> +Men are not yet in the condition of demons. Only here and there have they attained +to <q>a disinterested love of evil.</q> Such men are few, and they were not born so. +There are degrees in depravity. E. G. Robinson: <q>There is a good streak left in the +devil yet.</q> Even Satan will become worse than he now is. The phrase <q>total depravity</q> +has respect only to relations to God, and it means incapability of doing anything +<pb n='639'/><anchor id='Pg639'/> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +B. Positively,—that every sinner is: (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) totally destitute of that love +to God which constitutes the fundamental and all-inclusive demand of the +law; (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) chargeable with elevating some lower affection or desire above +regard for God and his law; (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) supremely determined, in his whole +inward and outward life, by a preference of self to God; (<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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; (<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) disordered +and corrupted in every faculty, through this substitution of selfishness +for supreme affection toward God; (<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) credited with no thought, +emotion, or act of which divine holiness can fully approve; (<hi rend='italic'>g</hi>) subject +to a law of constant progress in depravity, which he has no recuperative +energy to enable him successfully to resist. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>John 5:42</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in yourselves.</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>2 Tim. 3:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>lovers of +pleasure rather than lovers of God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Mal 1:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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?</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>2 Tim. 3:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>lovers of self</hi></q>; +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 8:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the mind of the flesh is enmity against God.</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 4:18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>darkened in their understanding.... hardening +of their heart</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Tit. 1:15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>both their mind and their conscience are defiled</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 7:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>defilement +of flesh and spirit</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 3:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>an evil heart of unbelief</hi></q>; (<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 3:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>they are all under sin</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>7:18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing.</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>g</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 7:18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>to will is present with me, but to +do that which is good is not</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>able to save to the uttermost them that draw near +unto God through him</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 7:25</hi>). Even the unregenerate heathen may <q><hi rend='italic'>put away ... the old man</hi></q> +and <q><hi rend='italic'>put on the new man</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Eph. 4:23, 24</hi>), being delivered <q><hi rend='italic'>out of the body of this death ... through Jesus +Christ our Lord</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 7:24, 25</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +H. B. Smith, System, 277—<q>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 (<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>justitia civilis</foreign>). 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 <emph>whole</emph> 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 +<pb n='640'/><anchor id='Pg640'/> +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 <q>totality</q> of man's sinfulness: unrenewed men have not that supreme +love of God which is the substance of the first and great command.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. Ability or inability?</head> + +<p> +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 <emph>can</emph> (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) avoid the sin +against the Holy Ghost; (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) choose the less sin rather than the greater; +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) refuse altogether to yield to certain temptations; (<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) do outwardly +good acts, though with imperfect motives; (<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) seek God from motives of +self-interest. +</p> + +<p> +But on the other hand the sinner <emph>cannot</emph> (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) by a single volition bring +his character and life into complete conformity to God's law; (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) change +his fundamental preference for self and sin to supreme love for God; nor +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) do any act, however insignificant, which shall meet with God's approval +or answer fully to the demands of law. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <emph>original</emph> +ability, when he came, in Adam, from the hands of his Maker. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +The sinner can do one very important thing, <hi rend='italic'>viz.</hi>: give attention to divine truth. <hi rend='italic'>Ps. +119:59</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I thought on my ways, And turned my feet unto thy testimonies.</hi></q> G. W. Northrup: <q>The +sinner can seek God from: (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) self-love, regard for his own interest; (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) feeling of +duty, sense of obligation, awakened conscience; (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) gratitude for blessings already +received; (<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) aspiration after the infinite and satisfying.</q> Denney, Studies in Theology, +85—<q>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 <emph>one</emph> +thing which man cannot do <emph>alone</emph>,—he cannot bring his state into harmony with his +nature. When a man has been discovered who has been able, without Christ, to reconcile +<pb n='641'/><anchor id='Pg641'/> +himself to God and to obtain dominion over the world and over sin, <emph>then</emph> the +doctrine of inability, or of the bondage due to sin, may be denied; <emph>then</emph>, but <emph>not till +then</emph>.</q> The Free Church of Scotland, in the Declaratory Act of 1892, says <q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +To the use of the term <q>natural ability</q> to designate merely the sinner's +possession of all the constituent faculties of human nature, we object upon +the following grounds: +</p> + +<p> +A. Quantitative lack.—The phrase <q>natural ability</q> 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +When Jean Paul Richter says of himself: <q>I have made of myself all that could be +made out of the stuff,</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Wilkinson, Epic of Paul, 21—<q>Hatred is like love Herein, that it, by only being, +grows. Until at last usurping quite the man, It overgrows him like a polypus.</q> John +Caird, Fund. Ideas, 1:53—<q>The ideal is the revelation in me of a power that is mightier +than my own. The supreme command <q>Thou oughtest</q> is the utterance, only different +in form, of the same voice in my spirit which says <q>Thou canst</q>; 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.</q> This conscious inability in one's self, together with reception of <q><hi rend='italic'>the strength +which God supplieth</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>1 Pet. 4:11</hi>), is the secret of Paul's courage; <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 12:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>when I am weak, +then am I strong</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Phil. 2:12, 13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +C. No such ability known.—In addition to the psychological argument +just mentioned, we may urge another from experience and observation. +<pb n='642'/><anchor id='Pg642'/> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<q>Solomon could not keep the Proverbs,—so he wrote them.</q> The book of Proverbs +needs for its complement the New Testament explanation of helplessness and offer of +help: <hi rend='italic'>John 15:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>apart from me ye can do nothing</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>6:37</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast +out.</hi></q> 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—<q>If bidden, we can stretch out a withered arm; but God +does not require this of one born armless. We may <q><hi rend='italic'>hear the voice of the Son of God</hi></q> and +<q><hi rend='italic'>live</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 5:25</hi>), but we shall not bring out of the tomb faculties not possessed before +death.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Those who care most for self are those in whom self becomes thoroughly subjected +and enslaved to external influences. <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 16:25</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>whosoever would save his life shall lose it.</hi></q> 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. <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 49:20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Man +that is in honor, and understandeth not, Is like the beasts that perish</hi>;</q> see R. T. Smith, Man's +Knowledge of Man and of God, 121. Robert Browning, unpublished poem: <q><q>Would a +man 'scape the rod?</q> Rabbi Ben Karshook saith, <q>See that he turn to God The day +before his death.</q> <q>Aye, could a man inquire When it shall come?</q> I say. The Rabbi's +eye shoots fire—<q>Then let him turn to-day.</q></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>John 1:13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>3:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Except +one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>6:44</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>No man can come to me, +except the Father that sent me draw him</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>8:34</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Every one that committeth sin is the bondservant of sin</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>15:4, 5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the +branch cannot bear fruit of itself ... apart from me ye can do nothing</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 7:18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>24</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Wretched +man that I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death?</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>8:7, 8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 2:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; +<pb n='643'/><anchor id='Pg643'/> +and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 3:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>not that we are sufficient of ourselves, +to account anything as from ourselves</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 2:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>dead through your trespasses and sins</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>8-10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 11:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>without faith it is impossible +to be well-pleasing unto him.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +Kant's <q>I ought, therefore I can</q> 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 <q>Ich soll, also Ich kann,</q> Julius Müller would substitute: +<q>Ich sollte freilich können, aber Ich kann nicht</q>—<q>I ought indeed to be +able, but I am not able.</q> 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 <q>Voluntariness,</q> says: <q>So near is grandeur to our dust, So near is God to +man, When duty whispers low, <hi rend='italic'>Thou must</hi>, The youth replies, <hi rend='italic'>I can</hi>.</q> 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>free among the dead</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 88:5</hi>, A. V.). There was a +range of freedom inside of slavery,—the will was <q>a drop of water imprisoned in a +solid crystal</q> (Oliver Wendell Holmes). The man who kills himself is as dead as if he +had been killed by another (Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:106). +</p> + +<p> +Westminster Confession, 9:3—<q>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.</q> Hopkins, Works, 1:233-235—<q>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.</q> Hopkins speaks of <q>utter inability to obey the +law of God, yea, utter impossibility.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:257-277—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:213-257, and in South Church Sermons, 33-59—<q>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.</q> 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 <hi rend='italic'>Gal 2:20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>it is no longer I that live, but +Christ liveth in me</hi></q>; or be minions of <q><hi rend='italic'>the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Eph. 2:2</hi>). +But if we yield ourselves to the influence of Satan, the recovery of our true personality +becomes increasingly difficult, and at last impossible. +</p> + +<pb n='644'/><anchor id='Pg644'/> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +For the Arminian <q>gracious ability,</q> see Raymond, Syst. Theol., 2:130; McClintock & +Strong, Cyclopædia, 10:990. <hi rend='italic'>Per contra</hi>, 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 <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>lineamenta extrema</foreign> (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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>II. Guilt.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. Nature of guilt.</head> + +<p> +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 <q>the +wrath of God</q> (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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Guilt is related to sin as the burnt spot to the blaze. Schiller, Die Braut von Messina: +<q>Das Leben ist der Güter höchstes nicht; Der Uebel grösstes aber ist die Schuld</q>—<q>Life +is not the highest of possessions; the greatest of ills, however, is guilt.</q> +Delitzsch: <q>Die Schamröthe ist die Abendröthe der untergegangenen Sonne der +ursprünglichen Gerechtigkeit</q>—<q>The blush of shame is the evening red after the sun +of original righteousness has gone down.</q> E. G. Robinson: <q>Pangs of conscience do +not arise from the fear of penalty,—they are the penalty itself.</q> See chapter on Fig-leaves, +in McIlvaine, Wisdom of Holy Scripture, 142-154—<q>Spiritual shame for sin +sought an outward symbol, and found it in the nakedness of the lower parts of the +body.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +The following remarks may serve both for proof and for explanation: +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Ez. 18:20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father</hi></q>—, as Calvin says (Com. <hi rend='italic'>in loco</hi>): <q>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.</q> In other words, the whole race fell in Adam, +<pb n='645'/><anchor id='Pg645'/> +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. <hi rend='italic'>John 9:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Neither did this man sin, nor his parents</hi></q> +(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 <q>brought death into the world, and +all our woe.</q> Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:195-213. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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 <emph>pollution</emph>,—it also, as antagonism to God's holy will, involves <emph>guilt</emph>. +This guilt, or obligation to satisfy the outraged holiness of God, is explained +in the New Testament by the terms <q>debtor</q> and <q>debt</q> (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). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 51:4-6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>7:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>God is a righteous judge, Yea, a God that hath +indignation every day</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 3:18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he that believeth not hath been judged already</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>36</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he that obeyeth not +the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 9:22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>apart from shedding of blood there is +no remission</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 6:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>debts</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Luke 13:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>offenders</hi></q> (marg. <q><hi rend='italic'>debtors</hi></q>); <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 5:21</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>shall be in +danger of</hi></q> [exposed to] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>the judgment</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 3:19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>that ... all the world may be brought under the +judgment of God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>6:23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the wages of sin is death</hi></q>—death is sin's desert; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 2:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>by nature +children of wrath</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 5:21</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 John 1:7, 8</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>the +blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin.</hi></q> [Yet] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the +truth is not in us.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +Sin brings in its train not only depravity but guilt, not only <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>macula</foreign> but <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>reatus</foreign>. Scripture +sets forth the <emph>pollution</emph> of sin by its similies of <q>a cage of unclean birds</q> and of +<q>wounds, bruises, and putrefying sores</q>; 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 <emph>guilt</emph> 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: <q><hi rend='italic'>I have a baptism to be baptised with; and how am I straitened till +it be accomplished!</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Luke 12:50; Mark 10:32</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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</q>; Cymbeline, 5:4—<q>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</q>; 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 +<pb n='646'/><anchor id='Pg646'/> +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—<q>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.</q> See also Dinsmore, +Atonement in Literature and Life. +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>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.</q> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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 (<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 97:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Ye that love the Lord, hate evil</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>149:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Let +the high praises of God be in their mouth, And a two-edged sword in their hand</hi></q>—to execute God's judgment +upon iniquity). +</p> + +<p> +This relation of sin to God shows us how Christ is <q><hi rend='italic'>made sin on our behalf</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 5:21</hi>). +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: +<q><hi rend='italic'>Against thee, thee only, have I sinned</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 51:4</hi>). 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>the Lamb of God who</hi></q> takes, and so <q><hi rend='italic'>takes away the sin of the world</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 1:29</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +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 (<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 8:1</hi>), but he is not yet freed from depravity (<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 7:23</hi>). Christ, on the other +hand, was under obligation to suffer (<hi rend='italic'>Luke 24:26</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>Acts 3:18</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>26:23</hi>), while yet he was +without sin (<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 7:26</hi>). 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 <q>to relieve +men from their sense of guilt, objective atonement is necessary,</q>—we would say: to +relieve men from guilt itself—the obligation to suffer. <q>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 <emph>sinned</emph> 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.</q> We claim however that the necessity +of this suffering lies, not in the needs of man, but in the holiness of God. +</p> + +</quote> + +<pb n='647'/><anchor id='Pg647'/> + +<p> +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 <q>the greatest of +sins is to be conscious of none,</q> 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). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Lev. 5:17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 John 3:20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>because if our heart condemn us, God is +greater than our heart, and knoweth all things</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 19:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Who can discern his errors? Clear thou me from hidden +faults</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>51:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts; And in the hidden part thou wilt make me to +know wisdom</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 4:18, 19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>darkened in their understanding ... being past feeling</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 1:29</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>Behold, +the Lamb of God, that taketh away</hi></q> [marg. <q><hi rend='italic'>beareth</hi></q>] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>the sin of the world.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +Plato, Republic, 1:330—<q>When death approaches, cares and alarms awake, especially +the fear of hell and its punishments.</q> Cicero, De Divin., 1:30—<q>Then comes +remorse for evil deeds.</q> Persius, Satire 3—<q>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.</q> Shakespeare, Hamlet, +3:1—<q>Thus conscience doth make cowards of us all</q>; 4:5—<q>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</q>; Richard III, 5:3—<q>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</q>; Tempest, 3:3—<q>All three of them are desperate; their great guilt, Like +poison given to work a great time after, Now 'gins to bite the spirits</q>; Ant. and Cleop., +3:9—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Dr. Shedd said once to a graduating class of young theologians: <q>Would that upon +the naked, palpitating heart of each one of you might be laid one redhot coal of God +Almighty's wrath!</q> Yes, we add, if only that redhot coal might be quenched by one red +drop of Christ's atoning blood. Dr. H. E. Robins: <q>To the convicted sinner a merely +external hell would be a cooling flame, compared with the agony of his remorse.</q> +John Milton represents Satan as saying: <q>Which way I fly is hell; myself am hell.</q> +James Martineau, Life by Jackson, 190—<q>It is of the essence of guilty declension to +administer its own anæsthetics.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> Lyttelton in Lux Mundi, 277—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<pb n='648'/><anchor id='Pg648'/> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. Degrees of guilt.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Luke 12:47, 48</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>shall be beaten with many stripes ... shall be beaten with few stripes</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 2:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>who +will render to every man according to his works.</hi></q> See also <hi rend='italic'>John 19:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he that delivered me unto thee hath +greater sin</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:2, 3</hi>—if <q><hi rend='italic'>every transgression ... received a just recompense of reward; how shall we +escape, if we neglect so great a salvation?</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>10:28, 29</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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?</hi></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 25:45</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these least</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>James 4:17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>To him therefore that knoweth +to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.</hi></q> John Ruskin: <q>The condemnation given from the +Judgment Throne—most solemnly described—is for all the <q>undones</q> and not the +<q>dones.</q> People are perpetually afraid of doing wrong; but unless they are doing its +reverse energetically, they <emph>do it all day long</emph>, and the degree does not matter.</q> 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 <q>all sins are venial but one—for there is a +sin against the Holy Ghost,</q> yet <q>not one is venial in itself—for the least proceeds +from an apostate state and nature.</q> We shall see, however, that the hindrance to pardon, +in the case of the sin against the Holy Spirit, is subjective rather than objective. +</p> + +<p> +J. Spencer Kennard: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +The following distinctions are indicated in Scripture as involving different +degrees of guilt: +</p> + +<p> +A. Sin of nature, and personal transgression. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 19:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven</hi></q>—relative innocence of childhood; <hi rend='italic'>23:32</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Fill +ye up then the measure of your fathers</hi></q>—personal transgression added to inherited depravity. +In preaching, we should first treat individual transgressions, and thence proceed to +<pb n='649'/><anchor id='Pg649'/> +heart-sin, and race-sin. Man is not wholly a spontaneous development of inborn tendencies, +a manifestation of original sin. Motives do not <emph>determine</emph> but they <emph>persuade</emph> +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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>is</emph> the sin of the first transgression; it is only to +say that personal transgression is original sin <emph>plus</emph> the conscious ratification of Adam's +act by the individual. <q>We are guilty for what we <emph>are</emph>, as much as for what we <emph>do</emph>. +Our <emph>sin</emph> is not simply the sum total of all our <emph>sins</emph>. There is a <emph>sinfulness</emph> which is the +common denominator of all our sins.</q> 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. <hi rend='italic'>Prov. 14:9, marg.</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Fools make a mock at sin.</hi></q> +Simon, Reconciliation, 122—<q>The sinfulness of individual men varies; the sinfulness +of humanity is a constant quantity.</q> Robert Browning, Ferishtah's Fancies: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +B. Sins of ignorance, and sins of knowledge. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Mat 10:15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Luke +12:47, 48</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>23:34</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do</hi></q>—complete +knowledge would put them beyond the reach of forgiveness. <hi rend='italic'>John 19:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he that +delivered me unto thee hath greater sin</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Acts 17:30</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 1:32</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 1:13, 15, 16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I +obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Is. 42:19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Who is blind ... as Jehovah's servant?</hi></q> 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—<q>Corruptio optimi pessima est, as seen in a drunken Webster, a treacherous +Bacon, a licentious Goethe.</q> Sir Roger de Coverley observed that none but men +of fine parts deserve to be hanged. Kaftan, Dogmatik, 317—<q>The greater sin often +involves the lesser guilt; the lesser sin the greater guilt.</q> Robert Browning, The +Ring and the Book, 227 (Pope, 1975)—<q>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!</q> Dr. H. E. Robins holds that <q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +C. Sins of infirmity, and sins of presumption. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<pb n='650'/><anchor id='Pg650'/> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 19:12, 13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Clear thou me from hidden faults. Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Is. 5:18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Woe +unto them that draw iniquity with cords of falsehood, and sin as it were with a cart-rope</hi></q>—not led away +insensibly by sin, but earnestly, perseveringly, and wilfully working away at it; <hi rend='italic'>Gal. +6:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>overtaken in any trespass</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 5:24</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Some men's sins are evident, going before unto judgment; and +some men also they follow after</hi></q>—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: <q>Esto peccator, et +pecca fortiter.</q> On sins of passion and of reflection, see Bittinger, in Princeton Rev., +1873:219. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Micah 7:3</hi>, marg.—<q><hi rend='italic'>Both hands are put forth for evil, to do it diligently.</hi></q> So we ought to do good. +<q>My art is my life,</q> said Grisi, the prima donna of the opera, <q>I save myself all day for +that one bound upon the stage.</q> H. Bonar: <q>Sin worketh,—Let me work too. Busy +as sin, my work I ply, Till I rest in the rest of eternity.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +D. Sin of incomplete, and sin of final, obduracy. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Mat 12:31</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not +be forgiven</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>32</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>Mark 3:29</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal +sin</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 John 5:16, 17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 10:26</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Weismann, Heredity, 2:8—<q>As soon as any organ falls into disuse, it degenerates, +and finally is lost altogether.... In parasites the organs of sense degenerate.</q> Marconi's +wireless telegraphy requires an attuned <q>receiver.</q> The <q>transmitter</q> 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: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='651'/><anchor id='Pg651'/> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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; <q>the lava hardens after it has broken from the crater, and in that state cannot +return to its source</q> (Van Oosterzee). The same writer also remarks (Dogmatics, +2:438): <q>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.</q> Julius Müller, Doctrine of Sin, 2:425—<q>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.</q> 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. <q><hi rend='italic'>How shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation?</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Heb.2:3</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +Shakespeare, Macbeth, 3:5—<q>You all know security Is mortals' chiefest enemy.</q> +Moulton, Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist, 90-124—<q>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.</q> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Dr. J. P. Thompson: <q>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.</q> Dorner says that <q>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 +<pb n='652'/><anchor id='Pg652'/> +a soul to which the Spirit has made it manifest (<hi rend='italic'>Acts 17:30</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>The times of ignorance, therefore, +God overlooked</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 3:25</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the passing over of the sins done aforetime</hi></q>).</q> But was it not under the +Old Testament that God said: <q><hi rend='italic'>My Spirit shall not strive with man forever</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 6:3</hi>), and <q><hi rend='italic'>Ephraim +is joined to idols; let him alone</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Hosea 4:17</hi>)? The sin against the Holy Ghost is a sin against +grace, but it does not appear to be limited to New Testament times. +</p> + +<p> +It is still true that the unpardonable sin is a sin committed against the Holy Spirit +rather than against Christ: <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 12:32</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>III. Penalty.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. Idea of penalty.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Turretin, 1:213—<q>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.</q> 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 <q>penalty,</q> +like <q>pain,</q> is derived from pœna, ποινή, and it implies the correlative notion of desert. +As under the divine government there can be no constructive <emph>guilt</emph>, so there can be no +<emph>penalty</emph> 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: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +In this definition it is implied that: +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. <hi rend='italic'>Prov. 5:22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>His own iniquities shall take the wicked, And he shall be holden with the cords of his +sin</hi></q>—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 <q><hi rend='italic'>to fall into the +hands of the living God</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 10:31</hi>) 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. <hi rend='italic'>Jer. 44:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Oh, do not this abominable +thing that I hate!</hi></q> 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. +<pb n='653'/><anchor id='Pg653'/> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>The evil doer weaves a web around himself, as the silkworm weaves its +cocoon.</q> 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: <q>Penalty is the other +half of crime.</q> R. W. Emerson: <q>Punishment not follows, but accompanies, crime.</q> +Sagebeer, The Bible in Court, 59—<q>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.</q> J. B. Thomas, Baptist Congress, +1901:110—<q>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?</q> Tennyson, Sea Dreams: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Punishment is essentially different from chastisement. The latter proceeds from love +(<hi rend='italic'>Jer. 10:24</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>correct me, but in measure; not in thine anger</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 12:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth</hi></q>). +Punishment proceeds not from love but from justice—see <hi rend='italic'>Ez. 28:22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I shall have executed +judgments in her, and shall be sanctified in her</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>36:21, 22</hi>—in judgment, <q><hi rend='italic'>I do not this for your sake, but +for my holy name</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 12:29</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>our God is a consuming fire</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 15:1, 4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>wrath of God ... thou only art +holy ... thy righteous acts have been made manifest</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>16:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Righteous art thou, ... thou Holy One, +because thou didst thus judge</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>19:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>true and righteous are his judgments; for he hath judged the great harlot.</hi></q> +<pb n='654'/><anchor id='Pg654'/> +So untrue is the saying of Sir Thomas More's Utopia: <q>The end of all punishment +is the destruction of vice, and the saving of men.</q> Luther: <q>God has two rods: one of +mercy and goodness; another of anger and fury.</q> Chastisement is the former; penalty +the latter. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>Punishment is not primarily reformatory; it educates conscience +and vindicates the authority of law.</q> R. W. Dale: <q>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.</q> 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 <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>habeas corpus</foreign> decree could be sought, and obtained, from any competent +court. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Alexander, Moral Order and Progress, 327-333 (quoted in Ritchie, Darwin, and Hegel, +67)—<q>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.</q> Hyslop on Freedom, Responsibility, +and Punishment, in Mind, April, 1894:167-189—<q>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.</q> Here +we need only to point out the incorrect use of the word <q>punishment,</q> which belongs +only to the last class. In the two former cases the word <q>chastisement</q> 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 +<pb n='655'/><anchor id='Pg655'/> +Sermons, 4th Series, no. 18 (Harper's ed., 752); see also this Compendium, references +on Holiness, A. (<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>), page 273. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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: +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>desert</emph> 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Kant, Praktische Vernunft, 151 (ed. Rosenkranz)—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>desert</emph>. See Martineau, Types of Ethical Theory, 2:348. +</p> + +<p> +<q>Crime is most prevented by the conviction that crime deserves punishment; the +greatest deterrent agency is conscience.</q> So in the government of God <q>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</q> (see art. on the Philosophy +of Punishment, by F. L. Patton, in Brit. and For. Evang. Rev., Jan. 1878:126-139). +</p> + +<p> +Bowne, Principles of Ethics, 186, 274—Those who maintain punishment to be essentially +deterrent and preventive <q>ignore the metaphysics of responsibility and treat the +problem <q>positively and objectively</q> 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>it was expedient that one man should die for the people</hi></q> +<pb n='656'/><anchor id='Pg656'/> +(<hi rend='italic'>John 18:14</hi>), 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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>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.</q> Lord Bacon: <q>Revenge is a +wild sort of justice.</q> Stephen: <q>Criminal law provides legitimate satisfaction of +the passions of revenge.</q> Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 1:287. <hi rend='italic'>Per contra</hi>, 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. The actual penalty of sin.</head> + +<p> +The one word in Scripture which designates the total penalty of sin is +<q>death.</q> Death, however, is twofold: +</p> + +<p> +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: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) From Scripture. +</p> + +<p> +This is the most obvious import of the threatening in Gen. 2:17—<q>thou +shalt surely die</q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> 3:19—<q>unto dust shalt thou return.</q> Allusions to +this threat in the O. T. confirm this interpretation: Num. 16:29—<q>visited +<pb n='657'/><anchor id='Pg657'/> +after the visitation of all men,</q> where פקד = judicial visitation, or punishment; +27:3 (<hi rend='smallcaps'>lxx</hi>.—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 (<hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> 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. <q>As +the resurrection of the body is a part of the redemption, so the death of +the body is a part of the penalty.</q> +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 90:7, 9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>we are consumed in thine anger ... all our days are passed away in thy wrath</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Is. 38:17, 18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 8:44</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>He</hi></q> [Satan] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>was a murderer from the beginning</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>11:33</hi>—Jesus +<q><hi rend='italic'>groaned in the spirit</hi></q> = was moved with indignation at what sin had wrought; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:12, 14, +16, 17</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q> [trespass] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>unto +condemnation ... by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> the legal phraseology in +<hi rend='italic'>1:32</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practise such things are worthy of death.</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 6:23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the +wages of sin is death</hi></q> = death is sin's just due. <hi rend='italic'>1 Pet. 4:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>that they might be judged indeed according +to men in the flesh</hi></q> = that they might suffer physical death, which to men in general is +the penalty of sin. <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 15:21, 22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 4:24, +25</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up for our trespasses, and was raised for our justification</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>6:9, 10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>8:3, 10, 11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q> (= a corpse, on account of sin—Meyer; so Julius Müller, Doct. Sin, 2:291) ... <q><hi rend='italic'>he +that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall give life also to your mortal bodies</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Gal. 3:13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +On the relation between death and sin, see Griffith-Jones, Ascent through Christ, +169-185—<q>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.</q> Savage, Life +after Death, 33—<q>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.</q> 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: +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>acquired</emph> +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. +</p> + +<pb n='658'/><anchor id='Pg658'/> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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: +<hi rend='italic'>Psalm 90:7, 8</hi> makes this plain: <q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> The whole psalm has for +its theme: Death as the wages of sin. And this is the teaching of Paul, in <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>through +one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin.</hi></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) From reason. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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 (<hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> Rom. 8:20-23—where +the creation is said to have been made subject to vanity by +reason of man's sin). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +On <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 8:20-23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the creation was subjected to vanity, not of its own will</hi></q>—see Meyer's Com., and +Bap. Quar., 1:143; also <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 3:17-19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>cursed is the ground for thy sake.</hi></q> 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 <q>anticipative consequence</q> +of man, so the suffering and death of fish pursued and devoured by other fish were an +<q>anticipative consequence</q> of man's foreseen war with God and with himself. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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 <q>natural,</q> <q>earthly</q> +body, but might have attained a higher being, the <q>spiritual,</q> <q>heavenly</q> +body, without the intervention of death. Sin, however, has turned the +normal condition of things into the rare exception (<hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> 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). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 15:51</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>We shall +not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,</hi></q> 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' +<pb n='659'/><anchor id='Pg659'/> +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: <q>He told it not; or something +sealed The lips of that Evangelist</q>; see Tennyson, In Memoriam, xxxi. +</p> + +<p> +Nicoll, Life of Christ: <q>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.</q> 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: <q>The aged prisoner's chains are needed to support +him; the darkness that has weakened his sight is necessary to preserve it.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>John 14:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 15:54-57</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>—<hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, the law's condemnation, its penal +infliction; <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 5:1-9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Phil. 1:21, 23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>to die is gain ... having the desire to depart and be with Christ; for it is very +far better.</hi></q> 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: <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 8:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>There +is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.</hi></q> At the house of Jairus Jesus said: +<q><hi rend='italic'>Why make ye a tumult, and weep?</hi></q> and having reproved the doleful clamorists, <q><hi rend='italic'>he put them all +forth</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Mark 5:39, 40</hi>). The wakes and requiems and masses and vigils of the churches of +Rome and of Russia are all heathen relics, entirely foreign to Christianity. +</p> + +<p> +Palmer, Theological Definition, 57—<q>Death feared and fought against is terrible; +but a welcome to death is the death of death and the way to life.</q> The idea that punishment +yet remains for the Christian is <q>the bridge to the papal doctrine of purgatorial +fires.</q> Browning's words, in The Ring and the Book, 2:60—<q>In His face is light, +but in his shadow healing too,</q> are applicable to God's fatherly chastenings, but not +to his penal retributions. On <hi rend='italic'>Acts 7:60</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he fell asleep</hi></q>—Arnot remarks: <q>When death +becomes the property of the believer, it receives a new name, and is called sleep.</q> +Another has said: <q>Christ did not send, but came himself to save; The ransom-price +he did not lend, but gave; Christ <emph>died</emph>, the shepherd for the sheep; We only <emph>fall asleep</emph>.</q> +<hi rend='italic'>Per contra</hi>, see Kreibig, Versöhnungslehre, 375, and Hengstenberg, Ev. K.-Z., 1864:1065—<q>All +suffering is punishment.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) Although physical death is a part of the penalty of sin, it is by no +means the chief part. The term <q>death</q> 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 8:22</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>Follow me; and leave the</hi></q> [spiritually] <hi rend='italic'>dead to bury their own</hi> [physically] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>dead</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Luke 15:32</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>this +thy brother was dead, and is alive again</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 5:24</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>8:51</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>If a man keep +my word, he shall never see death</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 8:13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 2:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>5:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Awake, +thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 5:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>she that giveth herself to pleasure is dead while +<pb n='660'/><anchor id='Pg660'/> +she liveth</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>James 5:20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he who converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 John +3:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>He that loveth not abideth in death</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 3:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>thou hast a name that thou livest, and thou art dead.</hi></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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—<q>as sin reigned in death, even so might grace reign through +righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord</q>—where +<q>eternal life</q> is more than endless physical existence, and <q>death</q> is +more than death of the body). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 2:17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 11:26</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>whosoever liveth and believeth +on me shall never die</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:14, 18, 21</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>justification of life ... eternal life</hi></q>; contrast these with <q><hi rend='italic'>death +reigned ... sin reigned in death.</hi></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Acts 1:25</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Judas fell away, that he might go to his own place</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 25:41</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Depart from me, ye cursed, into +the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Thess. 1:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>who shall suffer punishment, even +eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 10:28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>fear him who is able to +destroy both soul and body in hell</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 10:31</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>Rev. 14:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the smoke of their torment goeth up for ever and ever.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +Kurtz, Religionslehre, 67—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Plato, Gorgias, 472 <hi rend='smallcaps'>e</hi>; 509 <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>; 511 <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>; 515 <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +On the general subject of the penalty of sin, see Julius Müller, Doct. Sin, 1:245 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi>; +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Section VII.—The Salvation Of Infants.</head> + +<p> +The views which have been presented with regard to inborn depravity +and the reaction of divine holiness against it suggest the question whether +<pb n='661'/><anchor id='Pg661'/> +infants dying before arriving at moral consciousness are saved, and if so, +in what way. To this question we reply as follows: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) Infants are in a state of sin, need to be regenerated, and can be +saved only through Christ. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Job 14:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 51:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Behold, I was brought forth in +iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 3:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>That which is born of the flesh is flesh</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Nevertheless +death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's +transgression</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 2:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>by nature children of wrath</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 7:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>else were your children unclean</hi></q>—clearly +intimate the naturally impure state of infants; and <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 19:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Suffer the little children, +and forbid them not, to come unto me</hi></q>—is not only consistent with this doctrine, but strongly +confirms it; for the meaning is: <q><hi rend='italic'>forbid them not to come unto me</hi></q>—whom they need as a +Savior. <q>Coming to Christ</q> is always the coming of a sinner, to him who is the sacrifice +for sin; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 11:28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Come unto me, all ye that labor.</hi></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Deut 1:39</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>your little ones ... and your children, that this day have no knowledge of good or evil</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>Jonah 4:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 9:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>for +the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 18:3, 4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> See Julius Müller, Doct. +Sin, 2:265. Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 2:50—<q>Unpretentious receptivity, ... not +the reception of the kingdom of God at a childlike <emph>age</emph>, but in a childlike <emph>character</emph> ... +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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) For this reason, they are the objects of special divine compassion +and care, and through the grace of Christ are certain of salvation. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 18:5, 6, 10, 14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>19:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Suffer the little +children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven</hi></q>—not God's kingdom +of nature, but his kingdom of grace, the kingdom of saved sinners. <q>Such</q> +means, not children as children, but childlike believers. Meyer, on <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 19:14</hi>, refers the +passage to spiritual infants only: <q>Not little children,</q> he says, <q>but men of a childlike +disposition.</q> Geikie: <q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +We therefore substantially agree with Dr. A. C. Kendrick, in his article in the Sunday +School Times: <q>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 <emph>logic</emph> of our Savior's words—how he +could assign, as a reason for allowing <emph>literal</emph> little children to be brought to him, that +<emph>spiritual</emph> 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.</q> +</p> + +<pb n='662'/><anchor id='Pg662'/> + +<p> +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. <hi rend='italic'>Cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 18:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>it is not the will of your Father who is +in heaven, that one of those little ones should perish</hi></q>—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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>John 3:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>For God so loved the world</hi></q>—includes infants. <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>—there is an application to infants of the life in Christ, as there was an application +to them of the death in Adam; <hi rend='italic'>19-21</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>—as without +personal act of theirs infants inherited corruption from Adam, so without personal +act of theirs salvation is provided for them in Christ. +</p> + +<p> +Hovey, Bib. Eschatology, 170, 171—<q>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.</q> David ceased to fast and weep when his child died, for he said: +<q><hi rend='italic'>I shall go to him, but he will not return to me</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>2 Sam. 12:23</hi>). +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 5:15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he died for all</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mark 16:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth +shall be condemned</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>verses 9-20</hi> 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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 25:45, 46</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 2:5, 6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who +<pb n='663'/><anchor id='Pg663'/> +will render to every man according to his works.</hi></q> Norman Fox, The Unfolding of Baptist Doctrine, +24—<q>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—<q>damnant Anabaptistas qui ... affirmant pueros +sine baptismo salvos +fieri</q>—and the favorite poet of Presbyterian Scotland, in his Tam +O'Shanter, names among objects from hell <q>Twa span-lang, wee, unchristened bairns.</q> +The Westminster Confession, in declaring that <q>elect infants dying in infancy</q> are +saved, implies that non-elect infants dying in infancy are lost. This was certainly +taught by some of the framers of that creed.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>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.</q> In his Institutes, book 4, chap. 16, p. 335, he +speaks of the exemption of infants from the grace of salvation <q>as an idea not free +from execrable blasphemy.</q> The Presb. and Ref. Rev., Oct. 1890:634-651, quotes Calvin +as follows: <q>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.</q> So also John Owen, Works, 8:522—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>g</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 3:18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 John 3:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>We know that, if he shall be manifested, we shall be +like him; for we shall see him as he is.</hi></q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>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.</q> So William Ashmore, in +Christian Review, 26:245-264. F. O. Dickey: <q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +While, in the nature of things and by the express declarations of Scripture, +we are precluded from extending this doctrine of regeneration at death +<pb n='664'/><anchor id='Pg664'/> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>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. <q>I think now,</q> he said at last, <q>I can trusten God until I die.</q> 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: <q>Before we can make you well, we must +put you to sleep.</q> <q>Oh then, if you are going to put me to sleep,</q> she sweetly said, <q>I +must say my prayers first.</q> Then, getting down on her knees, and folding her hands, +she repeated that lovely prayer learned at every true mother's feet: <q>Now I lay me +down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep.</q> Just for a moment there were moist +eyes in that group, for deep chords were touched, and the surgeon afterwards said: <q>I +prayed that night for the first time in thirty years.</q></q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +</div> + +<pb n='665'/><anchor id='Pg665'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Part VI. Soteriology, Or The Doctrine Of Salvation Through +The Work Of Christ And Of The Holy Spirit.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Chapter I. Christology, Or The Redemption Wrought By Christ.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Section I.—Historical Preparation For Redemption.</head> + +<p> +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: +</p> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>I. Negative Preparation,—in the history of the heathen world.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Why could not Eve have been the mother of the chosen seed, as she doubtless at the +first supposed that she was? (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 4:1</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>and she conceived, and bare Cain</hi></q> [<hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, <q>gotten</q>, or +<q>acquired</q>], <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>and said, I have gotten a man, even Jehovah</hi></q>). Why was not the cross set up at the +gates of Eden? Scripture intimates that a preparation was needful (<hi rend='italic'>Gal 4:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>but when +the fulness of the time came, God hath sent forth his Son</hi></q>). 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. <hi rend='italic'>Gal 4:3</hi> classes Judaism with the <q><hi rend='italic'>rudiments of +the world</hi>,</q> and <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:20</hi> tells us that <q><hi rend='italic'>the law came in beside</hi>,</q> as a force coöperating with +other human factors, primitive revelation, sin, <hi rend='italic'>etc.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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).</q> Justin +Martyr claimed inspiration for Socrates. Tertullian spoke of Socrates as <q>pæne noster</q>—<q>almost +<pb n='666'/><anchor id='Pg666'/> +one of us.</q> Paul speaks of the Cretans as having: <q><hi rend='italic'>a prophet of their own</hi></q> +(<hi rend='italic'>Tit. 1:12</hi>)—probably Epimenides (596 B. C.) whom Plato calls a θεῖος ἀνήρ—<q>a man of +God,</q> and whom Cicero couples with Bacis and the Erythræan Sibyl. Clement of Alexandria, +Stromata, 1:19; 6:5—<q>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.</q> Augustine: <q>Plato made me know the true God; Jesus Christ showed +me the way to him.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Bruce, Apologetics, 207—<q>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.</q> Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, 133, 238—<q>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.</q> E. G. Robinson: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>John 1:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>There was the true light, even the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world</hi></q>—has its +Old Testament equivalent in <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 94:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>He that chastiseth the nations, shall not he correct, Even he that +teacheth man knowledge?</hi></q> 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 +<q>anima naturaliter Christiana est.</q> Sabatier, Philos. Religion, 138-140—<q>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. <q>Quid +interius Deo?</q> 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. <q>In +me,</q> says Charles Secretan, <q>lives some one greater than I.</q></q> +</p> + +<p> +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. +<q>The Sphynx's moveless calm symbolizes the monotony of Egyptian civilization.</q> +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 <q>genius for religion,</q> but special +revelation from God, made them what they were. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>The +Bible does not recognize other revelations. It speaks of the <q><hi rend='italic'>face of the covering that +covereth all peoples, and the veil that is spread over all nations</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Is. 25:7</hi>); <hi rend='italic'>Acts 14:16, 17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>who in the generations +gone by suffered all the nations to walk in their own ways. And yet he left not himself without witness</hi></q> = not an +internal revelation in the hearts of sages, but an external revelation in nature, <q><hi rend='italic'>in that he +did good and gave you from heaven rains and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness.</hi></q> 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>II. Positive Preparation,—in the history of Israel.</head> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='667'/><anchor id='Pg667'/> +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: +</p> + +<p> +A. Law.—The Mosaic legislation, (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) by its theophanies and miracles, +cultivated faith in a personal and almighty God and Judge; (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) by its +commands and threatenings, wakened the sense of sin; (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) by its priestly +and sacrificial system, inspired hope of some way of pardon and access to +God. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. <q>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.</q> Wrightnour: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +With this gradual growth in the sense of sin there was also a widening and deepening +faith. Kuyper, Work of the Holy Spirit, 67—<q>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.</q> +Kurtz, Religionslehre, speaks of the relation between law and gospel as <q>Ein fliessender +Gegensatz</q>—<q>a flowing antithesis</q>—like that between flower and fruit. A. B. +Davidson, Expositor, 6:163—<q>The course of revelation is like a river, which cannot +be cut up into sections.</q> E. G. Robinson: <q>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.</q> +On methods pursued with humanity by God, see Simon, Reconciliation, 232-251. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +B. Prophecy.—This was of two kinds: (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) verbal,—beginning with +the protevangelium in the garden, and extending to within four hundred +years of the coming of Christ; (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <q>sub specie eternitatis,</q> and believed that <q><hi rend='italic'>Light is sown for the righteous, +And gladness for the upright in heart</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 97:11</hi>). The hope of Job was the hope of the chosen +people: <q><hi rend='italic'>I know that my Redeemer liveth, And at last he will stand up upon the earth</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Job 19:25</hi>). Hutton, +Essays, 2:237—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +The protevangelium (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 3:15</hi>) said <q><hi rend='italic'>it</hi> [this promised seed] <hi rend='italic'>shall bruise thy head</hi>.</q> The +<pb n='668'/><anchor id='Pg668'/> +<q><hi rend='italic'>it</hi></q> was rendered in some Latin manuscripts <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>ipsa</foreign>.</q> 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>the sceptre</hi></q> and of <q><hi rend='italic'>the seventy weeks</hi>.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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: (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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; +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <q>the eye of +the world.</q> The Hebrews throughout the Roman world were <q>the greater Palestine +of the Dispersion.</q> 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. <q>Cæsar had unified the Latin West, as Alexander the Greek East</q>; +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. +</p> + +<p> +Beyschlag, N. T. Theology, 2:9, 10—<q>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.</q> 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>a hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come +in</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 11:25</hi>). James Robertson, Early Religion of Israel, 15—<q>Israel now instructs +the world in the Worship of Mammon, after having once taught it the knowledge of +God.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +<pb n='669'/><anchor id='Pg669'/> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Section II.—The Person Of Christ.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <q><hi rend='italic'>What think ye of the Christ</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Mat 22:42</hi>); +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. <hi rend='italic'>John 10:36</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world</hi></q>—hints +at some mysterious process by which the Son was prepared for his mission. Athanasius: +<q>If the Word of God is in the <emph>world</emph>, as in a body, what is there strange in affirming +that he has also entered into <emph>humanity</emph>?</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>I. Historical Survey of Views Respecting the Person of Christ.</head> + +<p> +1. <hi rend='italic'>The Ebionites</hi> (אביון = <q>poor</q>; 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Fürst (Heb. Lexicon) derives the name <q>Ebionite</q> from the word signifying <q>poor</q>; +see <hi rend='italic'>Is. 25:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>thou hast been a stronghold to the poor</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat 5:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Blessed are the poor in spirit.</hi></q> It means +<q>oppressed, pious souls.</q> 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: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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 +<pb n='670'/><anchor id='Pg670'/> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +2. <hi rend='italic'>The Docetæ</hi> (δοκέω—<q>to seem,</q> <q>to appear</q>; 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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—<q>He +treads the thorns of death and shame <q>like a triumphal path,</q> 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.</q> Shelley: <q>A +mortal shape to him Was as the vapor dim Which the orient planet animates with +light.</q> The strong argument against Docetism was found in <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Since then the children +are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the same.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +3. <hi rend='italic'>The Arians</hi> (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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +4. <hi rend='italic'>The Apollinarians</hi> (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 +<pb n='671'/><anchor id='Pg671'/> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <emph>becoming</emph> man—only a manifestation in flesh of what the Logos already <emph>was</emph>. +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 <q>what the Son of God +has not taken to himself, he has not sanctified</q>—τὸ ἀπρόσληπτον καὶ ἀθεράπευτον. See +Dorner, Jahrbuch f. d. Theol., 1:397-408—<q>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</q>; see also, Dorner, Person Christ, A.2:352-399, and Glaubenslehre, +2:310 (Syst. Doct., 3:206, 207); Shedd, Hist. Doctrine, 1:394. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +5. <hi rend='italic'>The Nestorians</hi> (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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Nestorius disliked the phrase: <q>Mary, mother of God.</q> The Chalcedon statement +asserted its truth, with the significant addition: <q>as to his humanity.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<q>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.</q> Gore, Incarnation, 94—<q>Nestorius adopted and popularized +<pb n='672'/><anchor id='Pg672'/> +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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +6. <hi rend='italic'>The Eutychians</hi> (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 <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>tertium quid</foreign>, 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>becoming man</emph> 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—<q>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,</q> like +the Centaur. +</p> + +<p> +The author of <q>The German Theology</q> says that <q>Christ's human nature was utterly +bereft of self, and was nothing else but a house and habitation of God.</q> The Mystics +would have human personality so completely the organ of the divine that <q>we may +be to God what man's hand is to a man,</q> and that <q>I</q> and <q>mine</q> may cease to have +any meaning. Both these views savor of Eutychianism. On the other hand, the +Unitarian says that Christ was <q>a mere man.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +We may apply to this subject what Dr. A. P. Peabody said in a different connection: +<q>The canon of infidelity was closed almost as soon as that of the Scriptures</q>—modern +unbelievers having, for the most part, repeated the objections of their ancient predecessors. +Brooks, Foundations of Zoölogy, 126—<q>As a shell which has failed to burst is +<pb n='673'/><anchor id='Pg673'/> +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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +7. <hi rend='italic'>The Orthodox doctrine</hi> (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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi>; +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, <hi rend='italic'>etc.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +Gore, Incarnation, 96, 101—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>II. The two Natures of Christ,—their Reality and Integrity.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. The Humanity of Christ.</head> + +<p> +A. Its Reality.—This may be shown as follows: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) He expressly called himself, and was called, <q>man.</q> +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>John 8:40</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Acts 2:22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Jesus of Nazareth, a man +approved of God unto you</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the one man, Jesus Christ</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 15:21</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>by man came death, by +man came also the resurrection of the dead</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 2:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>one mediator also between God and man, himself man, +Christ Jesus.</hi></q> Compare the genealogies in <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 1:1-17</hi> and <hi rend='italic'>Luke 3:23-38</hi>, 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>Son of man</hi>,</q> <hi rend='italic'>e. g.</hi>, in <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 20:28</hi>, which, however much it may mean +in addition, certainly indicates the veritable humanity of Jesus. Compare, finally, the +term <q><hi rend='italic'>flesh</hi></q> (= human nature), applied to him in <hi rend='italic'>John 1:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And the Word became flesh</hi></q> and +in <hi rend='italic'>1 John 4:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>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 +<pb n='674'/><anchor id='Pg674'/> +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</q>; see A. H. Strong, +Sermon before the London Baptist Congress. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) He possessed the essential elements of human nature as at present +constituted—a material body and a rational soul. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 26:38</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>My soul is exceeding sorrowful</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 11:33</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he groaned in the spirit</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 26:26</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>this +is my body</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>this is my blood</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Luke 24:39</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the +same</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 John 1:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>4:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in +the flesh is of God.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +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 +(<hi rend='italic'>John 17:19</hi>), 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. +</p> + +<p> +Moberly, Atonement and Personality, 86-105—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Mat 4:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he afterward hungered</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 19:28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I thirst</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>4:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Jesus therefore, being wearied with his +journey, sat thus by the well</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat 8:24</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the boat was covered with the waves: but he was asleep</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mark +10:21</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Jesus looking upon him loved him</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 9:36</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion +for them</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mark 3:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their +heart</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 5:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>John 12:27</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>11:33</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he +groaned in the spirit</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>35</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Jesus wept</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat 14:23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he went up into the mountain apart to pray.</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>Heb. +2:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>For it is not doubtless angels whom he rescueth, but he rescueth the seed of Abraham</hi></q> (Kendrick). +</p> + +<p> +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, <q><hi rend='italic'>I have need to be baptized of thee</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Mat 3:14</hi>), may +be an inference from his intercourse with Jesus in childhood and youth. +</p> + +</quote> + +<pb n='675'/><anchor id='Pg675'/> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Luke 2:40</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the child grew, and waxed strong, filled with wisdom</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>46</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>sitting in the midst of the teachers, +both hearing them, and asking them questions</hi></q> (here, at his twelfth year, he appears first to become +fully conscious that he is the Sent of God, the Son of God); <hi rend='italic'>49</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>know ye not that I must be in +my Father's house?</hi></q> (lit. <q>in the things of my Father</q>); <hi rend='italic'>52</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>advanced in wisdom and stature</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. +5:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>learned obedience by the things which he suffered</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2:18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, +he is able to succor them that are tempted</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>it became him ... to make the author of their salvation perfect +through sufferings.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +Keble: <q>Was not our Lord a little child, Taught by degrees to pray; By father dear +and mother mild Instructed day by day?</q> Adamson, The Mind in Christ: <q>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.</q> Forrest, Christ of History and of Experience, 185—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Andrew Murray, Spirit of Christ, 26, 27—<q>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</q>; +see <hi rend='italic'>Acts 2:33</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) He suffered and died (bloody sweat; gave up his spirit; his side +pierced, and straightway there came out blood and water). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Luke 22:44</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became as it were great drops of blood +falling down upon the ground</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 19:30</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he bowed his head, and gave up his spirit</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>34</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>one of the +soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and straightway there came out blood and water</hi></q>—held by Stroud, +Physical Cause of our Lord's Death, to be proof that Jesus died of a broken heart. +</p> + +<p> +Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, 1:9-19—<q>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.</q> 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: <hi rend='italic'>Mark 6:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +See Holman Hunt's picture, <q>The Shadow of the Cross</q>—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 (<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 12:2</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>Jesus the author</hi></q> [captain, prince] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>and perfecter of our faith</hi></q>), dependent +upon Scripture, which was much of it, as <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 16</hi> and <hi rend='italic'>118</hi>, and <hi rend='italic'>Is. 49, 50, 61,</hi> written for him, +as well as about him. See Park, Discourses, 297-327; Deutsch, Remains, 131—<q>The +boldest transcendental flight of the Talmud is its saying: <q>God prays.</q></q> In Christ's +humanity, united as it is to deity, we have the fact answering to this piece of Talmudic +poetry. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +B. Its Integrity. We here use the term <q>integrity</q> to signify, not +merely completeness, but perfection. That which is perfect is, <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>a fortiori</foreign>, +complete in all its parts. Christ's human nature was: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Luke 1:34, 35</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +<pb n='676'/><anchor id='Pg676'/> +The <q><hi rend='italic'>seed of the woman</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 3:15</hi>) was one who had no earthly father. <q><hi rend='italic'>Eve</hi></q> = 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 <q>had no +earthly father; his birth was a creative act of God, breaking through the chain of +human generation.</q> Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:447 (Syst. Doct., 3:345)—<q>The new +science recognizes manifold methods of propagation, and that too even in one and the +same species.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> 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. <q>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.</q> A. B. +Bruce: <q>Thoroughgoing naturalism excludes the virgin life as well as the virgin birth.</q> +See Griffith-Jones, Ascent through Christ, 254-270; A. H. Strong, Christ in Creation, 176. +</p> + +<p> +Paul Lobstein, Incarnation of our Lord, 217—<q>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.</q> 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>the Son of God with power ... by the +resurrection from the dead</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 1:4</hi>); 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. +</p> + +<p> +Cooke, on The Virgin Birth of our Lord, in Methodist Rev., Nov. 1904:849-857—<q>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.</q> 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. <hi rend='italic'>Per contra</hi>, 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Jesus frequently went up to the temple, but he never offered sacrifice. He prayed: +<pb n='677'/><anchor id='Pg677'/> +<q><hi rend='italic'>Father, forgive them</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Luke 23:34</hi>); but he never prayed: <q>Father, forgive <emph>me</emph>.</q> He said: +<q><hi rend='italic'>Ye must be born anew</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 3:7</hi>); but the words indicated that <emph>he</emph> had no such need. <q>At +no moment in all that life could a single detail have been altered, except for the worse.</q> +He not only <emph>yielded</emph> to God's will when made known to him, but he <emph>sought</emph> it: <q><hi rend='italic'>I seek not +mine own will, but the will of him that sent me</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 5:30</hi>). 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: <q><hi rend='italic'>looked round about on them +with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Mark 3:5</hi>). F. W. H. Myers, St. Paul, 19, 53—<q>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.</q> Not personal experience of sin, but resistance +to it, fitted him to deliver us from it. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Luke 1:35</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 8:46</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Which +of you convicteth me of sin?</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>14:30</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the prince of the world cometh: and he hath nothing in me</hi></q> = +not the slightest evil inclination upon which his temptations can lay hold; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 8:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>in +the likeness of sinful flesh</hi></q> = in flesh, but without the sin which in other men clings to the +flesh; <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 5:21</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Him who knew no sin</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 4:15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>7:26</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners</hi></q>—by the fact of his immaculate conception; +<hi rend='italic'>9:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Pet. 1:19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>precious blood, +as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, even the blood of Christ</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2:22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>who did no sin, neither was guile +found in his mouth</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 John 3:5, 7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>in him is no sin ... he is righteous.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +Julius Müller, Proof-texts, 29—<q>Had Christ been only human nature, he could not +have been without sin. But <emph>life</emph> can draw out of the putrescent clod materials for its +own living. Divine life appropriates the human.</q> Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:446 (Syst. +Doct., 3:344)—<q>What with us is regeneration, is with him the incarnation of God.</q> +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—<q>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.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>Christ took human nature in such a way that this nature, without sin, bore the consequences +of sin.</q> 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: <hi rend='italic'>Mark 13:32</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the +Son, but the Father.</hi></q> Only at the close of the first temptation does Jesus recognize Satan +as the adversary of souls: <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 4:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Get thee hence, Satan.</hi></q> 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: <q>Lust is appetite run wild. There is no harm in any +natural appetite, considered in itself. But appetite has been spoiled by the Fall.</q> So +Satan appealed (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 4:1-11</hi>) to our Lord's desire for food, for applause, for power; to +<q>Ueberglaube, Aberglaude, Unglaube</q> (Kurtz); <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 26:39; 27:42; 26:53</hi>. All temptation +must be addressed either to desire or fear; so Christ <q><hi rend='italic'>was in all points tempted like as we +are</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 4:15</hi>). The first temptation, in the wilderness, was addressed to desire; the +second, in the garden, was addressed to fear. Satan, after the first, <q><hi rend='italic'>departed from him for a +season</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Luke 4:13</hi>); but he returned, in Gethsemane—<q><hi rend='italic'>the prince of the world cometh: and he hath +nothing in me</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 14:30</hi>)—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 <q><hi rend='italic'>without sin</hi></q> +(<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 4:15</hi>). The tree on the edge of the precipice is fiercely blown by the winds: the +<pb n='678'/><anchor id='Pg678'/> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Psalm 8:4-8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>—a description of +the ideal man, which finds its realization only in Christ. <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:6-10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 15:45</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>The first ... Adam ... The last +Adam</hi></q>—implies that the second Adam realized the full concept of humanity, which failed +to be realized in the first Adam; so <hi rend='italic'>verse 49</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>as we have borne the image of the earthly</hi></q> [man], <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>we +shall also bear the image of the heavenly</hi></q> [man]. <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 3:18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the glory of the Lord</hi></q> is the pattern, into +whose likeness we are to be changed. <hi rend='italic'>Phil 3:21</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, +that it may be conformed to the body of his glory</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Col. 1:18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>that in all things he might have the pre-eminence</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>1 Pet. 2:21</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>suffered for you, leaving you an example, that ye should follow his steps</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 John 3:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>every one +that hath this hope set on him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +The phrase <q><hi rend='italic'>Son of man</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 5:27</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Dan. 7:13</hi>, Com. of Pusey, <hi rend='italic'>in loco</hi>, 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Is. 52:2</hi>), and aged before his time +(<hi rend='italic'>John 8:57</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Thou art not yet fifty years old</hi></q>), at another time revealing so much of his inward +grace and glory that men were attracted and awed (<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 45:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Thou art fairer than the children +of men</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Luke 4:22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the words of grace which proceeded out of his mouth</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mark 10:32</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Jesus was going +before them: and they were amazed; and they that followed were afraid</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 17:1-8</hi>—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: <q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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, <q>love can never love too much.</q> 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: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Seth, Ethical Principles, 420—<q>The secret of the power of the moral Ideal is the conviction +which it carries with it that it is no <emph>mere</emph> ideal, but the expression of the +supreme Reality.</q> Bowne, Theory of Thought and Knowledge, 364—<q>The <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>a priori</foreign> +only outlines a <emph>possible</emph>, and does not determine what shall be <emph>actual</emph> 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.</q> No <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>a priori</foreign> truths or +ideals can guarantee Christianity. We want a historical basis, an actual Christ, a +<emph>realization</emph> of the divine ideal. <q>Great men,</q> says Amiel, <q>are the true men.</q> 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. +</p> + +<pb n='679'/><anchor id='Pg679'/> + +<p> +Gore, Incarnation, 168—<q>Jesus Christ is the catholic man. In a sense, all the greatest +men have overlapped the boundaries of their time. <q>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.</q> 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.</q> Dale, Ephesians, 42—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 148—<q>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.</q> 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 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <emph>un</emph>personality but <emph>in</emph>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. +</p> + +<p> +Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 136—<q>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.</q> 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—<q>Christ +<emph>is</emph> 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Emma Marie Caillard, on Man in the Light of Evolution, in Contemp. Rev., Dec. 1893: +873-881—<q>Christ is not only the goal of the race which is to be conformed to him, but +<pb n='680'/><anchor id='Pg680'/> +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.</q> +Dale, Christian Fellowship, 159—<q>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.</q> +The incarnation was no detached event,—it was the issue of an eternal process of utterance +on the part of the Word <q><hi rend='italic'>whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Micah 5:2</hi>). +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +In <hi rend='italic'>Is. 9:6</hi>, Christ is called <q><hi rend='italic'>Everlasting Father</hi>.</q> In <hi rend='italic'>Is. 53:10</hi>, it is said that <q><hi rend='italic'>he shall see his seed</hi>.</q> +In <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 22:16</hi>, he calls himself <q><hi rend='italic'>the root</hi></q> as well as <q><hi rend='italic'>the offspring of David</hi>.</q> See also <hi rend='italic'>John 5.21</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the +Son also giveth life to whom he will</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>15:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I am the true vine</hi></q>—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. <hi rend='italic'>John 17:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that to all whom thou hast given +him, he should give eternal life</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 15:45</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the last Adam became a life-giving spirit</hi></q>—here <q><hi rend='italic'>spirit</hi></q> = +not the Holy Spirit, nor Christ's divine nature, but <q>the ego of his total divine-human +personality.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Eph. 5:23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Christ also is the head of the church</hi></q> = the head to which all the members are united, +and from which they derive life and power. Christ calls the disciples his <q><hi rend='italic'>little children</hi></q> +(<hi rend='italic'>John 13:33</hi>); when he leaves them they are <q><hi rend='italic'>orphans</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>14:18</hi> marg.). <q>He represents himself +as a father of children, no less than as a brother</q> (<hi rend='italic'>20:17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>my brethren</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>brethren</hi></q>, +and <hi rend='italic'>13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Behold, I and the children whom God hath given me</hi></q>; see Westcott, Com. on <hi rend='italic'>John +13:33</hi>). 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 <hi rend='italic'>John 12:24</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>if it die, it beareth much fruit</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. +10:37</hi> and <hi rend='italic'>Luke 14:26</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me</hi></q> = 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. +<hi rend='italic'>Cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 2:15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>she shall be saved through the child-bearing</hi></q>—which brought Christ into the +world. See Wilberforce, Incarnation, 227-241; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 638-664; Dorner, +Glaubenslehre, 2:451 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi> (Syst. Doct., 3:349 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +Lightfoot on <hi rend='italic'>Col. 1:18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>who is the beginning, the fruits from the dead</hi></q>—<q>Here ἀρχή = 1. priority +in time. Christ was first fruits of the dead (<hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 15:20, 23</hi>); 2. originating power, +not only <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>principium principiatum</foreign>, but also <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>principium principians</foreign>. As he <emph>is</emph> first with +respect to the universe, so he <emph>becomes</emph> first with respect to the church; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 7:15, 16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>another +priest, who hath been made, not after the law of a carnal commandment but after the power of an endless +life</hi></q>.</q> Paul teaches that <q><hi rend='italic'>the head of every man is Christ</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 11:3</hi>), and that <q><hi rend='italic'>in him dwelleth all +the fulness of the Godhead bodily</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Col. 2:9</hi>). Whiton, Gloria Patri, 88-92, remarks on <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 1:10</hi>, +that God's purpose is <q><hi rend='italic'>to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth</hi></q>—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 <emph>the</emph> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>him</emph> +to us. In each case the mirror is more or less blurred and the image obscured, yet <emph>he</emph> +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 +<pb n='681'/><anchor id='Pg681'/> +Christ himself, living and present, furnishes the object (<hi rend='italic'>James 1:23-25</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 3:18</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 13:12</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Simon, Reconciliation, 308—<q>Every man is in a true sense essentially of divine +nature—even as Paul teaches, θεῖον γένος (<hi rend='italic'>Acts 17:29</hi>).... 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.</q> 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, <q><hi rend='italic'>the light that lighteth every man</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 1:9</hi>), is present and is working +within us. +</p> + +<p> +Pfleiderer, Philos. of Religion, 1:272—<q>That the divine idea of man as <q><hi rend='italic'>the son of his +love</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Col. 1:13</hi>), 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.</q> But Mead, Ritschl's Place in the History +of Doctrine, 10, says of Pfleiderer and Ritschl: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. The Deity of Christ.</head> + +<p> +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: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) Possessed a knowledge of his own deity. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>John 3:13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the Son of man, who is in heaven</hi></q>—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 <hi rend='italic'>John +3:13</hi>]; <hi rend='italic'>8:58</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Before Abraham was born, I am</hi></q>—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 <q><hi rend='italic'>I am</hi></q> of the eternal God; <hi rend='italic'>14:9, 10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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?</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +Adamson, The Mind in Christ, 24-49, gives the following instances of Jesus' supernatural +knowledge: 1. Jesus' knowledge of Peter (<hi rend='italic'>John 1:42</hi>); 2. his finding of Philip +(<hi rend='italic'>1:43</hi>); 3. his recognition of Nathanael (<hi rend='italic'>1:47-50</hi>); 4. of the woman of Samaria (<hi rend='italic'>4:17-19, 39</hi>); +5. miraculous draughts of fishes (<hi rend='italic'>Luke 5:6-9</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>John 21:6</hi>); 6. death of Lazarus (<hi rend='italic'>John 11:14</hi>); 7. +of the ass's colt (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 21:2</hi>); 8. of the upper room (<hi rend='italic'>Mark 14:15</hi>); 9. of Peter's denial (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. +26:34</hi>); 10. of the manner of his own death (<hi rend='italic'>John 12:33</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>18:32</hi>); 11. of the manner of Peter's +death (<hi rend='italic'>John 21:19</hi>); 12. of the fall of Jerusalem (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 24:2</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +Jesus does not say <q>our Father</q> but <q><hi rend='italic'>my Father</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 20:17</hi>). Rejection of him is a +greater sin than rejection of the prophets, because he is the <q><hi rend='italic'>beloved Son</hi></q> of God (<hi rend='italic'>Luke +20:13</hi>). He knows God's purposes better than the angels, because he is the Son of God +(<hi rend='italic'>Mark 13:32</hi>). As Son of God, he alone knows, and he alone can reveal, the Father (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. +<pb n='682'/><anchor id='Pg682'/> +11:27</hi>). There to clearly something more in his Sonship than in that of his disciples (<hi rend='italic'>John +1:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>only begotten</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 1:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>first begotten</hi></q>). See Chapman, Jesus Christ and the Present +Age, 37; Denney, Studies in Theology, 33. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(b) Exercised divine powers and prerogatives. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>John 2:24, 25</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>18:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Jesus therefore, +knowing all the things that were coming upon him, went forth</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mark 4:39</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he awoke, and rebuked the wind, +and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 9:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mark 2:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Why doth this man thus speak? he blasphemeth: who can +forgive sins but one, even God?</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +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. <q>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</q>; see A. H. Strong, Address at the Ecumenical Missionary +Conference, April 23, 1900. +</p> + +<p> +Matheson, Voices of the Spirit, 39—<q>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.</q> <q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Napoleon to Count Montholon (Bertrand's Memoirs): <q>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.</q> See other +testimonies in Schaff, Person of Christ. Even Spinoza, Tract. Theol.-Pol., cap. 1 (vol. +1:383), says that <q>Christ communed with God, mind to mind ... this spiritual closeness +is unique</q> (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 <q>Son of +man</q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 5:27</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Dan. 7:13</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>real presence</q> +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 +<pb n='683'/><anchor id='Pg683'/> +Father. Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:325-327 (Syst. Doct., 3:221-223)—<q>Mary and the saints +took Christ's place as intercessors in heaven; transubstantiation furnished a present +Christ on earth.</q> It might almost be said that Mary was made a fourth person in the +Godhead. +</p> + +<p> +Harnack, Das Wesen des Christenthums: <q>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</q>; +<hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, 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: <q><hi rend='italic'>Come unto me</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 11:28</hi>); <q><hi rend='italic'>the Son of man ... shall sit on the throne of his +glory: and before him shall be gathered all the nations</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 25:31, 32</hi>); <q><hi rend='italic'>he that hath seen me hath seen the Father</hi></q> +(<hi rend='italic'>John 14:9</hi>); <q><hi rend='italic'>he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 3:36</hi>). +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. <q>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.</q> R. W. Gilder: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +On Christ manifested in Nature, see Jonathan Edwards, Observations on Trinity, ed. +Smyth, 92-97—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>John 10:30</hi>. On the two natures of Christ, see A. H. Strong, Philosophy +and Religion, 201-212. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>III. The Union of the two Natures in one Person.</head> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='684'/><anchor id='Pg684'/> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Whiton, Gloria Patri, 79-81, would give up speaking of the union of God <emph>and</emph> man; +for this, he says, involves the fallacy of two natures. He would speak rather of the +manifestation of God <emph>in</emph> man. The ordinary Unitarian insists that Christ was <q>a mere +man.</q> As if there could be such a thing as <emph>mere</emph> man, exclusive of aught above him +and beyond him, self-centered and self-moved. We can sympathize with Whiton's +objection to the phrase <q>God <emph>and</emph> man,</q> because of its implication of an imperfect +union. But we prefer the term <q>God-man</q> to the phrase <q>God <emph>in</emph> man,</q> for the +reason that this latter phrase might equally describe the union of Christ with every +believer. Christ is <q>the only begotten,</q> in a sense that every believer is not. Yet we +can also sympathize with Dean Stanley, Life and Letters, 1:115—<q>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, +<hi rend='italic'>viz</hi>., <q>I believe that Christ is both God and man.</q></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. Proof of this Union.</head> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) Christ uniformly speaks of himself, and is spoken of, as a single +person. There is no interchange of <q>I</q> and <q>thou</q> 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—<q>we speak that we do know,</q>—and even +here <q>we</q> is more probably used as inclusive of the disciples. 1 John +4:2—<q>is come in the flesh</q>—is supplemented by John 1:14—<q>became +flesh</q>; and these texts together assure us that Christ so came in human +nature as to make that nature an element in his single personality. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>John 17:23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>3:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>We speak that which we know, and bear witness of +that which we have seen; and ye receive not our witness</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 John 4:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ +is come in the flesh is of God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 1:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us</hi></q>—he so came in +human nature that human nature and himself formed, not two persons, but one person. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>He is not so much God +<emph>and</emph> man, as God <emph>in</emph>, and <emph>through</emph>, and <emph>as</emph> 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.</q> We mistake when we say that certain words +of Jesus with regard to his ignorance of the day of the end (<hi rend='italic'>Mark 13:32</hi>) 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 (<hi rend='italic'>John 3:13</hi>) 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +<pb n='685'/><anchor id='Pg685'/> +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). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 1:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Pet. 3:18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Christ also suffered +for sins once ... being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 2:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>one mediator also +between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 1:2, 3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 1:22, 23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>4:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>He that descended is the +same also that ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 28:20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>lo, I am with you +always, even unto the end of the world.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 142-145—<q>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 <q>the dying God</q>, which loses the manhood in the Godhead.</q> Charles +H. Spurgeon remarked that people who <q>dear</q> everybody reminded him of the woman +who said she had been reading in <q>dear Hebrews.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>1 John 2:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world,</hi></q>—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; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 2:16-18</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>might reconcile +them both</hi></q> [Jew and Gentile] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>21, 22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Pet. 1:4</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>that +through these</hi></q> [promises] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>ye may become partakers of the divine nature.</hi></q> John Caird, Fund. Ideas +of Christianity, 2:107—<q>We cannot separate Christ's divine from his human acts, +without rending in twain the unity of his person and life.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:403-411 (Syst. Doct., 3:300-308)—<q>Three ideas are included +in incarnation: (1) assumption of human nature on the part of the Logos (<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>partook +<pb n='686'/><anchor id='Pg686'/> +of ... flesh and blood</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 5:19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>God was in Christ</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Col. 2:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>in him dwelleth all the fulness of +the Godhead bodily</hi></q>); (2) new creation of the second Adam, by the Holy Ghost and power +of the Highest (<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Adam's' transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 15:22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>as +in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>15:45</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>The first man Adam became a living soul, the last +Adam became a life-giving Spirit</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Luke 1:35</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High +shall overshadow thee</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 1:20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit</hi></q>); (3) becoming flesh, +without contraction of deity or humanity (<hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 3:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>who was manifested in the flesh</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 John +4:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Jesus Christ is come in the flesh</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 6:41, 51</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I am the bread which came down out of heaven.... I am +the living bread</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 John 7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 1:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the word became flesh</hi></q>). 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The Lutherans hold to a communion of the natures, as well as to an impartation of +their properties: (1) <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>genus idiomaticum</foreign>—impartation of attributes of both natures to +the one person; (2) <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>genus apotelesmaticum</foreign> (from ἀποτέλεσμα, <q>that which is finished or +completed,</q> <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, Jesus' work)—attributes of the one person imparted to each of the +constituent natures. Hence Mary may be called <q>the mother of God,</q> as the Chalcedon +symbol declares, <q>as to his humanity,</q> and what each nature did has the value of both; +(3) <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>genus majestaticum</foreign>—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 <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>genus tapeinoticon</foreign>, <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, 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 <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>genus majestaticum</foreign> are +found is <hi rend='italic'>John 3:13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>no one hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man, +who is in heaven</hi></q> [here, however, Westcott and Hort, with א and B, omit ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ]; +<hi rend='italic'>5:27</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a son of man.</hi></q> Of the explanation that +this is the figure of speech called <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>allæosis,</foreign></q> Luther says: <q><emph>Allæosis</emph> est larva quædam +diaboli, secundum cujus rationes ego certe nolim esse Christianus.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>genus majestaticum</foreign> 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 +<q>ascending up where he was before,</q> says: <q>By the <q><hi rend='italic'>Son of man</hi></q> 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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. Modern misrepresentations of this Union.</head> + +<p> +A. Theory of an incomplete humanity.—Gess and Beecher hold that +the immaterial part in Christ's humanity is only contracted and metamorphosed +deity. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='687'/><anchor id='Pg687'/> +<q><hi rend='italic'>flesh,</hi></q> in <hi rend='italic'>John 1:14</hi> and declares the passage to mean that the divine Spirit enveloped +himself in a human <emph>body</emph>, 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +Against this theory we urge the following objections: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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 (<hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>John 1:14</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>the Word became flesh, and dwelt</hi></q> [tabernacled] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>among us, and we behold his glory</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>3:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>That +which is born of the flesh is flesh</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom., 7:18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 John +4:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.</hi></q> Since <q><hi rend='italic'>flesh</hi>,</q> 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. <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 85:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Surely +his salvation is nigh them that fear him, That glory may dwell in our land</hi></q>—was fulfilled when +Christ, the true Shekinah, tabernacled in human flesh and men <q><hi rend='italic'>beheld his glory, glory as of +the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 1:14</hi>). And Paul can say in <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 12:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Most +gladly therefore will I rather glory in my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may spread a tabernacle over me.</hi></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. <q>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.</q> +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 <q>half length</q> portrait which depicted only the +<emph>lower half</emph> of the man. <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 1:1-16</hi>, the genealogy of Jesus, and <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>taketh hold of the +seed of Abraham</hi></q>—intimate that Christ took all that belonged to human nature. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<pb n='688'/><anchor id='Pg688'/> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +See Dorner, Unveränderlichkeit Gottes, in Jahrbuch für deutsche Theologie, 1:361; +2:440; 3:579; esp. 1:390-412—<q>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 <emph>aseity</emph>; 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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +See Dorner, Jahrbuch f. d. Theologie, 1:390—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> Mason, Faith of the Gospel, +138—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='689'/><anchor id='Pg689'/> +union completes itself only gradually, as the human consciousness is +sufficiently developed to appropriate the divine. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:660 (Syst. Doct., 4:125)—<q>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.</q> 2:431 (Syst. Doct., 3:328)—<q>In spite of this +<emph>becoming</emph>, inside of the <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Unio</foreign>, 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 <emph>becoming</emph>; for surely he did become +omniscient and incapable of death, as he was not at the beginning.</q> +</p> + +<p> +2:464 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi> (Syst. Doct., 3:363 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi>)—<q>The actual life of God, as the Logos, reaches +beyond the beginnings of the divine-human life. For if the <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Unio</foreign> 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: <q><hi rend='italic'>I must be about my Father's business.</hi></q> To +Satan's temptation: <q><hi rend='italic'>Art thou God's Son?</hi></q> 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.</q> 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). +</p> + +<p> +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. <q>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.</q> +Rothe's statement of the theory can be found in his Dogmatik, 2:49-182; and +in Bib. Sac., 27:386. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +It is objectionable for the following reasons: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +In <hi rend='italic'>Luke 1:35</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God</hi></q>—and <hi rend='italic'>Phil. 2:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>emptied +himself, taking the form of servant, being made in the likeness of men</hi></q>—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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) Since consciousness and will belong to personality, as distinguished +from nature, the hypothesis of a mutual, conscious, and voluntary appropriation +<pb n='690'/><anchor id='Pg690'/> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, 2:68-70, objects to Dorner's view, that it +<q>leads us to a man who is in intimate communion with God,—a man of God, but not a +man who is God.</q> He maintains, against Dorner, that <q>the union between the divine +and human in Christ exists before the consciousness of it.</q> 193-195—Dorner's view +<q>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 <emph>willing</emph> personalities are presupposed, with ethical relation to each +other,—two persons, at least at the first. Says Dorner: <q>So long as the manhood is yet +unconscious, the person of the Logos is not yet the central <emph>ego</emph> 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.</q> At the beginning, then, this man is not yet the God-man; the Logos only +works in him, and on him. <q>The <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>unio personalis</foreign> grows and completes itself,—becomes +ever more all-sided and complete. Till the resurrection, there is a relative separability +still.</q> 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.</q> +See also Thomasius, 2:80-92. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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: <q>I and the Logos are one</q>; <q>he that +hath seen me hath seen the Logos</q>; <q>the Logos is greater than I</q>; <q>I +go to the Logos.</q> In the absence of all Scripture evidence in favor of this +theory, we must regard the rational and dogmatic arguments against it as +conclusive. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>The unity of essence of God and man is the +great discovery of this age.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +See also Dorner, System, 1:123—<q>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 +<pb n='691'/><anchor id='Pg691'/> +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.</q> The <emph>unity</emph> is the foundation of +religion; the <emph>difference</emph> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Stalker, Imago Christi: <q>Christ was not half a God and half a man, but he was perfectly +God and perfectly man.</q> Moberly, Atonement and Personality, 95—<q>The +Incarnate did not oscillate between being God and being man. He was indeed <emph>always</emph> +God, and yet never otherwise God than as expressed within the possibilities of human +consciousness and character.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> See also Biedermann, Dogmatik, 351-353; Hodge, Syst. +Theol., 2:428-430. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>3. The real nature of this Union.</head> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Matt. 11:27</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> 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: <hi rend='italic'>Col. 1:27</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the riches of the glory of +this mystery ... which is Christ in you, the hope of glory</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2:2, 3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the mystery of God, even Christ, in whom +are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 3:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>great is the mystery of godliness; He who was +manifested in the flesh</hi></q>—here the Vulgate, the Latin Fathers, and Buttmann make μυστήριον +the antecedent of ὅς, the relative taking the <emph>natural</emph> gender of its antecedent, and +μυστήριον referring to Christ; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:11</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>both he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one</hi></q> +<q rend='post'>[not father, but race, or substance]</q> (<hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Acts 17:26</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he made of one every nation of men</hi></q>)—an +allusion to the solidarity of the race and Christ's participation in all that belongs to us. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>John 17:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him who thou didst send, even +Jesus Christ</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>20:27</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Luke 24:39</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Phil. 3:8, 10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I count all things to be loss +for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord ... that I may know him</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 John 1:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +Nash, Ethics and Revelation, 254, 255—<q>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.</q> Crane, Religion of To-morrow, 267—<q>Religion being merely the +personality of God, Christianity the personality of Christ.</q> Pascal: <q>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.</q> Goethe in his last years +wrote: <q>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.</q> H. B. Smith, that man of +clear and devout thought, put his whole doctrine into one sentence: <q>Let us come to +Jesus,—the person of Christ is the centre of theology.</q> Dean Stanley never tired of +<pb n='692'/><anchor id='Pg692'/> +quoting as his own Confession of Faith the words of John Bunyan: <q>Blest Cross—blest +Sepulchre—blest rather he—The man who there was put to shame for me!</q> +And Charles Wesley wrote on Catholic Love: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>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</q> (A. H. Strong, Sermon before the +Baptist World Congress, London, July 12, 1905). +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Luther said that we should need <q>new tongues</q> 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. <hi rend='italic'>John 14:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he that hath seen me hath seen the father</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Col. 2:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>in him +dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily</hi></q> = up to the measure of human capacity to receive +and to express the divine. <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:11</hi> and <hi rend='italic'>Acts 17:26</hi> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Robert Browning, Death in the Desert: <q>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</q>; Epilogue to Dramatis Personæ: <q>That one +Face, far from vanish, rather grows, Or decomposes but to recompose, Become my +Universe that feels and knows.</q> <q>That face,</q> said Browning to Mrs. Orr, as he finished +reading the poem, <q>is the face of Christ. That is how I feel him.</q> This is his +<pb n='693'/><anchor id='Pg693'/> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +A. A. Hodge, Popular Lectures, 218, 230—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>2 Pet. 1:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>partakers of the divine nature.</hi></q> 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)—<q>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.</q> +<pb n='694'/><anchor id='Pg694'/> +<hi rend='italic'>Ib.</hi>, 2:403-411 (Syst. Doct., 3:301-308)—<q rend='pre'>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. <q><hi rend='italic'>Deep calleth unto deep</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 42:7</hi>)—the deep of the +divine riches, and the deep of human poverty, call to each other. <q>From me a cry,—from +him reply.</q> 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>first loved</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>1 John 4:19</hi>).</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>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.</q> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>all minds are of one family.</q> E. B. Andrews: +<q>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.</q> <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +John Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 1:165—<q>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.</q> ... 2:101—<q>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.</q> Lyman Abbott, Theology of an Evolutionist, 190—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 7:15, 16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>another priest, who hath been made ... after the +power of an endless life</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 1:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>In him was life; and the life was the light of men.</hi></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) 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 +<pb n='695'/><anchor id='Pg695'/> +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). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <emph>Holy Spirit</emph> in the Christian,—nothing foreign, nothing distinguishable +from the human life into which it enters; and by the <emph>moral sense</emph>, 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: <q><hi rend='italic'>Before Abraham was born, I am</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 8:58</hi>); <q><hi rend='italic'>I and the Father are +one</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 10:30</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +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), <q>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</q>; see Bruce, Humiliation of Christ, 90. <emph>Nature</emph> has consciousness +and will, only as it is manifested in <emph>person</emph>. 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; <hi rend='italic'>versus</hi> Current +Discussions in Theology, 5:283. +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>Mark 13:32</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>of +that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Luke 22:42</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Father, +if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.</hi></q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +We subjoin various definitions of personality: Boëthius, quoted in Dorner, Glaubenslehre, +2:415 (Syst. Doct., 3:313)—<q>Persona est animæ rationalis individua substantia</q>; +F. W. Robertson, Lect. on Gen., p. 3—<q>Personality = self-consciousness, will, +character</q>; Porter, Human Intellect, 626—<q>Personality = distinct subsistence, either +actually or latently self-conscious and self-determining</q>; Harris, Philos. Basis of +Theism, 408—<q>Person = being, conscious of self, subsisting in individuality and identity, +and endowed with intuitive reason, rational sensibility, and free-will.</q> Dr. E. G. +Robinson defines <q>nature</q> as <q>that substratum or condition of being which determines +the kind and attributes of the person, but which is clearly distinguishable from +the person itself.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Lotze, Metaphysics, § 244—<q>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.</q> Illingworth, Personality, Human +<pb n='696'/><anchor id='Pg696'/> +and Divine, 32—<q>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.</q> 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. <hi rend='italic'>Per contra</hi>, 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) 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). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Kahnis, Dogmatik, 2d ed., 2:77—<q>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.</q> Mason, Faith +of the Gospel, 151—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 4:131—<q>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 <emph>our</emph> destiny to become <q><hi rend='italic'>partakers of the divine +nature</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>2 Pet. 1:4</hi>). 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +In <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 3:16</hi>, the anointing of the Spirit at his baptism was not the descent of a material +dove (<q><hi rend='italic'>as a dove</hi></q>). 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. <hi rend='italic'>John 3:34</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>for he giveth not the Spirit by measure</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>Acts 1:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>after that he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit unto the apostles</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>10:38</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb, 9:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit +offered himself without blemish onto God.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +When permitted by the Holy Spirit, he knew, taught, and wrought as God: <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 17:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he +was transfigured before them</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mark 5:41</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Damsel, I say unto thee, Arise</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Luke 5:20, 21</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Man, thy +sins are forgiven thee.... Who can forgive sins, but God alone?</hi></q>—<hi rend='italic'>Luke 6:19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>power came forth from him, +and healed them all</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 2:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>This beginning of his signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his +glory</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>24, 25</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he knew all men.... he himself knew what was in man</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>3:13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the Son of man, who is +<pb n='697'/><anchor id='Pg697'/> +in heaven</hi></q> [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 <hi rend='italic'>John 3:13</hi>]; <hi rend='italic'>20:19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>when +the doors were shut ... Jesus came and stood in the midst.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +Christ is the <q><hi rend='italic'>servant of Jehovah</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Is. 42:1-7; 49:1-12; 52:13; 53:11</hi>) and the meaning of παῖς +(<hi rend='italic'>Acts 3:13, 28; 4:27, 30</hi>) is not <q>child</q> or <q>Son</q>; it is <q><hi rend='italic'>servant</hi>,</q> as in the Revised Version. +But, in the state of exaltation, Christ is the <q><hi rend='italic'>Lord of the Spirit</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 3:18</hi>—Meyer), giving +the Spirit (<hi rend='italic'>John 16:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I will send him unto you</hi></q>), present in the Spirit (<hi rend='italic'>John 14:18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I come unto +you</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 28:20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I am with you always, even unto the the end of the world</hi></q>), and working through the +Spirit (<hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 15:45</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>The last Adam became a life-giving spirit</hi></q>); <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 3:17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Now the Lord is the Spirit</hi></q>. +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. +</p> + +<p> +Delitzsch: <q>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.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> We would enlarge and amend this illustration of the +pyramid, by making the base to be the Logos, as Creator and Upholder of all (<hi rend='italic'>Eph. 1:23</hi>; +<hi rend='italic'>Col. 1:16</hi>); the stratum which rests next upon the Logos is universal humanity (<hi rend='italic'>Ps, 8:5, 6</hi>); +then comes Israel as a whole (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 2:15</hi>); spiritual Israel rests upon Israel after the flesh +(<hi rend='italic'>Is. 42:1-7</hi>); as the acme and cap stone of all, Christ appears, to crown the pyramid, the +true servant of Jehovah and Son of man (<hi rend='italic'>Is. 53:11</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 20:28</hi>). 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Is. 9:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Everlasting Father</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Is. 53:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he +shall see his seed</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 22:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>root and offspring of David</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I and the children whom God hath +given me.</hi></q>) +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>g</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi>; Lawrence, in Bib. Sac., 24:41; Schöberlein, +in Jahrbuch für deutsche Theologie, 1871:459-501. +</p> + +<p> +A. J. F. Behrends, in The Examiner, April 21, 1898—<q>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 <emph>in</emph> him which +makes his death necessary.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<pb n='698'/><anchor id='Pg698'/> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>h</hi>) 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). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:17,18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>4:15,16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 2:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself +man, Christ Jesus</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 7:25</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>Haud ignara malí, miseris succurrere disco</q>—<q>Myself not ignorant of woe, +Compassion I have learned to show.</q> And Terence uttered almost a Christian word +when he wrote: <q>Homo sum, et humani nihil a me alienum puto</q>—<q>I am a man, and +I count nothing human as foreign to me.</q> Christ's experience and divinity made these +words far more true of him than of any merely human being. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>i</hi>) 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 (<hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> Heb. 1:8; +7:24, 25). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 15:28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 17:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Father, glorify thou me with thine +own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 1:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O +God, is for ever and ever</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>7:24</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he, because he abideth forever, hath his priesthood unchangeable.</hi></q> 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 26:39</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>not +as I will, but as thou wilt</hi></q>)—a distinction which shall cease when Christ becomes Judge +(<hi rend='italic'>John 16:26</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>In that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not onto you, that I will pray the Father for you</hi></q>) +If Christ's <emph>reign</emph> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='699'/><anchor id='Pg699'/> +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: <q>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.</q> We may add that other offices of friendship and instruction +will then begin. +</p> + +<p> +Melanchthon: <q>Christ will finish his work as Mediator, and then will reign as God, +immediately revealing to us the Deity.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> An. +Par. Bible, on <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 15:28</hi>—<q>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.</q> See also Edwards, Observations on the +Trinity, 85 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi> Expositor's Greek Testament, on <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 15:28</hi>, <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:402 (Syst. Doct., 3:297-299)—<q>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.</q> Bishop of Salisbury, quoted in Swayne, Our Lord's +Knowledge as Man, XX—<q>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 <hi rend='italic'>Col. 1:24</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>fill up that which is lacking</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 10:12, 13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>expecting till his +enemies</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 15:28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>when all things have been subjected unto him.</hi></q></q> 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 (<hi rend='italic'>John 17:5</hi>); that all the heavenly powers are already subject +to him (<hi rend='italic'>Eph. 1:21, 22</hi>); and that he is now omnipresent (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 28:20</hi>). +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>j</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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; <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 5:19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>John 14:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he that hath seen me hath seen the Father.</hi></q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +J. M. Whiton: <q>How is the divine spirit which is manifest in the life of the man +Christ Jesus to be distinguished, <hi rend='italic'>qua</hi> divine, from the same divine spirit as manifested +in the life of humanity? I answer, that in him, the person Christ, dwelleth the <emph>fulness</emph> +of the Godhead bodily. I emphasize <emph>fulness</emph>, and say: The God-head is alike in the race +and in its spiritual head, but the <emph>fulness</emph> is in the head alone—a fulness of course not +<pb n='700'/><anchor id='Pg700'/> +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.</q>... +Gloria Patri, 88, 23—<q>Every incarnation of life is <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>pro tanto</foreign> 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 <foreign lang='el' rend='italic'>Homoousios</foreign> 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.</q> 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. <foreign lang='el' rend='italic'>Homoiousios</foreign> he +regards as involving <foreign lang='el' rend='italic'>homoousios</foreign>; 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. +</p> + +<p> +Lyman Abbott affirms that Christ is, <q>not God <emph>and</emph> man, but God <emph>in</emph> man.</q> 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—<q><hi rend='italic'>anointed with the +Holy Spirit and with power</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Acts 10:38</hi>). Phillips Brooks: <q>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.</q> 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: <q>You are a part of God.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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. <q>Jesus quotes approvingly the words of <hi rend='italic'>Psalm 82:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I said, Ye are +Gods.</hi></q> 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. <q><hi rend='italic'>And we +through him</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 8:6</hi>)—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.</q> Samuel Harris, God the Creator and Lord of All, speaks of <q>the essentially +human in God, and the essentially divine in man.</q> The Son, or Word of God, <q>when +manifested in the forms of a finite personality, is the essential Christ, revealing that in +God which is essentially and eternally human.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 1:196—<q>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.</q> 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, <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>natura naturata</foreign>: +<q>Jupiter est quodcunque vides, quodcunque moveris</q> (Lucan, Phars., 9:579); others +conceived of him as the <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>natura naturans</foreign>,—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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +</div> + +<pb n='701'/><anchor id='Pg701'/> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Section III.—The Two States Of Christ.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>I. The State of Humiliation.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. The nature of this humiliation.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 224—<q>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: <q>Thank God, there is law in Prussia!</q></q> +Palmer, Theological Definition, 79—<q>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; <hi rend='italic'>John 12:32</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And I, +if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.</hi></q></q> George Harris, Moral Evolution, 409—<q>The +divinity of Christ is not obscured, but is more clearly seen, shining through his +humanity.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +We may devote more attention to the +</p> + +<p> +A. Theory of Thomasius, Delitzsch, and Crosby, that the humiliation +consisted in the surrender of the relative divine attributes. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +The theory of Thomasius, Delitzsch, and Crosby has been, though improperly, +called the theory of the Kenosis (from ἐκένωσεν—<q><hi rend='italic'>emptied himself</hi></q>—in <hi rend='italic'>Phil. 2:7</hi>), 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>became</hi>,</q> in <hi rend='italic'>John 1:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>and the Word became flesh</hi></q>—and gives the Word <q><hi rend='italic'>flesh</hi></q> the sense +of <q>man,</q> or <q>human.</q> Crosby, then, should logically deny, though he does not deny, +that Christ's body was derived from the Virgin. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +We object to this view that: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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, +<pb n='702'/><anchor id='Pg702'/> +while the immanent attributes, which chiefly characterize the Godhead, are +retained; for the immanent necessarily involve the relative, as the greater +involve the less. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Liebner, Jahrbuch f. d. Theol., 3:349-356—<q>Is the Logos here? But wherein does he +show his presence, that it may be known?</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Dorner, Jahrbuch f. d. Theol., 1:397-408—<q>The impossibility of making two finite +souls into one finally drove Arianism to the denial of any human soul in Christ</q> +(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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Kahnis, Dogmatik 3:343—<q rend='pre'>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 <emph>ego</emph> 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 <emph>becoming</emph> impossible.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'>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 <hi rend='italic'>Phil. 2:6-11</hi> 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 <emph>relative</emph> 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>The essential thing which the Kenotics aim at, however, stands fast; namely, that +the divine personality of the Logos divested itself of its glory (<hi rend='italic'>John 17:5</hi>), riches (<hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. +8:6</hi>), divine form (<hi rend='italic'>Phil. 2:6</hi>). 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, +<pb n='703'/><anchor id='Pg703'/> +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.</q> +This statement of Kahnis, although approaching correctness, is still neither +quite correct nor quite complete. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +B. Theory that the humiliation consisted in the surrender of the independent +exercise of the divine attributes. +</p> + +<p> +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: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>John 17:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Phil. +2:6, 7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 8:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> Pompilia, in Robert Browning's The Ring and the Book: <q>Now I see +how God is likest God in being born.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>John 13:1-20</hi>, +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Acts 1:2</hi>—Jesus, <q><hi rend='italic'>after that he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit unto the apostles whom he had +chosen</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>10:38</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 9:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the +blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God.</hi></q> 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 <q>That glorious form, that light unsufferable, +And that far-beaming blaze of majesty.</q> Arthur H. Hallam, in John Brown's Rab +and his Friends, 282, 283—<q>Revelation is the voluntary approximation of the infinite +Being to the ways and thoughts of finite humanity.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 26:53</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>thinkest thou that I cannot beseech my Father, and he shall even now send me more than twelve legions +of angels?</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>John 10:17, 18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Phil. 2:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, +yea, the death of the cross.</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>Cf.</hi> Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice: <q>Such music is there in +immortal souls, That while this muddy vesture of decay Doth close it in, we cannot +see it.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<pb n='704'/><anchor id='Pg704'/> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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, +<hi rend='italic'>Phil. 2:5-8</hi>, we give below, under the next paragraph, pages <ref target='Pg705'>705</ref>, <ref target='Pg706'>706</ref>. Brentius illustrated +Christ's humiliation by the king who travels incognito. But Mason, Faith of the Gospel, +158, says well that <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +This same objection lies against the explanation given in the Church Quarterly +Review, Oct. 1891:1-30, on Our Lord's Knowledge as Man: <q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. The stages of Christ's humiliation.</head> + +<p> +We may distinguish: (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) That act of the preïncarnate Logos by which, +in becoming man, he gave up the independent exercise of the divine attributes. +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. (<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) His subjection, as connected with a sinful race, to temptation and suffering, +and finally to the death which constituted the penalty of the law. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <q><hi rend='italic'>upholding all things by the word of his power</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 1:3</hi>), and in +whom <q><hi rend='italic'>all things consist</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Col. 1:17</hi>). 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—<q>Jehovah, though present in the form of the burning +<pb n='705'/><anchor id='Pg705'/> +bush, was at the same time omnipresent also</q>; 2:265-284, esp. 282—<q>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.</q> +Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 21—<q>Not with God, as with finite man, does +arrival in one place necessitate withdrawal from another.</q> John Calvin: <q>The whole +Christ was there; but not all that was in Christ was there.</q> See Adamson, The Mind +of Christ. +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>per se</hi>, but +rather the God-man, Jesus Christ, in whom the Logos submitted to this humiliation. +South, Sermons, 2:9—<q>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.</q> Sartorius, Person and Work of Christ, 39—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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: <q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>1 John 3:2</hi>). 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. +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>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.</q> +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—<q>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.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 8:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor</hi></q> = he beggared himself. +<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 27:46</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?</hi></q> = non-exercise of divine omniscience. +</p> + +<p> +Inasmuch, however, as the passage <hi rend='italic'>Phil. 2:6-8</hi> is the chief basis and support of the +doctrine of Christ's humiliation, we here subjoin a more detailed examination of it. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Exposition of Philippians, 2:6-8.</hi> The passage reads: <q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The subject of the sentence is at first (<hi rend='italic'>verses 6, 7</hi>) Christ Jesus, regarded as the preëxistent +Logos; subsequently (<hi rend='italic'>verse 8</hi>), this same Christ Jesus, regarded as incarnate. This +change in the subject is indicated by the contrast between μορφῇ θεοῦ (<hi rend='italic'>verse 6</hi>) and μορφὴν +δούλου (<hi rend='italic'>verse 7</hi>), as well as by the participles λαβών and γενόμενος (<hi rend='italic'>verse 7</hi>) and εύρεθείς (<hi rend='italic'>verse 8</hi>) +It is asserted, then, that the preëxisting Logos, <q>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</q> (<hi rend='italic'>verse 8</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +Here notice that what the Logos divested himself of, in becoming man, is not the +<pb n='706'/><anchor id='Pg706'/> +substance of his Godhead, but the <q><hi rend='italic'>form of God</hi></q> in which this substance was manifested. +This <q><hi rend='italic'>form of God</hi></q> can be only that independent exercise of the powers and prerogatives +of Deity which constitutes his <q><hi rend='italic'>equality with God</hi>.</q> This he surrenders, in the act of +<q><hi rend='italic'>taking the form of a servant</hi></q>—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 <q>made in the likeness of men</q> and <q>found in +fashion as a man</q> 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 (<hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> +<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 8:3</hi>—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. +</p> + +<p> +See Lightfoot, on <hi rend='italic'>Phil. 2:8</hi>—<q>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.</q> Evans, in Presb. Rev., 1883:287—<q>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 <hi rend='italic'>v. 7</hi>. Its central act is: +<q><hi rend='italic'>he emptied himself</hi>.</q> Its two modalities are: (1) <q><hi rend='italic'>taking the form of servant</hi></q>; (2) <q><hi rend='italic'>being made in the +likeness of men</hi>.</q> Here we have the humiliation of the Kenosis,—that by which Christ +<hi rend='italic'>became</hi> man. 2d stage, indicated in <hi rend='italic'>v. 8</hi>. Its central act is: <q><hi rend='italic'>he humbled himself</hi>.</q> Its two +modalities are: (1) <q><hi rend='italic'>being found in fashion as a man</hi></q>; (2) <q><hi rend='italic'>becoming obedient unto death, yea, the death of the +cross</hi>.</q> Here we have the humiliation of his obedience and death,—that by which, <emph>in</emph> +humanity, he became a sacrifice for our sins.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Meyer refers <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 5:31</hi> exclusively to Christ and the church, making the completed +union future, however, <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, at the time of the Parousia. <q><hi rend='italic'>For this cause shall a man leave his +father and mother</hi></q> = <q>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.</q> On the interpretation of <hi rend='italic'>Phil 2:6-11</hi>, see +Comm. of Neander, Meyer, Lange, Ellicott. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>The Incarnation is in its essence independent of the Fall, though conditioned +by it as to its circumstances.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Per contra</hi>, see Robinson, Christ. Theol., 219, note—<q>It +would be difficult to show that a like method of argument from <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>a priori</foreign> premisses will +not equally avail to prove sin to have been a necessary part of the scheme of creation.</q> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>II. The State of Exaltation.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. The nature of this exaltation.</head> + +<p> +It consisted essentially in: (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) A resumption, on the part of the Logos, +of his independent exercise of divine attributes. (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) The withdrawal, on +the part of the Logos, of all limitations in his communication of the divine +fulness to the human nature of Christ. (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +The eighth Psalm, with its account of the glory of human nature, is at present fulfilled +only in Christ (see <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>but we behold ... Jesus</hi></q>). <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:7</hi>—ἠλάττωσας αὐτὸν +βραχύ τι παρ᾽ ἀγγέλους—may be translated, as in the margin of the Rev. Vers.: <q><hi rend='italic'>Thou madest +<pb n='707'/><anchor id='Pg707'/> +him for a little while lower than the angels.</hi></q> 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Acts 2:24</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of +death: because it was not possible he should be holden of it</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>31</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>neither was he left unto Hades, nor did his +flesh see corruption</hi></q>). 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. The stages of Christ's exaltation.</head> + +<p> +(a) The quickening and resurrection. +</p> + +<p> +Both Lutherans and Romanists distinguish between these two, making +the former precede, and the latter follow, Christ's <q>preaching to the spirits +in prison.</q> 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Augustine, Ad Euodiam, ep. 99—<q>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.</q> 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 <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 10:7</hi>, regards the question—<q><hi rend='italic'>Who +shall descend into the abyss?</hi> (<hi rend='italic'>that is, to bring Christ up from the dead</hi>)</q>—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: <q>During that time [the three days] he +did not return to heaven and his Father.</q> But though <hi rend='italic'>John 20:17</hi> is referred to for +proof, is not this statement true only of his body? So far as the soul is concerned, +Christ can say: <q><hi rend='italic'>Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit</hi>,</q> and <q><hi rend='italic'>To-day thou shalt be with me in Paradise</hi></q> +(<hi rend='italic'>Luke 23:43, 46</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +Zahn and Dorner best represent the Lutheran view. Zahn, in Expositor, March, 1898: +216-223—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:662 (Syst. Doct., 4:127), thinks <q>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.</q> He rejects <q>Luther's notion of a merely triumphal +progress and proclamation of Christ. Before Christ,</q> he says, <q rend='pre'>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>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 +<pb n='708'/><anchor id='Pg708'/> +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.</q> +So Dorner, for substance. +</p> + +<p> +All this <hi rend='italic'>versus</hi> 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. +</p> + +<p> +For the opposite view, see <q>No Preaching to the Dead,</q> in Princeton Rev., March, +1875:197; 1878:451-491; Hovey, in Bap. Quar., 4:486 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi>, 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—<q>If +Christ preached to spirits in Hades, it may have been to demonstrate the <emph>hopelessness</emph> 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. <q><hi rend='italic'>Today thou shalt be with me in Paradise</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Luke +23:43</hi>) 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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, <hi rend='italic'>1 Pet. 3:18-20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +Bartlett expounds as follows: <q><q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>In which</hi></q> [πνεύματι, divine nature] <q><hi rend='italic'>he went and preached +to the spirits in prison when once they disobeyed.</hi></q> ἀπειθήσασιν is circumstantial aorist, indicating the +time of the preaching as a definite past: It is an anarthrous dative, as in <hi rend='italic'>Luke 8:27</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 8:23</hi>; +<hi rend='italic'>Acts 15:25</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>22:17</hi>. 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 <hi rend='italic'>verse 18</hi> (θανατωθείς), in <hi rend='italic'>1 Thess. 1:6</hi> (δεξάμενοι), and in <hi rend='italic'>Col. 2:11, 13</hi>.] +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. +<hi rend='italic'>Cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 6:3</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Pet. 1:10, 11</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Pet. 2:4, 5</hi>.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) The ascension and sitting at the right hand of God. +</p> + +<p> +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. <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Dextra +Dei ubique est.</foreign> +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 28:18, 20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mark 16:19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Acts 7:55</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 13:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he +was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth through the power of God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 1:22, 23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>4:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>He that descended is the same also that ascended far above all the heavens, that he might +fill all things.</hi></q> Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 4:184-189—<q>Before the resurrection, Christ was +the God-<emph>man</emph>; since the resurrection, he is the <emph>God</emph>-man.... He ate with his disciples, +not to show the <emph>quality</emph>, but the <emph>reality</emph>, of his human body.</q> Nicoll, Life of Christ: +<pb n='709'/><anchor id='Pg709'/> +<q>It was hard for Elijah to ascend</q>—it required chariot and horses of fire—<q>but it was +easier for Christ to ascend than to descend,</q>—there was a gravitation upwards. Maclaren: +<q>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</q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 1:18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the only begotten Son, who is in +the bosom of the Father</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>3:13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the Son of man, who is in heaven.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>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.</q> The old theologians said that Christ is not in heaven, quasi carcere. +Calvin, Institutes, 2:15—he is <q>incarnate, but not incarcerated.</q> 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 <hi rend='italic'>John 20:22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he breathed on them, +and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit</hi></q>—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <q><hi rend='italic'>Spirit of Christ</hi></q> +(<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 8:9</hi>), and in having the Holy Spirit we have Christ himself (<hi rend='italic'>John 16:7</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>I will send him</hi></q> +[the Comforter] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>unto you</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>14:18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I come unto you</hi></q>). 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, <q><hi rend='italic'>Lo, I am with you</hi>,</q> in which the <q>I</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +But this is not to say that Christ's human <emph>body</emph> 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. <hi rend='italic'>Per contra</hi>, 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. +</p> + +<p> +Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:327—<q>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.</q> So Hooker, Eccl. Pol., 54, 55, and E. G. Robinson: <q>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.</q> +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 +<pb n='710'/><anchor id='Pg710'/> +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 +<q><hi rend='italic'>every eye</hi></q> may <q><hi rend='italic'>see him</hi></q> 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; (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 28:20</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 1:7</hi>). +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Section IV.—The Offices Of Christ.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 1:30</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who was made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, +and redemption.</hi></q> Here <q><hi rend='italic'>wisdom</hi></q> seems to indicate the prophetic, <q><hi rend='italic'>righteousness</hi></q> (or <q><hi rend='italic'>justification</hi></q>) +the priestly, and <q><hi rend='italic'>sanctification and redemption</hi></q> the kingly work of Christ. Denovan: +<q>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.</q> See Van Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 583-586; Archer +Butler, Sermons, 1:314. +</p> + +<p> +A. A. Hodge, Popular Lectures, 235—<q>For <q>office,</q> there are two words in Latin: +<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>munus</foreign> = position (of Mediator), and <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>officia</foreign> = 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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>I. The Prophetic Office of Christ.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. The nature of Christ's prophetic work.</head> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +<hi rend='italic'>Cf.</hi> 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). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 20:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>restore the man's wife; for he is a prophet</hi></q>—spoken of Abraham; <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 105:15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Touch not +mine anointed ones, And do my prophets no harm</hi></q>—spoken of the patriarchs; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 11:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>But wherefore +went ye out? to see a prophet? Yea, I say into you, and much more than a prophet</hi></q>—spoken of John the +Baptist, from whom we have no recorded predictions, and whose pointing to Jesus as +the <q><hi rend='italic'>Lamb of God</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 1:29</hi>) was apparently but an echo of <hi rend='italic'>Isaiah 53</hi>. <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 12:28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>first apostles, +secondly prophets</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 2:20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>3:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>revealed unto his +holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit</hi></q>—all these latter texts speaking of New Testament +expounders of Scripture. +</p> + +<p> +Any organ of divine revelation, or medium of divine communication, is a prophet. +<q>Hence,</q> says Philippi, <q>the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings are called +<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>prophetæ priores</foreign>,</q> or <q>the earlier prophets.</q> Bernard's <hi rend='italic'>Respice, Aspice, Prospice</hi> +<pb n='711'/><anchor id='Pg711'/> +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 +(<hi rend='italic'>Dan. 2:28, 36</hi>). The woman of Samaria rightly called Christ a prophet, when he told +her all things that ever she did (<hi rend='italic'>John 4:29</hi>).</q> On the work of the prophet, see Stanley, +Jewish Church, 1:491. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> 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). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Deut. 18:15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Acts 3:22</hi>—where this prophecy is said to be fulfilled in Christ. +Jesus calls himself a prophet in <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 13:57</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and +in his own house</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Luke 13:33</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> He was called a prophet: <hi rend='italic'>John 6:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>When therefore +the people saw the sign which he did, they said, This is of a truth the prophet that cometh into the world.</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>John 8:26</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>the +things which I heard from him</hi></q> [the Father], <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>these speak I unto the world</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>14:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he that hath seen +me hath seen the Father</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>17:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the words which thou gavest me I have given unto them.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +Denovan: <q>Christ teaches us by his word, his Spirit, his example.</q> Christ's miracles +were mainly miracles of healing. <q>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 <q><hi rend='italic'>touch</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 9:21</hi>) was necessary.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Edwin P. Parker, on Horace Bushnell: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. The stages of Christ's prophetic work.</head> + +<p> +These are four, namely: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Christ's prophetic work began before he came in the flesh. <hi rend='italic'>John 1:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>There was the true +light, even the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world</hi></q>—all the natural light of conscience, +science, philosophy, art, civilization, is the light of Christ. Tennyson: <q>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.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 12:25, 26</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>See that ye refuse not +him that speaketh.... whose voice then</hi></q> [at Sinai] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Luke 11:49</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Therefore said the wisdom of +God, I will send unto them prophets and apostles</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Mat 23:34</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise +men, and scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify</hi></q>—which shows that Jesus was referring to +his own teachings, as well as to those of the earlier prophets. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) The earthly ministry of Christ incarnate.—In his earthly ministry, +Christ showed himself the prophet <hi rend='italic'>par excellence</hi>. While he submitted, +<pb n='712'/><anchor id='Pg712'/> +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 <emph>come</emph> to him,—he was <emph>himself</emph> the Word. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Luke 6:19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And all the multitude sought to touch him; for power came forth from him, and healed them all</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>John 2:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>This beginning of his signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>8:38, 58</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I +speak the things which I have seen with my Father.... Before Abraham was born, I am</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Jer. 2:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the +word of Jehovah came to me</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 1:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>In the beginning was the Word.</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 26:53</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>twelve legions of +angels</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 10:18</hi>—of his life: <q><hi rend='italic'>I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>34</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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?</hi></q> Martensen, Dogmatics, 295-301, says of Jesus' teaching that <q>its source was not +inspiration, but incarnation.</q> Jesus was not inspired,—he was the Inspirer. Therefore +he is the true <q>Master of those who know.</q> His disciples act in his name; he acts +in his own name. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>John 16:12-14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Acts 1:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus began both +to do and to teach</hi></q>—Christ's prophetic work was only <emph>begun</emph>, 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. +</p> + +<p> +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. <hi rend='italic'>Num. 11:29</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Would +that all Jehovah's people were prophets, that Jehovah would put his Spirit upon them</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Joel 2:28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I will pour out +my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.</hi></q> 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. <q>All so-called new prophecy, from +Montanus to Swedenborg, proves its own falsity by its lack of attesting miracles.</q> +</p> + +<p> +A. A. Hodge, Popular Lectures, 242—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) Christ's final revelation of the Father to his saints in glory (John +16:25; 17:24, 26; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>John 16:25</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the hour cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in dark sayings, but shall tell you plainly of +the Father</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>17:24</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I desire that where I am, they also may be with me; that they may behold my glory, which +thou hast given me</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>26</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I made known unto them thy name, and will make it known.</hi></q> The revelation of +his own glory will be the revelation of the Father, in the Son. <hi rend='italic'>Is. 64:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 13:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 21:23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>—not light, but +lamp. Light is something generally diffused; one sees <emph>by</emph> it, but one cannot see <emph>it</emph>. +<pb n='713'/><anchor id='Pg713'/> +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, +<q><hi rend='italic'>whom no man hath seen, nor can see.</hi></q> <q><hi rend='italic'>The only begotten Son ... he hath declared him,</hi></q> and he will forever +declare him (<hi rend='italic'>John 1:18</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 6:16</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'><q>unto the principalities +and the powers in the heavenly places might be made known through the church the manifold wisdom of God</q> +(Eph. 3:10)</hi>. 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: <q><hi rend='italic'>Blessed be the glory of +Jehovah from his place</hi></q>; <q><hi rend='italic'>Jehovah is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Ez. 3:12; Hab. +2:20</hi>). 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>II. The Priestly Office of Christ.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Hebrews 7:24-28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1. Christ's Sacrificial Work, or the Doctrine of the Atonement.</head> + +<p> +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:— +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='714'/><anchor id='Pg714'/> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Here is a double work of Christ which Paul distinctly declares in <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 8:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> 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, <hi rend='italic'>in loco</hi>: <q>When the question is asked, In what sense did God +send his Son <q>in connection with sin</q>, 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 <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 3:25</hi> <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi></q> But whatever God did in condemning sin he did through Christ; +<q><hi rend='italic'>God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 5:19</hi>); 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='715'/><anchor id='Pg715'/> +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: <q>Our loves in higher +love endure.</q> No human will is truly free, unless God emancipates it; only he whom +the Son of God makes free is free indeed; <q><hi rend='italic'>work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for +it is God who worketh in you both to will and to work</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Phil. 2:12, 13</hi>). 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Col. 2:10</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>Acts 17:28</hi>). +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: <q>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.</q> This single Reality is Jesus +Christ, the manifested God, the Light that lighteth every man, and the Life of all that +lives (<hi rend='italic'>John 1:4, 9</hi>). He can represent humanity before God, because his immanent Deity +constitutes the very essence of humanity. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <q><hi rend='italic'>might himself be just</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 3:26</hi>); 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, <q>Love's Redeeming Work is Done,</q> 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 <emph>substitution</emph> the idea of <emph>sharing</emph>. 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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; <q><hi rend='italic'>in all our affliction he has been +afflicted</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Is. 63:9</hi>); so that the Psalmist can say: <q><hi rend='italic'>Blessed be the Lord, who daily beareth our burden, +even the God who is our salvation</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 68:19</hi>). 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 +<pb n='716'/><anchor id='Pg716'/> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>g</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +We too are subject to the same law of life. We who enter into fellowship with our +Lord <q><hi rend='italic'>fill up ... that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ ... for his body's sake, which is the church</hi></q> +(<hi rend='italic'>Col. 1:24</hi>). 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>A. Scripture Methods of Representing the Atonement.</head> + +<p> +We may classify the Scripture representations according as they conform +to moral, commercial, legal or sacrificial analogies. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) <hi rend='smallcaps'>Moral.</hi>—The atonement is described as +</p> + +<p> +A <hi rend='italic'>provision originating in God's love</hi>, and manifesting this love to the +universe; but also as an <hi rend='italic'>example of disinterested love</hi>, to secure our +deliverance from selfishness.—In these latter passages, Christ's death is +referred to as a source of moral stimulus to men. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>A provision</hi>: <hi rend='italic'>John 3:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>God +commendeth his own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 John 4:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>—redemption originated in the love of the Father, +as well as in that of the Son.—<hi rend='italic'>An example</hi>: <hi rend='italic'>Luke 9:22-24</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 5:15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he died for all, that they that live should no +longer live unto themselves</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Gal. 1:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us out of this present +<pb n='717'/><anchor id='Pg717'/> +evil world</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 5:25-27</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify it</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>Col. 1:22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Titus 2:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>gave himself for +us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Pet. 2:21-24</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 181—<q>A +pious cottager, on hearing the text, <q><hi rend='italic'>God so loved the world</hi>,</q> exclaimed: <q>Ah, that <emph>was</emph> +love! I could have given myself, but I could never have given my son.</q></q> There was +a wounding of the Father through the heart of the Son: <q><hi rend='italic'>they shall look unto me whom they +have pierced; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Zech. 12:10</hi>). +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(b) <hi rend='smallcaps'>Commercial.</hi>—The atonement is described as +</p> + +<p> +A <emph>ransom</emph>, 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 20:28, and Mark 10:45</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>to give his life a ransom for many</hi></q>—λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν. <hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 2:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>who +gave himself a ransom for all</hi></q>—ἀντίλυτρον. Ἀντί (<q><hi rend='italic'>for</hi>,</q> in the sense of <q>instead of</q>) is +never confounded with ὑπέρ (<q><hi rend='italic'>for</hi>,</q> in the sense of <q>in behalf of,</q> <q>for the benefit of</q>). +Ἀντί is the preposition of price, bargain, exchange; and this signification is traceable in +every passage where it occurs in the N. T. See <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 2:22</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>Archelaus was reigning over Judea in +the room of</hi></q> [ἀντί] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>his father Herod</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Luke 11:11</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>shall his son ask ... a fish, and he for</hi></q> [ἀντί] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>a fish give +him a serpent?</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 12:2</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith, who for</hi></q> [ἀντί = as the price of] +<q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>the joy that was set before him endured the cross</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>16</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>Esau, who for</hi></q> [ἀντί = in exchange for] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>one mess +of meat sold his own birthright.</hi></q> See also <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 16:26</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>what shall a man give in exchange for</hi></q> (ἀντάλλαγμα) <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>his +life</hi></q> = how shall he buy it back, when once he has lost it? Ἀντίλυτρον = substitutionary +ransom. The connection in <hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 2:6</hi> requires that ὑπέρ should mean <q>instead of.</q> We +should interpret this ὑπέρ by the ἀντί in <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 20:28</hi>. <q>Something befell Christ, and by +reason of that, the same thing need not befall sinners</q> (E. Y. Mullins). +</p> + +<p> +Meyer, on <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 20:28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>to give his life a ransom for many</hi></q>—<q>The ψυχή is conceived of as λύτρον, +a ransom, for, through the shedding of the blood, it becomes the τιμή (price) of redemption.</q> +See also <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>ye were bought with a price</hi></q>; and <hi rend='italic'>2 Pet. 2:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>denying even the +Master that bought them.</hi></q> The word <q>redemption,</q> indeed, means simply <q>repurchase,</q> or +<q>the state of being repurchased</q>—<hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, delivered by the payment of a price. <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 5:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>thou +wast slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe.</hi></q> Winer, N. T. Grammar, +258—<q>In Greek, ἀντί is the preposition of price.</q> Buttmann, N. T. Grammar, 321—<q>In +the signification of the preposition ἀντί (instead of, for), no deviation occurs from +ordinary usage.</q> See Grimm's Wilke, Lexicon Græco-Lat.: <q>ἀντί, <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>in vicem</foreign>, <foreign lang='de' rend='italic'>anstatt</foreign></q>; +Thayer, Lexicon N. T.—<q>ἀντί, of that for which anything is given, received, endured; ... of +the price of sale (or purchase) <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 20:28</hi></q>; also Cremer, N. T. Lex., on +ἀντάλλαγμα. +</p> + +<p> +Pfleiderer, in New World, Sept. 1899, doubts whether Jesus ever really uttered the +words <q><hi rend='italic'>give his life a ransom for many</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 20:28</hi>). 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 (<hi rend='italic'>John 14:26</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>16:13</hi>). As will be seen below, Pfleiderer declares the Pauline doctrine +to be that of substitutionary suffering. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) <hi rend='smallcaps'>Legal.</hi>—The atonement is described as +</p> + +<p> +An act of <emph>obedience</emph> to the law which sinners had violated; a <emph>penalty</emph>, +borne in order to rescue the guilty; and an <emph>exhibition</emph> 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Obedience</hi>: <hi rend='italic'>Gal. 4:4, 5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>born of a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem them that were under +the law</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 3:15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness</hi></q>—Christ's baptism prefigured +<pb n='718'/><anchor id='Pg718'/> +his death, and was a consecration to death; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Mark 10:38</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Are ye able to drink the cup that I +drink? or to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>Luke 12:50</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I have a baptism to be baptized +with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 26:39</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>My Father, if it be possible, let this cup +pass away from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>5:17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Think not that I came to destroy the law +or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Phil. 2:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>becoming obedient even unto death</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>through +the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>10:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Christ is the end of the law unto +righteousness to every one that believeth.</hi></q>—<hi rend='italic'>Penalty</hi>: <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 4:25</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>who was delivered up for our trespasses, +and was raised for our justification</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>8:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned +sin in the flesh</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 5:21</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf</hi></q>—here <q><hi rend='italic'>sin</hi></q>—a +sinner, an accursed one (Meyer); <hi rend='italic'>Gal. 1:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>gave himself for our sins</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>3:13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Deut 21:23</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he that is hanged is accursed of God.</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 9:28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Christ also, having been once offered +to bear the sins of many</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Lev. 5:17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>if any one sin ... yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Num. +14:34</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>for every day a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Lam. 5:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Our fathers sinned +and are not; And we have borne their iniquities.</hi></q>—<hi rend='italic'>Exhibition</hi>: <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 3:25, 26</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 9:15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions +that were under the first covenant.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +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. <q><hi rend='italic'>God was in Christ</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>2 +Cor. 5:19</hi>) and God <q><hi rend='italic'>manifested in the flesh</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 3:16</hi>) are the keynote of Paul's teaching, +and this is identical with John's doctrine of the Logos: <q><hi rend='italic'>the Word was God</hi>,</q> and <q><hi rend='italic'>the Word +became flesh</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 1:1, 14</hi>) +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(d) <hi rend='smallcaps'>Sacrificial.</hi>—The atonement is described as +</p> + +<p> +A work of <hi rend='italic'>priestly mediation</hi>, which reconciles God to men,—notice +here that the term <q>reconciliation</q> has its usual sense of removing enmity, +not from the offending, but from the offended party;—a <hi rend='italic'>sin-offering</hi>, presented +on behalf of transgressors;—a <emph>propitiation</emph>, which satisfies the +demands of violated holiness;—and a <emph>substitution</emph>, 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Priestly mediation</hi>: <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 9:11, 12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; +<pb n='719'/><anchor id='Pg719'/> +<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 5:18, +19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 2:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>might reconcile them both in one body unto +God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>12, 13, 19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Col. 1:20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +On all these passages, see Meyer, who shows the meaning of the apostle to be, that +<q>we were <q><hi rend='italic'>enemies</hi>,</q> not actively, as hostile to God, but passively, as those with whom +God was angry.</q> The epistle to the Romans begins with the revelation of wrath +against Gentile and Jew alike (<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 1:18</hi>). <q><hi rend='italic'>While we were enemies</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:10</hi>)—<q>when God +was hostile to us.</q> <q>Reconciliation</q> 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 <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:9-11</hi>, in Expositor's +Gk. Test. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Num. 25:13</hi>, where Phinehas, by slaying Zimri, is said to have <q><hi rend='italic'>made atonement for the children +of Israel</hi>.</q> Surely, the <q><hi rend='italic'>atonement</hi></q> here cannot be a reconciliation of <hi rend='italic'>Israel</hi>. The action +terminates, not on the subject, but on the object—God. So, <hi rend='italic'>1 Sam. 29:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>wherewith should +this fellow reconcile himself unto his lord? should it not be with the heads of these men?</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 5:23, 24</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q> [<hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, remove his enmity, not +thine own], <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>and then come and offer thy gift.</hi></q> See Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:387-398. +</p> + +<p> +Pfleiderer, Die Ritschl'sche Theologie, 42—<q>Ἐχθροὶ ὄντες (<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:10</hi>) = not the active +disposition of enmity to God on our part, but our passive condition under the enmity +or wrath of God.</q> Paul was not the author of this doctrine,—he claims that he +received it from Christ himself (<hi rend='italic'>Gal. 1:12</hi>). Simon, Reconciliation, 167—<q>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.</q> The old hymn expressed the truth: <q>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 <q>Father, Abba, Father</q> cry.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>A sin-offering</hi>: <hi rend='italic'>John 1:29</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world</hi></q>—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 <hi rend='italic'>Isaiah 53:6-12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 26:28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>this is +my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 50:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>made a covenant +with me by sacrifice.</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>1 John 1:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin</hi></q>—not sanctification, +but justification; <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 5:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Deut. 16:2-6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>thou +shalt sacrifice the passover unto Jehovah thy God.</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 5:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>gave himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice +to God for an odor of a sweet smell</hi></q> (see Com. of Salmond, in Expositor's Greek Testament); +<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 9:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>22, 26</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Pet. 1:18, 19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>redeemed ... with precious blood, as of a lamb without +blemish and without spot, even the blood of Christ.</hi></q> See Expos. Gk. Test., on <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 1:7</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +Lowrie, Doctrine of St. John, 35, points out that <hi rend='italic'>John 6:52-59</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>eateth my flesh and drinketh +my blood</hi></q>—is Christ's reference to his death in terms of <emph>sacrifice</emph>. So, as we shall see +below, it is a <emph>propitiation</emph> (<hi rend='italic'>1 John 2:2</hi>). We therefore strongly object to the statement +of Wilson, Gospel of Atonement, 64—<q>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.</q> +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 <emph>constituted</emph> the +Atonement, and that all thought of expiation may be eliminated. Henry B. Smith +far better summed up the gospel in the words: <q>Incarnation in order to Atonement.</q> +We regard as still better the words: <q>Incarnation in order to reveal the Atonement.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>A propitiation</hi>: <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 3:25, 26</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> 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 +<pb n='720'/><anchor id='Pg720'/> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Compare <hi rend='italic'>Luke 18:13</hi>, marg.—<q><hi rend='italic'>God, be thou merciful unto me the sinner</hi></q>; lit.: <q><hi rend='italic'>God be propitiated toward +me the sinner</hi></q>—by the sacrifice, whose smoke was ascending before the publican, even +while he prayed. <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation +for the sins of the people</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 John 2:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but +also for the whole world</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>4:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be +the propitiation for our sins</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 32:20</hi>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>lxx.</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>I will appease</hi></q> [ἐξιλάσομαι, <q>propitiate</q>] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>him with +the present that goeth before me</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Prov. 16:14</hi>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>lxx</hi>.—<q><hi rend='italic'>The wrath of a king is as messengers of death; but a wise +man will pacify it</hi></q> [ἐξιλάσεται, <q>propitiate it</q>]. +</p> + +<p> +On propitiation, see Foster, Christian Life and Theology, 216—<q>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 <q><hi rend='italic'>set forth</hi></q> +Jesus as <q><hi rend='italic'>a propitiation</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 3:25, 26</hi>).</q> 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 <emph>in</emph> 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: <q>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.</q> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Lyman Abbott, Theology of an Evolutionist, 107-127, goes still further and affirms: +<q>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.</q> Yet Dr. Abbott adds that in the N. T. God +is represented as self-propitiated: <q>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.</q> This self-propitiation however must not be thought +of as a bearing of penalty: <q>Nowhere in the O. T. is the idea of a sacrifice coupled +with the idea of penalty,—it is always coupled with purification—<q><hi rend='italic'>with his stripes we are +healed</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Is. 53:5</hi>). And in the N. T., <q><hi rend='italic'>the Lamb of God ... taketh away the sin of the world</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 1:29</hi>); +<q><hi rend='italic'>the blood of Jesus ... cleanseth</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>1 John 1:7</hi>).... What humanity needs is not the removal of +the penalty, but removal of the sin.</q> This seems to us a distinct contradiction of both +Paul and John, with whom propitiation is an essential of Christian doctrine (see <hi rend='italic'>Rom. +3:25</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>1 John 2:2</hi>), 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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>A substitution</hi>: <hi rend='italic'>Luke 22:37</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he was reckoned with transgressors</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Lev. 16:21, 22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Is. 53:5, 6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>John 10:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the good +shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 5:6-8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Pet. +3:18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +To these texts we must add all those mentioned under (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) above, in which Christ's +death is described as a ransom. Besides Meyer's comment, there quoted, on <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 20:28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>to +give his life a ransom for many,</hi></q> λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν—Meyer also says: <q>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 +<pb n='721'/><anchor id='Pg721'/> +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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Cremer, N. T. Lex., says that <q>in both the N. T. texts, <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 16:26</hi> and <hi rend='italic'>Mark 8:37</hi>, the +word ἀντάλλαγμα, like λύτρον, is akin to the conception of atonement: <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Is. 43:3, 4</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>51:11</hi>; +<hi rend='italic'>Amos 5:12</hi>. This is a confirmation of the fact that satisfaction and substitution essentially +belong to the idea of atonement.</q> Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:515 (Syst. Doct., +3:414)—<q><hi rend='italic'>Mat. 20:28</hi> 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 20:28</hi> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> Denney, +Studies, 126, 127, shows that <q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <emph>speak</emph> 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. +<pb n='722'/><anchor id='Pg722'/> +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. <q>None of the ransomed ever +knew.</q> The doer of a great deed has the least to say about it. +</p> + +<p> +Harnack: <q>There is an inner law which compels the sinner to look upon God as a +wrathful Judge.... Yet no other feeling is possible.</q> 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: <hi rend='italic'>1 John 3:20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.</hi></q> Lyman +Abbott, Theology of an Evolutionist, 57—<q>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.</q> So Bowne, Atonement, +74—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>B. The Institution of Sacrifice, more especially as found in the Mosaic +system.</head> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. <hi rend='italic'>Per +contra</hi>, see Crawford, Atonement, 228-240; Lange, Introd. to Com. on Exodus, 38—<q>The +heathen change God's symbols into myths (rationalism), as the Jews change God's sacrifices +into meritorious service (ritualism).</q> Westcott, Hebrews, 281-294, seems to +hold with Spencer that sacrifice is essentially a feast made as an offering to God. So +Philo: <q>God receives the faithful offerer to his own table, giving him back part of the +sacrifice.</q> 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—<q>The sinner must first +expiate his sin by suffering,—then only can he give to God the life thus purified by an +expiatory death.</q> Jahn, Bib. Archæology, sec. 373, 378—<q>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.</q> 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: <q>Hieroglyphics +came before letters, and parables before arguments.</q> <q>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? +<pb n='723'/><anchor id='Pg723'/> +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.</q> On <hi rend='italic'>Eph. +1:7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the blood of Christ,</hi></q> as an expiatory sacrifice which secures our justification, see Salmond, +in Expositor's Greek Testament. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Luthardt, Compendium der Dogmatik, 170, quotes from Nägelsbach, Nachhomerische +Theologie, 338 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi>—<q>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,</q>—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—<q>Unum pro multis dabitur caput</q>; Ovid, Fasti, vi—<q>Cor pro +corde, precor; pro fibris sumite fibras. Hanc animam vobis pro meliore damus.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Stahl, Christliche Philosophie, 146—<q>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.</q> In the Prometheus Bound, of Æschylus, Hermes says to +Prometheus: <q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>no evidence that the Jews had +any idea of the efficacy of sacrifice for the expiation of moral guilt.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='724'/><anchor id='Pg724'/> +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 <q>bursting forth of the blood</q> satisfied +and bought off the Deity. George Adam Smith on <hi rend='italic'>Isaiah 53</hi> (2:364)—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Satisfaction</hi> 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: <q>Your goodness must have some edge to it,—else +it is none.</q> 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: <q><hi rend='italic'>For Christ also pleased not himself; +but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 15:3</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 69:9</hi>). +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 9:13, 14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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?</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>10:3, 4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> Christ's death also, like the O. T. sacrifices, works temporal +benefit even to those who have no faith; see pages 771, 772. +</p> + +<p> +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: <q><hi rend='italic'>An altar of earth shalt thou make unto me, and +shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Ex. 20:24</hi>). 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: <q><hi rend='italic'>new moon and Sabbath ... I cannot +away with ... when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Is. 1:13-15</hi>). Isaiah +was condemning simply <emph>heartless</emph> sacrifice; else we make him condemn all that went +on at the temple. <hi rend='italic'>Micah 6:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>what doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do justly?</hi></q> This does not +exclude the offering of sacrifice, for Micah anticipates the time when <q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Micah 4:1, 2</hi>). <hi rend='italic'>Hos. 6:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I desire goodness, and not sacrifice,</hi></q> is +interpreted by what follows, <q><hi rend='italic'>and the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings</hi>.</q> Compare <hi rend='italic'>Prov. +8:10; 17:12</hi>; and Samuel's words: <q><hi rend='italic'>to obey is better than sacrifice</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>1 Sam. 15:22</hi>). 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? (<hi rend='italic'>Is. 6:1-8). +Jer. 7:22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I spake not ... concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices ... but this thing ... Hearken unto my +voice.</hi></q> Jeremiah insists only on the worthlessness of sacrifice where there is no heart. +</p> + +</quote> + +<pb n='725'/><anchor id='Pg725'/> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Lev. 1:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>4:20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; so <hi rend='italic'>31</hi> and <hi rend='italic'>35</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>and +the priest shall make atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned, and he shall be forgiven</hi></q>; so +<hi rend='italic'>5:10, 16</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>6:7</hi>. <hi rend='italic'>Lev. 17:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +The patriarchal sacrifices were sin-offerings, as the sacrifice of Job for his friends +witnesses: <hi rend='italic'>Job 42:7-9</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>My wrath is kindled against thee</hi></q> [Eliphaz] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>... therefore, take unto you +seven bullocks ... and offer up for yourselves a burnt-offering</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>33:24</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Then God is gracious unto him, and +saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit, I have found a ransom</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1:5</hi>—Job offered burnt-offerings +for his sons, for he said, <q><hi rend='italic'>It may be that my sons have sinned, and renounced God in their hearts</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 8:20</hi>—Noah +<q><hi rend='italic'>offered burnt-offerings on the altar</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>21</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +That vicarious suffering is intended in all these sacrifices, is plain from <hi rend='italic'>Lev. 16:1-34</hi>—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 <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 22:13</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Abraham went and took the ram, +and offered him up for a burnt-offering in the stead of his son</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Ex. 32:30-32</hi>—where Moses says: <q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> See +also <hi rend='italic'>Deut. 21:1-9</hi>—the expiation of an uncertain murder, by the sacrifice of a heifer,—where +Oehler, O. T. Theology, 1:389, says: <q>Evidently the punishment of death incurred +by the manslayer is executed symbolically upon the heifer.</q> In <hi rend='italic'>Is. 53:1-12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>—the ideas of both satisfaction and substitution are +still more plain. +</p> + +<p> +Wallace, Representative Responsibility: <q>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 <emph>one symbol</emph>. [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. <q><hi rend='italic'>In the blood is the life.</hi></q> The life is +reserved by God. It is given <emph>for</emph> man, but not <emph>to</emph> him. Life for life is the law of the +creation. So the life of Christ, also, for <emph>our</emph> 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +This following is a tentative scheme of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Jewish Sacrifices</hi>. The general reason +for sacrifice is expressed in <hi rend='italic'>Lev. 17:11</hi> (quoted above). I. <hi rend='italic'>For the individual</hi>: 1. The +sin-offering = sacrifice to expiate sins of ignorance (thoughtlessness and plausible +temptation): <hi rend='italic'>Lev. 4:14, 20, 31</hi>. 2. The trespass-offering = sacrifice to expiate sins of omission: +<pb n='726'/><anchor id='Pg726'/> +<hi rend='italic'>Lev. 5:5, 6</hi>. 3. The burnt-offering = sacrifice to expiate general sinfulness: <hi rend='italic'>Lev. 1:3</hi> +(the offering of Mary, <hi rend='italic'>Luke 2:24</hi>). II. <hi rend='italic'>For the family</hi>: The Passover: <hi rend='italic'>Ex. 12:27</hi>. III. <hi rend='italic'>For +the people</hi>: 1. The daily morning and evening sacrifice: <hi rend='italic'>Ex. 29:38-46</hi>. 2. The offering of +the great day of atonement: <hi rend='italic'>Lev. 16:6-10</hi>. 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. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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: <q><hi rend='italic'>My flesh ... which I +will give ... for the life of the world ... he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 6:51, 57</hi>).</q> +</p> + +<p> +Chambers, in Presb. and Ref. Rev., Jan. 1892:22-34—On the great day of atonement +<q>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,</q> <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, Satan. Lidgett, Spir. Principle +of the Atonement, 112, 113—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Compare the origin of prayer and worship, for which we find no formal divine injunctions +at the beginnings of history. <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 11:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>—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. <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 4:3, 4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +It has been urged, in corroboration of this view, that the previous existence of sacrifice +is intimated in <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 3:21</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And Jehovah God made for Adam and for his wife coats of skins, and clothed +them.</hi></q> Since the killing of animals for food was not permitted until long afterwards +(<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 9:3</hi>—to Noah: <q><hi rend='italic'>Every moving thing that liveth shall be food for you</hi></q>), 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 +<pb n='727'/><anchor id='Pg727'/> +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—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +On <hi rend='italic'>Gen. 4:3, 4</hi>, see C. H. M.—<q>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 <q><hi rend='italic'>bore witness in respect of his gifts</hi></q> +(<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 11:4</hi>). To Cain it is said, <q><hi rend='italic'>if thou doest well</hi> (<hi rend='smallcaps'>lxx</hi>.: ὀρθῶς προσενένκης—<hi rend='italic'>if thou offerest correctly</hi>) +<hi rend='italic'>shalt thou not be accepted?</hi></q> But Cain desired to get away from God and from God's way, +and to lose himself in the world. This is <q><hi rend='italic'>the way of Cain</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Jude 11</hi>).</q> <hi rend='italic'>Per contra</hi>, see Crawford, +Atonement, 259—<q>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, <q><hi rend='italic'>This is now bone of my bones....</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 2:23</hi>), before any divine command of marriage. +No fruits were presented during the patriarchal dispensation. Heathen sacrifices +were corruptions of primitive sacrifice.</q> Von Lasaulx, Die Sühnopfer der +Griechen und Römer, und ihr Verhältniss zu dem einen auf Golgotha, 1—<q>The first +word of the <emph>original</emph> man was probably a prayer, the first action of <emph>fallen</emph> man a sacrifice</q>; +see translation in Bib. Sac., 1: 368-408. Bishop Butler: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<q>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 +<pb n='728'/><anchor id='Pg728'/> +of this he received from John the Baptist, without rebuke, the words: <q><hi rend='italic'>Behold, the Lamb of +God, that taketh away the sin of the world</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 1:29</hi>).</q> +</p> + +<p> +A. A. Hodge, Popular Lectures, 247—<q>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 <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>functum officio</foreign>, +and was abolished. Soon after this, the temple was razed to the ground, and the ritual +was rendered forever impossible.</q> +</p> + +<p> +For denial that Christ's death is to be interpreted by heathen or Jewish sacrifices, see +Maurice on Sac., 154—<q>The heathen signification of words, when applied to a Christian +use, must be not merely modified, but inverted</q>; Jowett, Epistles of St. Paul, 2:479—<q>The +heathen and Jewish sacrifices rather show us what the sacrifice of Christ was not, +than what it was.</q> 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, <hi rend='italic'>e. g.</hi>, 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. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q rend='pre'>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?</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'>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 <emph>with</emph> Jesus, regeneration.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>C. Theories of the Atonement.</head> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>1st. The Socinian, or Example Theory of the Atonement.</head> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='729'/><anchor id='Pg729'/> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>1 Pet 2:21</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that ye should follow his steps.</hi></q> But see +under (<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) below. When Correggio saw Raphael's picture of St. Cecilia, he exclaimed: +<q>I too am a painter.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 277—<q>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.</q> 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. <q><hi rend='italic'>Ye must be born anew</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 3:7</hi>) necessitates <q><hi rend='italic'>Even so must the Son of man be lifted up</hi></q> +(<hi rend='italic'>John 3:14</hi>). It is only the Cross that satisfies man's instinct of reparation. Harnack, +Das Wesen des Christenthums, 99—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +To this theory we make the following objections: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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, <emph>must</emph> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>necessary</emph>, even for one who stands +in perfect love and blessed fellowship with God, since earthly blessedness is not the +<pb n='730'/><anchor id='Pg730'/> +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. <hi rend='italic'>Hebrews 2:16-18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>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.</q> +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. <q>Jesus paid it all</q>; and no obedience +or righteousness of ours can be added to his work, as a ground of our salvation. +</p> + +<p> +E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 276—<q>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 +<pb n='731'/><anchor id='Pg731'/> +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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Compare Jesus' feeling, in view of death, with that of Paul: <q><hi rend='italic'>having the desire to depart</hi></q> +(<hi rend='italic'>Phil 1:23</hi>). Jesus was filled with anguish: <q><hi rend='italic'>Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, +save me from this hour</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 12:27</hi>). 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 <q>a bed of +roses.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>John 19:34</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>one of the soldiers with a spear +pierced his side, and straightway there came out blood and water</hi></q>—<hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, the heart had already been ruptured +by grief. That grief was grief at the forsaking of the Father (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 27:46</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>My +God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?</hi></q>), 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. <hi rend='italic'>Luke 23:28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>weep not for me, but weep for yourselves</hi></q>—Jesus +rejects all pity that forgets his suffering for others. +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>Acts 2:31</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>neither did his flesh see corruption.</hi></q> 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 <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:9</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>that +he apart from God</hi></q> (χωρὶς Θεοῦ) <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>should taste death for every man.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +If Christ merely supposed himself to be deserted by God, <q>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?</q> 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 <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 5:21</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Him who knew no sin he +made to be sin on our behalf</hi></q>—where the divine identification of Christ with the race of sinners +antedates and explains his sufferings. <hi rend='italic'>John 1:29</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin +of the world</hi></q>—does not refer to Jesus as a lamb for gentleness, but as a lamb for sacrifice. +Maclaren: <q>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</q>; and, we may add, suffering vicariously for us and removing the +obstacle in God's mind to our pardon. +</p> + +</quote> + +<pb n='732'/><anchor id='Pg732'/> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <ref target='Pg761'>761</ref>, <ref target='Pg762'>762</ref>. The apostle's exhortation is not <q>abstain from all <emph>appearance</emph> +of evil</q> (<hi rend='italic'>1 Thess. 5:22</hi>, A. Vers.), but <q><hi rend='italic'>abstain from every form of evil</hi></q> (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: <q>I lay my sins on Jesus,</q> +and <q>Not all the blood of beasts,</q> 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. <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 12:11</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>they overcame him</hi></q> [Satan] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>because of the blood of the Lamb</hi></q>—as +Christ overcame Satan by his propitiatory sacrifice, so we overcome by appropriating +to ourselves Christ's atonement and his Spirit; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>1 John 5:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>this is the victory that hath +overcome the world, even our faith.</hi></q> 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, <hi rend='italic'>1 Pet. 2:21</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that ye should follow his steps</hi></q>—is +succeeded by <hi rend='italic'>verse 24</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>—the latter words being a direct +quotation from Isaiah's description of the substitutionary sufferings of the Messiah +(<hi rend='italic'>Is. 53:5</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +When a deeply convicted sinner was told that God could cleanse his heart and make +him over anew, he replied with righteous impatience: <q>That is not what I want,—I +have a debt to pay first!</q> A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 28, 89—<q>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 <q><hi rend='italic'>upon the blood of the trespass-offering</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Lev. 14:17</hi>).</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Shakespeare, Henry V, 4:1—<q>There is some soul of goodness in things evil. Would +men observingly distil it out.</q> 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: <q>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.</q> 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: +<q>I never heard of any such reformations being effected amongst them.</q> +Only when he preached the alienation of men from God, and forgiveness through the +blood of Christ, did he hear of their betterment. +</p> + +<p> +Gordon, Christ of To-day, 129—<q>The consciousness of sin is largely the creation of +Christ.</q> Men like Paul, Luther, and Edwards show this impressively. Foster, Christian +<pb n='733'/><anchor id='Pg733'/> +life and Theology, 198-201—<q>There is of course a sense in which the Christian +must imitate Christ's death, for he is to <q><hi rend='italic'>take up his cross daily</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Luke 9:23</hi>) 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.</q> Maclaren: <q>Christianity without a dying Christ is a dying +Christianity.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <foreign rend='italic'>par excellence</foreign> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> What did Jesus' words: <q><hi rend='italic'>It is finished</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 19:30</hi>) +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: <q><hi rend='italic'>we know that thou art a teacher come from God</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 3:2</hi>). 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 (<hi rend='italic'>John 3:14, 15</hi>). And +to Peter, Jesus said: <q><hi rend='italic'>If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 13:8</hi>). 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2nd. The Bushnellian, or Moral Influence Theory of the Atonement.</head> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='734'/><anchor id='Pg734'/> +America; by Robertson, Maurice, Campbell, and Young, in Great Britain; +by Schleiermacher and Ritschl, in Germany. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <q>making cost to himself.</q> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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, +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>Christ's</emph> oneness with God has taught men that <emph>they</emph> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>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.</q> For a general survey of the Ritschlian theology, see Orr, Ritschlian Theology, +<pb n='735'/><anchor id='Pg735'/> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +To this theory we object as follows: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) While it embraces a valuable element of truth, namely, the moral +influence upon men <emph>of</emph> 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 <q>vicarious,</q> which belongs only to +the latter. Suffering <emph>with</emph> the sinner is by no means suffering <emph>in his stead</emph>. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <emph>itself</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +But we reply that such sufferings as these do not make Christ's sacrifice <emph>vicarious</emph>. +The word <q>vicarious</q> (from <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>vicis</foreign>) 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; <q>A. B., appointed consul, <foreign rend='italic'>vice</foreign> C. D., resigned,</q> +implies that A. B. is now to serve in the stead of C. D. If Christ is a <q>vicarious sacrifice,</q> +then he makes atonement to God <emph>in the place and stead</emph> of sinners. Christ's suffering +<emph>in and with sinners</emph>, 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 <emph>medium</emph> through which Christ was enabled to endure God's +wrath against sin, it is not to be confounded with the <emph>reason</emph> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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 +<pb n='736'/><anchor id='Pg736'/> +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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +B. W. Lockhart, in a recent statement of the doctrine of the atonement, shows this +defect of apprehension: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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: +<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +That the atonement is primarily an offering to God, and not to the sinner, appears +from <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 5:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>gave himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 9:14,</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>offered himself without +blemish unto God.</hi></q> 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: <q>An appeal to man, +without anything back of it to emphasize and enforce the appeal, will never touch the +heart. The mere <emph>appearance</emph> of an atonement has no moral influence.</q> Crawford, +Atonement, 358-367—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<pb n='737'/><anchor id='Pg737'/> + +<p> +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: <q>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.</q> Walter Besant: <q>It +is not enough to be forgiven,—one has also to forgive one's self.</q> 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; +<hi rend='italic'>1 John 3:20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.</hi></q> A. J. Gordon, +Ministry of the Spirit, 201—<q>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 <q><hi rend='italic'>cleanse your conscience +from dead works to serve the living God</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 9:14</hi>).</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <q>altar-forms</q> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>making cost to himself.</q> He <q>works down his resentment, by +suffering for us.</q> 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 +<emph>already forgiving</emph> love; so that the benefit to the enemy cannot be, as Bushnell supposes, +a <emph>condition of the forgiveness</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>a perfect Amen in humanity to +the judgment of God on the sin of man.</q> Not Phinehas's zeal for God, but his execution +of judgment, made an atonement (<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 106:30</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>executed judgment</hi></q>—<hi rend='smallcaps'>lxx.</hi>: ἐξιλάσατο, +<q><hi rend='italic'>made propitiation</hi></q>) and turned away the wrath of God. Observe here the contrast +between the <emph>priestly</emph> atonement of Aaron, who stood between the living and the dead, +and the <emph>judicial</emph> atonement of Phinehas, who executed righteous judgment, and so +turned away wrath. In neither case did mere <emph>confession</emph> suffice to take away sin. On +Campbell's view see further, on page <ref target='Pg760'>760</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>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.</q> 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 +<pb n='738'/><anchor id='Pg738'/> +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 <q><hi rend='italic'>might +himself be just</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 3:26</hi>), 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. +</p> + +<p> +E. Y. Mullins: <q>If Christ's union with humanity made it possible for him to be <q>the +representative Penitent,</q> 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.</q> +Denney, Studies in Theology, 102, 103—<q>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. <q>Bearing shame and scoffing rude, +In my place condemned he stood; Sealed my pardon with his blood; Hallelujah!</q></q> +</p> + +<p> +Bushnell regards <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 8:17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Himself took our infirmities, and bare our diseases</hi></q>—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: <q>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.</q> His sighing when he cured the deaf man (<hi rend='italic'>Mark 7:34</hi>) and +his weeping at the grave of Lazarus (<hi rend='italic'>John 11:35</hi>) were caused by the anticipatory realization +that he was one with the humanity which was under the curse, and that he too +had <q><hi rend='italic'>become a curse for us</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Gal. 3:13</hi>). 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Stevens, in his Doctrine of Salvation, makes this mistake. He says: <q>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 <q>eternal atonement</q> 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 <q>in our affliction he is afflicted.</q> Atonement on its <q>Godward side</q> +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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>forever irreconcilable</q>; they are +<q>based on radically different conceptions of God.</q> The British Weekly, Nov. 16, 1905—<q>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 <emph>how</emph> this work is done.... +Dr. Stevens makes no contribution whatever to its fulfilment. He grants that we have +in Paul <q>the theory of a substitutionary expiation.</q> 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 +<pb n='739'/><anchor id='Pg739'/> +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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>g</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Hovey: <q>The manward influence of the atonement is far more extensive than the +moral influence of it.</q> 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 (<hi rend='italic'>1 John 2:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for +our sins</hi></q>). Hence <hi rend='italic'>1:9</hi>—<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>If we confess our sins, he</hi></q> [God] <q rend='post'><hi rend='italic'>is faithful and righteous [faithful to his +promise and righteous to Christ] to forgive us our sins.</hi></q> Hence the publican does not first +pray for change of heart, but for mercy upon the ground of sacrifice (<hi rend='italic'>Luke 18:13,</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>God, +be thou merciful to me a sinner,</hi></q> but literally: <q><hi rend='italic'>God be propitiated toward me the sinner</hi></q>). See Balfour, +in Brit. and For. Ev. Rev., Apr. 1884:230-254; Martin, Atonement, 216-237; Theol. +Eclectic, 4:364-409. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q><hi rend='italic'>Light of the world</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 8:12</hi>) has many <q>X rays,</q> 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>the darkness apprehended it not</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 1:5</hi>). +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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>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 (<hi rend='italic'>1 Peter 3:18?</hi>)—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 <q><hi rend='italic'>not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Eph. 5:27</hi>).... 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.</q> +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! +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>I fear what I have written and said +upon the moral idea of the atonement is misleading and will do great harm;</q> and, as +he thought of it further, he cried: <q>Oh Lord Jesus, I trust for mercy only in the shed +<pb n='740'/><anchor id='Pg740'/> +blood that thou didst offer on Calvary!</q> 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: <q><hi rend='italic'>This is my body, broken +for you</hi>,</q> he added: <q>This is our foundation!</q> As he started to bless the cup, he +cried: <q>Quick, quick, bring the cup! I am so happy!</q> 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: <q>O Haupt voll Blut und +Wunden,</q> as describing physical suffering; but he begged his son to repeat the two +last verses of that hymn: <q>O sacred head now wounded!</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>3d. The Grotian, or Governmental Theory of the Atonement.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>It is ordained of almighty +God that the man who dips into everything never gets to the bottom of anything.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>Is. 42:21</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>It pleased Jehovah, for his righteousness' sake, to magnify the law, and +make it honorable.</hi></q> Strangely enough, the explanation is added: <q>even when its demands +are unfulfilled.</q> Park: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Grotius used the word <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>acceptilatio</foreign>, 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 +<pb n='741'/><anchor id='Pg741'/> +man; so that in principle this theory is allied to the Example theory and the Moral +Influence theory, already mentioned. +</p> + +<p> +Notice the difference between holding to a <emph>substitute for penalty</emph>, as Grotius did, and +holding to an <emph>equivalent substituted penalty</emph>, 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: <q>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.</q> This unites the Governmental and the +Moral Influence theories. +</p> + +<p> +Foster, Christian Life and Theology, 226, 227—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +To this theory we urge the following objections: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +In our discussion of Penalty (pages <ref target='Pg655'>655</ref>, <ref target='Pg656'>656</ref>), 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:573-581; 3:188, 189—<q>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.</q> Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:570, 571 (Syst. Doct., 4:38-40)—<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Acceptilatio</foreign> +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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q><hi rend='italic'>Against thee, thee only, have I sinned</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 51:4</hi>); <q><hi rend='italic'>God be propitiated toward +me the sinner</hi></q> (literal translation of <hi rend='italic'>Luke 18:13</hi>),—propitiated through God's own appointed +sacrifice whose smoke is ascending in his behalf even while he prays. +</p> + +<pb n='742'/><anchor id='Pg742'/> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +N. W. Taylor's Theology was entitled: <q>Moral Government,</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +To teach that sin will be punished, there must be punishment. Potwin: <q>How the +exhibition of what sin deserves, but does not get, can satisfy justice, is hard to see.</q> +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: <q>If I thought +that Jesus suffered and died to produce a moral impression on me, it would not produce +a moral impression on me.</q> William Ashmore: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +John Milton, Paradise Lost, book 5, speaks of <q>mist, the common gloss of theologians.</q> +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: <q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Christ refused the <q><hi rend='italic'>wine mingled with myrrh</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Mark 15:23</hi>), 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: <q><hi rend='italic'>My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 27:46</hi>), 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 +<pb n='743'/><anchor id='Pg743'/> +of the countenance of God from him who was <q><hi rend='italic'>made to be sin on our behalf</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 5:21</hi>). In +the case of Christ, above that of all others, <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>finis coronat</foreign>, and dying words are undying +words. <q>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.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Versus</hi> Park, Discourses, 328-355. +</p> + +<p> +A pure woman needs to meet an infamous proposition with something more than a +mild refusal. She must flame up and be angry. <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 97:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>O ye that love Jehovah, hate evil</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>Eph. 4:26</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Be ye angry, and sin not.</hi></q> So it belongs to the holiness of God not to let sin go +unchallenged. God not only <emph>shows</emph> anger, but he <emph>is</emph> 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 20:22</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>John 18:11</hi>), and +which he drained to the dregs. Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 196—<q>Jesus alone of all +men truly <q><hi rend='italic'>tasted death</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:9</hi>). 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +We therefore cannot agree with either Wendt or Johnson in the following quotations. +Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 2:249, 250—<q>The forsaking of the Father was not +an absolute one, since Jesus still called him <q><hi rend='italic'>My God</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 27:46</hi>). 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.</q> +E. H. Johnson, The Holy Spirit, 143, 144—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>Nothing can +satisfy an offended conscience but that which satisfied an offended God.</q> C. J. Baldwin: +<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>g</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress, chapter vi—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +John Bunyan's story is truer to Christian experience than is the Governmental +<pb n='744'/><anchor id='Pg744'/> +theory. The sinner finds peace, not by coming to God with a distant respect to Christ, +but by coming directly to the <q><hi rend='italic'>Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 1:29</hi>). +Christ's words to every conscious sinner are simply: <q><hi rend='italic'>Come unto me</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 11:28</hi>). Upon the +ground of what Christ has done, salvation is a matter of debt to the believer. <hi rend='italic'>1 John 1:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>If +we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins</hi></q>—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. +</p> + +<p> +When The Outlook says: <q>Not even to the Son of God must we come instead of +coming to God,</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>4th. The Irvingian Theory, or Theory of Gradually Extirpated Depravity.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi>; Guericke, +in Studien und Kritiken, 1843: Heft 2; David Brown, in Expositor, Oct. 1887:264 +<hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi>, and letter of Irving to Marcus Dods, in British Weekly, Mch. 25, 1887. For other +references, see Hagenbach, Hist. Doct., 2:496-498. +</p> + +<p> +Irving's followers differ in their representation of his views. Says Miller, Hist. and +Doct. of Irvingism, 1:85—<q>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.</q> 2:14—Freer says: <q>So that, despite it was fallen flesh +he had assumed, he was, through the Eternal Spirit, born into the world <emph><q>the Holy Thing</q></emph>.</q> +11-15, 282-305—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +So, says an Irvingian tract, <q>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 +<pb n='745'/><anchor id='Pg745'/> +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.</q> Dr. Curry, quoted in +McClintock and Strong, Encyclopædia, 4:663, 664—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>That Christ took our +fallen nature, is most manifest, because there was no other in existence to take.</q> 123—<q>The +human nature is thoroughly fallen; the mere apprehension of it by the Son +doth not make it holy.</q> 128—<q>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.</q> 152—<q>These sufferings came not by imputation +merely, but by actual participation of the sinful and cursed thing.</q> Irving frequently +quoted <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>make the author of their salvation perfect through sufferings.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. <q>If I had +married Irving,</q> said Mrs. Thomas Carlyle, <q>there would have been no tongues.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +To this theory we offer the following objections: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Bruce, in his Humiliation of Christ, calls this a theory of <q>redemption by sample.</q> +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 <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 4:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>apostles ... +prophets ... evangelists ... pastors ... teachers.</hi></q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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 +<pb n='746'/><anchor id='Pg746'/> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:463 (Syst. Doct., 3:361, 362)—<q>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 <emph>person</emph> +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 <emph>sinful</emph> nature, unless sin is <emph>essential</emph> 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.</q> +Penalty would thus become a reformer, and death a Savior. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<q>I shall maintain until death,</q> said Irving, <q>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.</q> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Nicoll, Life of Christ, 183—<q>All others, as they grow in holiness, grow in their sense +of sin. But when Christ is forsaken of the Father, he asks <q>Why?</q> 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: <q><hi rend='italic'>I glorified thee</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 17:4</hi>). His last utterance +from the cross is a quotation from <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 31:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Luke +23:46</hi>), but he does not add, as the Psalm does, <q><hi rend='italic'>thou hast redeemed me, O Lord God of truth</hi>,</q> for he +needed no redemption, being himself the Redeemer.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 (<hi rend='italic'>Gal. 5:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>then +hath the stumbling-block of the cross been done away</hi></q>). Christ crucified is still a stumbling-block +to modern speculation. Yet it is, as of old, <q><hi rend='italic'>the power of God unto salvation</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 1:16</hi>; +<hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 1:23, 24</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>). +</p> + +<pb n='747'/><anchor id='Pg747'/> + +<p> +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 +<q><hi rend='italic'>made to be sin on our behalf</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 5:21</hi>), 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 <q>cleanse that red right hand</q> 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 <q>Christ took human nature as he found it.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>5th. The Anselmic, or Commercial Theory of the Atonement.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> Even Luther compares Satan to the crocodile which swallows +the ichneumon, only to find that the little animal eats its insides out. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='748'/><anchor id='Pg748'/> +truth and goodness of God. See Crippen, History of Christian Doctrine, 129—<q>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.</q> Gregory Nazianzen (390) <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>Cur Deus Homo</q> constitutes the greatest +single contribution to the discussion of this doctrine. He shows that <q>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.</q> Man, because of +original sin, cannot make satisfaction for the dishonor done to God,—<q>a sinner cannot +justify a sinner.</q> Neither could an angel make this satisfaction. None can make it +but God. <q>If then none can make it but God, and none owes it but man, it must needs +be wrought out by God, made man.</q> The God-man, to make satisfaction for the sins +of all mankind, must <q>give to God, of his own, something that is more valuable than +all that is under God.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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). +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +To this theory we make the following objections: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +The theory has been called the <q>Criminal theory</q> of the Atonement, as the old +patristic theory of a ransom paid to Satan has been called the <q>Military theory.</q> 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 (<foreign rend='italic'>crimen læsæ majestatis</foreign>) +was the highest offence known to law. See article by Cramer, in Studien und Kritiken, +1880:7, on Wurzeln des Anselm'schen Satisfactionsbegriffes. +</p> + +<p> +Allen, Jonathan Edwards, 88, 89—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Henry George, Progress and Poverty, 481—<q>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.</q> William James, Varieties of Religious +Experience, 329, 830—<q>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 +<pb n='749'/><anchor id='Pg749'/> +the cruelty <q>retributive justice,</q> 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 <q>delightful conviction,</q> as of a doctrine <q>exceeding pleasant, bright, and +sweet,</q> appears to us, if sovereignly anything, sovereignly irrational and mean.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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—<q>God, to whom we were hateful through sin, was appeased by +the death of his Son, and was made propitious to us.</q>... II, 16:7—<q>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.</q>... II, 16:2—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>the necessity of a satisfactio vicaria activa,</q> and says: <q>We do not find in his +writings the doctrine of a satisfactio passiva: he nowhere says that Christ had endured +the punishment of men.</q> 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: <q>The justice of man demands satisfaction; +and as an insult to infinite honor is itself infinite, the satisfaction must be infinite, <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, +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.</q> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2:431, 461, 462—<q>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 <q><hi rend='italic'>ten thousand talents</hi></q> and has +<q><hi rend='italic'>not wherewith to pay</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 18:24, 25</hi>), But Christ did both, and therefore he <q><hi rend='italic'>magnified the law +and made it honorable</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Is. 42:21</hi>), in an infinitely higher degree than the whole human family +would have done, had they all personally suffered for their sins.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Cf.</hi> Edwards, Works, +1:406. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Milton, Paradise Lost, 3:209-212—<q>Die he, or justice must, unless for him Some +other, able and as willing, pay The rigid satisfaction, death for death.</q> The main text +<pb n='750'/><anchor id='Pg750'/> +relied upon by the advocates of the Commercial theory is <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 20:28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>give his life a ransom +for many.</hi></q> Pfleiderer, Philosophy of Religion, 1:257—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 258—<q>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.</q> Encyc. Brit., 2:93 (art.: Anselm)—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) It represents the atonement as having reference only to the elect, +and ignores the Scripture declarations that Christ died for all. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Anselm, like Augustine, limited the atonement to the elect. Yet Leo the Great, in +461, had affirmed that <q>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</q> (Crippen, 132). Bishop Gailor, of the Episcopal Church, heard +General Booth at Memphis say in 1903: <q>Friends, Jesus shed his blood to pay the price, +and he bought from God enough salvation to go round.</q> The Bishop says: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Foster, Christian Life and Theology, 221—<q>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 <q>fitting</q> that forgiveness should be bestowed +on sinners.... Yet his theory served to hand down to later theologians the great idea +of the objective atonement.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Lidgett, Spir. Prin. of Atonement, 182-189—<q>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.</q> 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 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi>; Shedd, +Hist. Doct., 2:273-286; Dale, Atonement, 279-292; McIlvaine, Wisdom of Holy Scripture, +196-199; Kreibig, Versöhnungslehre, 176-178. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>6th. The Ethical Theory of the Atonement.</head> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='751'/><anchor id='Pg751'/> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Adolphe Monod said well: <q>Save first the holy law of my God,—after that you shall +save me.</q> Edwards felt the first of these needs, for he says, in his Mysteries of Scripture, +Works, 3:542—<q>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.</q> And in his +Work of Redemption, Works, 1:412—<q>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.</q> See <hi rend='italic'>John 12:32</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> Christ was <q><hi rend='italic'>lifted up</hi></q>: 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 +<q><hi rend='italic'>the serpent lifted up in the wilderness</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 3:14</hi>), and we overcoming <q><hi rend='italic'>because of the blood of the Lamb</hi></q> +(<hi rend='italic'>Rev. 12:11</hi>). +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>First</hi>,—the Atonement as related to Holiness in God. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +The holiness of God has conscience and penalty for its correlates and consequences. +Gordon, Christ of To-day, 216—<q>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.</q> Shakespeare knew human +nature and he bears witness to its need of atonement. In his last Will and Testament +he writes: <q>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.</q> Richard III, 1:4—<q>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.</q> Richard II, 4:1—<q>The world's Ransom, blessed Mary's Son.</q> +Henry VI, 2d part, 3:2—<q>That dread King took our state upon him, To free us from +<pb n='752'/><anchor id='Pg752'/> +his Father's wrathful curse.</q> Henry IV, 1st part, 1:1—<q>Those holy fields, Over whose +acres walked those blessed feet, Which fourteen hundred years ago were nailed For +our advantage on the bitter Cross.</q> Measure for Measure, 2:2—<q>Why, all the souls +that are were forfeit once; And he that might the vantage best have took Found out +the remedy.</q> Henry VI, 2d part, 1:1—<q>Now, by the death of him that died for all!</q> +All's Well that Ends Well, 3:4—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +John Wessel, a Reformer before the Reformation (1419-1489): <q>Ipse deus, ipse +sacerdos, ipse hostia, pro se, de se, sibi satisfecit</q>—<q>Himself being at the same time +God, priest, and sacrificial victim, he made satisfaction to himself, for himself [<hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, +for the sins of men to whom he had united himself], and by himself [by his own sinless +sufferings].</q> Quarles's Emblems: <q>O groundless deeps! O love beyond degree! +The Offended dies, to set the offender free!</q> +</p> + +<p> +Spurgeon, Autobiography, 1:98—<q>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: <q>How could God be just, and yet justify me who had been +so guilty?</q>... 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?</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Matheson, Moments on the Mount, 221—<q>In conscience, man condemns and is condemned. +Christ was God in the flesh, both priest and sacrificial victim (<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 9:12</hi>). He +is <q><hi rend='italic'>full of grace</hi></q>—forgiving grace—but he is <q><hi rend='italic'>full of truth</hi></q> also, and so <q><hi rend='italic'>the only-begotten from the +Father</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 1:14</hi>). Not forgiveness that ignores sin, not justice that has no mercy. He +forgave the sinner, because he bore the sin.</q> 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: <q rend='pre'>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>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 +<pb n='753'/><anchor id='Pg753'/> +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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +The great classical passage with reference to the atonement is <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 3:25, 26</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> Or, somewhat +more freely translated, the passage would read:—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Exposition of Rom. 3:25, 26.</hi>—These verses are an expanded statement of the subject +of the epistle—the revelation of the <q><hi rend='italic'>righteousness of God</hi></q> (= the righteousness which +God provides and which God accepts)—which had been mentioned in <hi rend='italic'>1:17</hi>, but which +now has new light thrown upon it by the demonstration, in <hi rend='italic'>1:18-3:20</hi>, 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. +</p> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>Verse 25.</hi> <q><hi rend='italic'>God has set forth Christ as an effectual propitiatory offering, through faith, by means of his blood</hi>,</q> +<hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, 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, <q><hi rend='italic'>for the display of his</hi> [judicial and punitive] <hi rend='italic'>righteousness</hi>,</q> which received its satisfaction +in the death of Christ as a propitiatory offering, and was thereby practically demonstrated +and exhibited. <q><hi rend='italic'>On account of the passing-by of sins that had previously taken place</hi>,</q> <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, +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. <q><hi rend='italic'>In virtue of the forbearance of God</hi></q> 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q><hi rend='italic'>Verse 26.</hi> 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 <emph>being just</emph>, and secondly, his <emph>appearing just</emph> in consequence of this. <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Justus +et justificans</foreign>, instead of <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>justus et condemnans</foreign>, this is the <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>summum paradoxon evangelicum</foreign>. +Of this revelation of righteousness, not through condemnation, but through +atonement, grace is the determining ground.</q> +</p> + +<p> +We repeat what was said on pages <ref target='Pg719'>719</ref>, <ref target='Pg720'>720</ref>, 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 <emph>appear</emph> righteous; +but behind the appearance lies the reality; the main object of Christ's suffering is that +God may <emph>be</emph> righteous, while he pardons the believing sinner; in other words, the +ground of the atonement is something internal to God himself. See <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:10</hi>—it +<q><hi rend='italic'>became</hi></q> God = it was morally fitting in God, to make Christ suffer; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Zech. 6:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>they that +go toward the north country have quieted my spirit in the north country</hi></q>—the judgments inflicted on Babylon +have satisfied my justice. +</p> + +<pb n='754'/><anchor id='Pg754'/> + +<p> +Charnock: <q>He who once <q><hi rend='italic'>quenched the violence of fire</hi></q> for those Hebrew children, has +also quenched the fires of God's anger against the sinner, hotter than furnace heated +seven times.</q> 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—<q>Christ is +not only mediator between God and man, but between the just God and the merciful +God</q>—<hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Ps. 85:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other,</hi></q> +<q>Conscience demands vicariousness, for conscience declares that a gratuitous pardon +would not be just</q>; see Knight, Colloquia Peripatetica, 88. +</p> + +<p> +Lidgett, Spir. Principle of the Atonement, 219, 304—<q>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. <q><hi rend='italic'>Thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 9:15</hi>).</q> Simon, in Expositor, 6:321-334 (for +substance)—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Secondly</hi>,—the Atonement as related to Humanity in Christ. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Dr. R. W. Dale, in his work on The Atonement, states the question before us: <q>What +must be Christ's relation to men, in order to make it possible that he should die for +them?</q> We would change the form of the question, so that it should read: <q>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?</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Dr. E. Y. Mullins has set forth the doctrine of the Atonement in five propositions: +<q>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. +<pb n='755'/><anchor id='Pg755'/> +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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +<q>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.</q> J. C. C. Clarke, Man and his Divine Father, 387—<q>Vicarious +atonement does not consist in any single act.... No one act embraces it all, and no +one definition can compass it.</q> In this sense we may adopt the words of Forsyth: <q>In +the atonement the Holy Father dealt with a world's sin on (not <emph>in</emph>) a world-soul.</q> +</p> + +<p> +G. B. Foster, on <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 26:53, 54</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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?</hi></q> <q>On +this <q><hi rend='italic'>must be</hi></q> the Scripture is based, not this <q><hi rend='italic'>must be</hi></q> on the Scripture. The <q><hi rend='italic'>must be</hi></q> 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,—<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 12:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>members one of another.</hi></q> 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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Fairbairn, Place of Christ in Modern Theology, 483, 484—<q>There is a sense in which +the Patripassian theory is right; the Father did suffer; though it was not as the Son +<pb n='756'/><anchor id='Pg756'/> +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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Moberly, Atonement and Personality, 117—<q>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</q>; 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. +</p> + +<p> +Bowne, The Atonement, 101—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +John Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 2:90, 91—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<pb n='757'/><anchor id='Pg757'/> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: +<q><hi rend='italic'>Against thee, thee only, have I sinned</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 51:4</hi>). Because of his central and all-inclusive humanity, +he must bear in his own person all the burdens of humanity, and must be <q><hi rend='italic'>the Lamb +of God, that</hi></q> taketh, and so <q><hi rend='italic'>taketh away, the sin of the world</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>John 1:29</hi>). 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 <hi rend='italic'>Lam. 1:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>I must now stay with my own people.</q> 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. <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:14, 15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>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.</q> S. W. Culver: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='758'/><anchor id='Pg758'/> +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 <q>all sinned</q>—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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <q><hi rend='italic'>the Savior of all men, specially of them that believe</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 4:10</hi>). There is a grace +that <q><hi rend='italic'>hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Tit. 2:11</hi>). He <q><hi rend='italic'>gave gifts unto men</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Eph. 4:8</hi>), <q><hi rend='italic'>Yea, +among the rebellious also, that Jehovah God might dwell with them</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 68:18</hi>). <q><hi rend='italic'>Every creature of God is good, and +nothing is to be rejected</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 4:4</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +Royce, World and Individual, 2:408—<q>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.</q> Godet, in The Atonement, 331-351—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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 <q>in him were all things created,</q> and as +<q>in him all things consist,</q> 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 <q>it was necessary that the +Christ should suffer</q> (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). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Our treatment is intended to meet the chief modern objection to the atonement. +Greg, Creed of Christendom, 2:222, speaks of <q>the strangely inconsistent doctrine that +God is so <emph>just</emph> that he could not let sin go unpunished, yet so <emph>unjust</emph> that he could punish +it in the person of the innocent.... It is for orthodox dialectics to explain how the +divine justice can be <emph>impugned</emph> by pardoning the guilty, and yet <emph>vindicated</emph> by punishing +<pb n='759'/><anchor id='Pg759'/> +the innocent</q> (quoted in Lias, Atonement, 16). In order to meet this difficulty, the +following accounts of Christ's identification with humanity have been given: +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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 (<hi rend='italic'>Acts 17:28</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>in him we live, and move, and have our being</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Col. +1:17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>in him all things consist</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 14:20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you</hi></q>). 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <ref target='Pg744'>744-747</ref>.) +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>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.</q> 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: +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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: <q>My soul looks back to see The burdens thou didst bear When hanging on the +accursed tree, And hopes her guilt was there.</q> But we claim that, by virtue of Christ's +union with humanity, that guilt was not only an imputed, but also an imparted, guilt. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='760'/><anchor id='Pg760'/> +disciples were amazed and afraid (<hi rend='italic'>Mark 10:32</hi>). Hence we hear him saying: <q><hi rend='italic'>With desire have +I desired to eat this passover</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Luke 23:15</hi>); <q><hi rend='italic'>I have a baptism to be baptised with; and how am I straitened till it +be accomplished!</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Luke 12:50</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 <q><hi rend='italic'>it must needs be that Christ should suffer</hi></q> (A. V.) or, <q><hi rend='italic'>it behooved the Christ to suffer</hi></q> (Rev. +Vers., <hi rend='italic'>Acts 17:3</hi>); see also <hi rend='italic'>John 3:14</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>so must the Son of man be lifted up</hi></q>—<q>The Incarnation, +under the actual circumstances of humanity, carried with it the necessity of the +Passion</q> (Westcott, in Bib. Com., <hi rend='italic'>in loco</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +Compare John Woolman's Journal, 4, 5—<q>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.</q> He had vision of a <q>dull, +gloomy mass,</q> darkening half the heavens, and he was told that it was <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Exposition of 2 Cor. 5:21.</hi>—It remains for us to adduce the Scriptural proof of +this natural assumption of human guilt by Christ. We find it in <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 5:21</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Him who knew +no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him.</hi></q> <q><hi rend='italic'>Righteousness</hi></q> here +cannot mean subjective purity, for then <q><hi rend='italic'>made to be sin</hi></q> would mean that God made +Christ to be subjectively depraved. As Christ was not made <emph>unholy</emph>, the meaning +cannot be that we are made <emph>holy</emph> persons in him. Meyer calls attention to this parallel +between <q><emph>righteousness</emph></q> and <q><emph>sin</emph></q>:—<q><hi rend='italic'>That we might become the righteousness of God in him</hi></q> = that we +might become justified persons. Correspondingly, <q><hi rend='italic'>made to be sin on our behalf</hi></q> must = made +to be a condemned person. <q><hi rend='italic'>Him who knew no sin</hi></q> = Christ had no experience of sin—this +was the necessary postulate of his work of atonement. <q><hi rend='italic'>Made sin for us</hi>,</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>actual</emph> punishment, +but is also deliverance from the <emph>obligation</emph> to suffer punishment,—in other words, as +<q><emph>righteousness</emph></q> in the text = persons delivered from the <emph>guilt</emph> as well as from the <emph>penalty</emph> +<pb n='761'/><anchor id='Pg761'/> +of sin,—so the contrasted term <q><emph>sin</emph>,</q> in the text,—a person not only <emph>actually</emph> punished, +but also under <emph>obligation</emph> to suffer punishment;—in other words, Christ is <q><emph>made sin</emph>,</q> not +only in the sense of being put under <emph>penalty</emph>, but also in the sense of being put under +<emph>guilt</emph>. (<hi rend='italic'>Cf.</hi> Symington, Atonement, 17.) +</p> + +<p> +In a note to the last edition of Meyer, this is substantially granted. <q>It is to be +noted,</q> he says, <q>that ἁμαρτίαν, like κατάρα in <hi rend='italic'>Gal. 3:13</hi>, necessarily includes in itself the +notion of guilt.</q> Meyer adds, however: <q>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.</q> 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 <q><emph>made sin</emph></q> +by being made one with the sinners; he took our guilt by taking our nature. He who +<q><emph>knew no sin</emph></q> came to be <q><emph>sin for us</emph></q> by being born of a sinful stock; by inheritance the +common guilt of the race became his. Guilt was not simply <emph>imputed</emph> to Christ; it was +<emph>imparted</emph> also. +</p> + +<p> +This exposition may be made more clear by putting the two contrasted thoughts in +parallel columns, as follows: +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3cm} p{3cm}'; + tblcolumns: 'lw(30) lw(30)'"> +<row><cell>Made righteousness in him =</cell><cell>Made sin for us =</cell></row> +<row><cell>righteous persons;</cell><cell>a sinful person;</cell></row> +<row><cell>justified persons;</cell><cell>a condemned person;</cell></row> +<row><cell>freed from guilt, or obligation to suffer;</cell><cell>put under guilt, or obligation to suffer;</cell></row> +<row><cell>by spiritual union with Christ.</cell><cell>by natural union with the race.</cell></row> +</table> + +<p> +For a good exposition of <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 5:21</hi>, <hi rend='italic'>Gal. 3:13</hi>, and <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 3:25, 26</hi>, see Denney, Studies in +Theology, 109-124. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Melanchthon: <q>Christ was made sin for us, not only in respect to punishment, but +primarily by being chargeable with guilt also (<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>culpæ et reatus</foreign>)</q>—quoted by Thomasius, +Christi Person und Werk, 3:95, 102, 103, 107; also 1:307, 314 <hi rend='italic'>sq.</hi> Thomasius says +that <q>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.</q> Dorner, +Glaubenslehre, 2:442 (Syst. Doct., 3:350, 351), agrees with Thomasius, that <q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +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 (<hi rend='italic'>Gal. +4:4, 5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>born of a woman, born under the law</hi></q>). 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Luke 2:21</hi>); in his +ritual purification (<hi rend='italic'>Luke 2:22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>their purification</hi></q>—<hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Luke 2:23, 24</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Ex. 13:2, 13</hi>); and in his +baptism (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 3:15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness</hi></q>). The baptized person went +<pb n='762'/><anchor id='Pg762'/> +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: <q>Baptism = death.</q>) 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 (<hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 10:38</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>Luke 12:50</hi>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 26:39</hi>); 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. +</p> + +<p> +As one who had had guilt, Christ was <q><hi rend='italic'>justified in the spirit</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 3:16</hi>); and this justification +appears to have taken place after he <q><hi rend='italic'>was manifested in the flesh</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 3:16</hi>), and when +<q><hi rend='italic'>he was raised for our justification</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 4:25</hi>). Compare <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 1:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>declared to be the Son of God with +power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>6:7-10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>—here all Christians are conceived of as ideally +justified in the justification of Christ, when Christ died for our sins and rose again. +<hi rend='italic'>8:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh</hi></q>—here +Meyer says: <q>The sending does not precede the condemnation; but the condemnation +is effected in and with the sending.</q> <hi rend='italic'>John 16:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>of righteousness, because I go to the Father</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>19:30</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>It +is finished.</hi></q> On <hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 3:16</hi>, see the Commentary of Bengel. +</p> + +<p> +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 (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 3:17</hi>), he himself was +conscious of a race-responsibility and a race-guilt which must be atoned for (<hi rend='italic'>John 12:27</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>); and that guilty human nature in him endured at the last the separation +from God which constitutes the essence of death, sin's penalty (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 27:46</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>My God, my +God, why hast thou forsaken me?</hi></q>). We must remember that, as even the believer must <q><hi rend='italic'>be +judged according to man in the flesh</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>1 Pet. 4:6</hi>), that is, must suffer the death which to unbelievers +is the penalty of sin, although he <q><hi rend='italic'>live according to God in the Spirit</hi>,</q> so Christ, in order +that we might be delivered from both guilt and penalty, was <q><hi rend='italic'>put to death in the flesh, but +made alive in the spirit</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>3:18</hi>);—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. +</p> + +<p> +If it be asked whether he, who from the moment of the conception <q><hi rend='italic'>sanctified himself</hi></q> +(<hi rend='italic'>John 17:19</hi>), 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 1:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>when he +had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 27:42</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>He saved others; +himself he cannot save</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 13:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the Lamb that hath been slain from the foundation of the world</hi></q>). +</p> + +<p> +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. <hi rend='italic'>Per contra</hi>, see Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:59 note, 82. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<pb n='763'/><anchor id='Pg763'/> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Nash, Ethics and Revelation, 252, 253—<q>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.</q> 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—<q>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</q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 4:25</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>delivered up for our trespasses ... raised for our justification.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +Simon, Redemption of Man, 322—<q>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, <hi rend='italic'>i. e.</hi>, the principle of all <emph>form</emph>—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 +<q>Life in Christ</q> 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 <emph>become</emph> one with Christ, as it is refusal to <emph>remain</emph> one with him, refusal to +let him be our life.</q> +</p> + +<p> +A. H. Strong, Christ in Creation, 33, 172—<q rend='pre'>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>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.</q> See also Ames, +on Biological Aspects of the Atonement, in Methodist Review, Nov. 1905:943-953. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +In favor of the Substitutionary or Ethical view of the atonement we may +urge the following considerations: +</p> + +<pb n='764'/><anchor id='Pg764'/> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) It rests upon correct philosophical principles with regard to the +nature of will, law, sin, penalty, righteousness. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Acts 17:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>it behooved the Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead</hi></q>—lit.: <q><hi rend='italic'>it was necessary for the +Christ to suffer</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Luke 24:26</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Behooved it not the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory?</hi></q>—lit.: +<q><hi rend='italic'>Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things?</hi></q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +Plato, Republic, 2:361—<q>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.</q> This means that, as human society is at present +constituted, even a righteous person must suffer for the sins of the world. <q>Mors +mortis Morti mortem nisi morte dedisset, Æternæ vitæ janua clausa foret</q>—<q>Had +not the Death-of-death to Death his death-blow given, Forever closed were the gate, +the gate of life and heaven.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Quo non ascendam?</foreign></q>—<q>Whither shall I not rise?</q> exclaimed the greatest minister +of modern kings, in a moment of intoxication. <q>Whither shall I not stoop?</q> says the +Lord Jesus. King Humbert, during the scourge of cholera in Italy: <q>In Castellammare +they make merry; in Naples they die: I go to Naples.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Wrightnour: <q>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 +<pb n='765'/><anchor id='Pg765'/> +broken. So God in Christ bore the sins of the world, and endured the penalty for +man's violation of his law.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Foster, Christian Life and Theology, 207-211—<q>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 +<q><hi rend='italic'>put upon the head of the goat</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Lev. 16:21</hi>) 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.</q> Watts, New Apologetics, 205—<q><q><hi rend='italic'>The +Lord will provide</hi></q> was the truth taught when Abraham found a ram provided by +God which he <q><hi rend='italic'>offered up as a burnt offering in the stead of his son</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Gen. 22:13, 14</hi>). 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 <q><hi rend='italic'>apart from shedding of blood there is no remission</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 9:22</hi>).</q> <hi rend='italic'>2 Chron. 29:27</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>when the +burnt offering began, the song of Jehovah began also.</hi></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Martin Luther, when he had realized the truth of the Atonement, was found sobbing +before a crucifix and moaning: <q>Für mich! für mich!</q>—<q>For me! for me!</q> +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. <q>We knew you would come! we knew you would come, +brother!</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>g</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Kreibig, Versöhnungslehre: <q>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.</q> J. G. Whittier: <q>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.</q> 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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>h</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<pb n='766'/><anchor id='Pg766'/> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Shedd: <q>The offended party (1) permits a substitution; (2) provides a substitute; +(3) substitutes himself.</q> George Eliot: <q>Justice is like the kingdom of God; it is +not without us, as a fact; it is <q>within us,</q> as a great yearning.</q> 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 <hi rend='italic'>1 John 4:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Herein is love, not that we loved +God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.</hi></q> +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. <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 2:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the goodness +of God leadeth thee to repentance</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>12:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the mercies of God</hi></q> lead you <q><hi rend='italic'>to present your bodies a living +sacrifice</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 5:14, 15</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> The effect of Christ's atonement on Christian character and life +may be illustrated from the proclamation of Garabaldi: <q>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!</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>D. Objections to the Ethical Theory of the Atonement.</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 12:19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance +belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord.</hi></q> 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. <q>Because a father can +forgive without atonement, it does not follow that the state can do the same</q> (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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +The publican prays, not that God may be merciful without sacrifice, but: <q><hi rend='italic'>God be propitiated +toward me, the sinner!</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Luke 18:13</hi>); in other words, he asks for mercy only through +<pb n='767'/><anchor id='Pg767'/> +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; <hi rend='italic'>Luke 17:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>If +thy brother sin, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.</hi></q> 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; <hi rend='italic'>Luke 6:27</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, bless them that curse you, pray for +them that despitefully use you.</hi></q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. <q><hi rend='italic'>Faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins</hi></q> +(<hi rend='italic'>1 John 1:9</hi>)—faithful to his promise, and righteous to Christ. Neither the atonement, +nor the promise, gives the offender any personal claim. +</p> + +<p> +Philemon must forgive Onesimus the pecuniary <emph>debt</emph>, when Paul pays it; not so +with the personal <emph>injury</emph> 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). <hi rend='italic'>Versus</hi> Current Discussions in Theology, 5:281. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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: +<q>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: <q>It is all right this time,</q> 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 +<pb n='768'/><anchor id='Pg768'/> +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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +The satisfaction is not rendered to a <emph>part</emph> of the Godhead, for the whole Godhead is +in the Father, in a certain manner; as omnipresence = <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>totus in omni parte</foreign>. So the +offering is perfect, because the whole Godhead is also in Christ (<hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 5:19</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>God was in +Christ reconciling the world unto himself</hi></q>). Lyman Abbott says that the word <q>propitiate</q> is +used in the New Testament only in the middle voice, to show that God propitiates +himself. Lyttelton, in Lux Mundi, 302—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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—<q>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 <q><hi rend='italic'>that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ ... for his body's sake, which is the church</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Col. 1:24</hi>); +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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) That there can be no transfer of punishment or merit, since these +are personal.—We answer that the idea of representation and suretyship +<pb n='769'/><anchor id='Pg769'/> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <q>sacrificial +lamb,</q> 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 (<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>For verily not of the angels doth he take hold, but he taketh hold of the seed of Abraham</hi></q>). +</p> + +<p> +<q>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: +<q>Your honor, we have nothing to say. The verdict which has been found against us +is just. We have only to ask for mercy.</q> <q>We!</q> 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</q>; see Prof. A. S. Coats, in The +Examiner, Sept. 12, 1889. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Simon, Reconciliation, 366—<q>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: <q><hi rend='italic'>My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Mat. 27:46</hi>).</q> +</p> + +<p> +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: <q><hi rend='italic'>Would I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son!</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>2 Sam. 18:33</hi>). Moberly, +Atonement and Personality, 117—<q>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.</q> Lucy Larcom: <q>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?</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>g</hi>) 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 +<pb n='770'/><anchor id='Pg770'/> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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—<q>A +golden eagle is worth a thousand copper cents. The penalty paid by Christ is +strictly and literally <emph>equivalent</emph> to that which the sinner would have borne, although it +is not <emph>identical</emph>. The vicarious bearing of it excludes the latter.</q> Andrew Fuller +thought Christ would have had to suffer just as much, if only one sinner were to have +been saved thereby. +</p> + +<p> +The atonement is a unique fact, only partially illustrated by debt and penalty. Yet +the terms <q>purchase</q> and <q>ransom</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>h</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>i</hi>) 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 <q>works by +love</q> (Gal. 5:6) and <q>cleanses the heart</q> (Acts 15:9). +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 (<hi rend='italic'>Philemon 17</hi>). 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. +</p> + +<p> +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 +<pb n='771'/><anchor id='Pg771'/> +execute the sentence of the law. Hon. George F. Danforth, Justice of the New York +State Court of Appeals, in a private letter says: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>j</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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: <q>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.</q> While we cannot say +with President Stearns: <q>Christ's work removed the hindrances in the eternal justice +of the universe to the pardon of the sinner, but <emph>how</emph> we cannot tell</q>—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 <emph>how</emph> it saves them. Balfour, Foundations of Belief, 264-267—<q>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.</q>—<q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>E. The Extent of the Atonement.</head> + +<p> +The Scriptures represent the atonement as having been made for all men, +and as sufficient for the salvation of all. Not the <emph>atonement</emph> therefore is +limited, but the <emph>application</emph> of the atonement through the work of the +Holy Spirit. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Passages asserting special efficacy of the atonement, in the case of the elect, are the +following: <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 1:4</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without +<pb n='772'/><anchor id='Pg772'/> +blemish before him in love</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>7</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, +according to the riches of his grace</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Tim. 1:9, 10</hi>—God <q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 17:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I pray for them: I pray not for the world, +but for those whom thou hast given me</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me +through their word</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>24</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +Passages asserting that the death of Christ is for all are the following: <hi rend='italic'>2 Pet 2:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>false +teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 John +2:2</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 2:6</hi>—Christ +Jesus <q><hi rend='italic'>who gave himself a ransom for all</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>4:10</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially +of them that believe</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Tit. 2:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men.</hi></q> <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 3:22</hi> +(A. V.)—<q><hi rend='italic'>unto all and upon all them that believe</hi></q>—has sometimes been interpreted as meaning +<q>unto all men, and upon all believers</q> (εἰς = destination; ἐπί = extent). But the Rev. +Vers. omits the words <q><hi rend='italic'>and upon all</hi>,</q> and Meyer, who retains the words, remarks that +τοῦς πιστεύοντας belongs to πάντας in both instances. +</p> + +<p> +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 <q>sufficient +for all; effectual for many.</q> J. M. Whiton, in The Outlook, Sept. 25, 1897—<q>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.</q> We should +say <q>as some Calvinists affirmed</q>; for, as we shall see, John Calvin himself declared +that <q>Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world.</q> Alfred Tennyson once asked an +old Methodist woman what was the news. <q>Why, Mr. Tennyson, there's only one piece +of news that I know,—that Christ died for all men.</q> And he said to her; <q>That is old +news, and good news, and new news.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +If it be asked in what sense Christ is the Savior of all men, we reply: +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 +<q><hi rend='italic'>passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Rom. 3:25</hi>), the justification of which +is found only in the sacrifice of Calvary. This <q><emph>passing over</emph>,</q> however, is limited in its +duration: see <hi rend='italic'>Acts 17:30, 31</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +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. <hi rend='italic'>Matt. 8:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down +with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<pb n='773'/><anchor id='Pg773'/> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Van Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 604—<q>On God's side, all is now taken away which could +make a separation,—unless any should themselves choose to remain separated from +him.</q> The gospel message is not: God will forgive if you return; but rather: God <emph>has</emph> +shown mercy; only believe, and it is your portion in Christ. +</p> + +<p> +Ashmore, The New Trial of the Sinner, in Christian Review, 26:245-264—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 <emph>atonement</emph> is unlimited,—the whole human race +might be saved through it; the <emph>application</emph> of the atonement is limited,—only those +who repent and believe are actually saved by it. +</p> + +<p> +Robert G. Farley: <q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +Among those who hold to a limited atonement is Owen. Campbell quotes him as +saying: <q>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, <q>Because of their unbelief,—they +will not believe.</q> 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?</q> +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>2. Christ's Intercessory Work.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 7:23-25</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> C. H. M. on <hi rend='italic'>Ex. 17:12</hi>—<q>The +<pb n='774'/><anchor id='Pg774'/> +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).</q> +</p> + +<p> +Denney's Studies in Theology, 166—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>1 John 2:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 8:34</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>—here Meyer seems to favor the meaning of external and vocal petitioning, +as of the glorified God-man: <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 7:25</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>ever liveth to make intercession for them.</hi></q> On the +ground of this effectual intercession he can pronounce the true sacerdotal <emph>benediction</emph>; +and all the benedictions of his ministers and apostles are but fruits and emblems of +this (see the Aaronic benediction in <hi rend='italic'>Num. 6:24-26</hi>, and the apostolic benedictions in <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. +1:3</hi> and <hi rend='italic'>2 Cor. 13:14</hi>). +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +B. Objects of Christ's Intercession.—We may distinguish (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) that +general intercession which secures to all men certain temporal benefits of +his atoning work, and (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) that special intercession which secures the +divine acceptance of the persons of believers and the divine bestowment +of all gifts needful for their salvation. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) General intercession for all men: <hi rend='italic'>Is. 53:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for +the transgressors</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Luke 23:34</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And Jesus said, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do</hi></q>—a +beginning of his priestly intercession, even while he was being nailed to the cross. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) Special intercession for his saints: <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 18:19, 20</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Luke 22:31, 32</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>John 14:16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>17:9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I pray for them; I pray +not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Acts 2:33</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 1:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2:18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>through him +we both have our access in one Spirit unto the Father</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>3:12</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>in whom we have boldness and access in confidence +through our faith in him</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:17, 18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>4:15, 16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Pet 2:5</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>a holy priesthood, +to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 5:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>7:16, 17</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>John 14:26</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rom. 8:26</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>And in like manner the Spirit +<pb n='775'/><anchor id='Pg775'/> +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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>27</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +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. <q>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.</q> Therefore <q>When God inclines the heart to pray, +He hath an ear to hear.</q> The impulse to prayer, within our hearts, is evidence that +Christ is urging our claims in heaven. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +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 (<hi rend='italic'>Ex. 28:9-12</hi>), so the Christian is to +bear upon his heart in prayer before God the interests of his family, the church, and +the world (<hi rend='italic'>1 Tim. 3:1</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings +be made for all men</hi></q>). See Symington on Intercession, in Atonement and Intercession, +256-308; Milligan, Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood of our Lord. +</p> + +<p> +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 <emph>for us</emph>, but rejects the doctrine that we are to pray <emph>to them</emph>. Prayers <emph>for</emph> the +dead he strongly advocates. Bramhall, Works, 1:57—Invocation of the saints is <q>not +necessary, for two reasons: <emph>first</emph>, 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 <emph>secondly</emph>, we have no command from God to invocate +them.</q> A. B. Cave: <q>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?</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +<div> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>III. The Kingly Office of Christ.</head> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) With respect to the universe at large, Christ's kingdom is a kingdom +of power; he upholds, governs, and judges the world. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Ps. 2:6-8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>I have set my king.... Thou art my son.... uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>8:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; Thou hast put all things under his feet</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>cf.</hi> +<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 2:8, 9</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>we see not yet all things subjected to him. But we beheld ... Jesus ... crowned with glory and +honor</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Mat. 25:31, 32</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>28:18</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>All authority hath been given unto me in heaven +and on earth</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 1:3</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>upholding all things by the word of his power</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Rev. 19:15, 16</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>smite the nations +... rule them with a rod of iron ... King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +Julius Müller, Proof-texts, 34, says incorrectly, as we think, that <q>the <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>regnum naturæ</foreign> +of the old theology is unsupported,—there are only the <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>regnum gratiæ</foreign> and the <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>regnum +gloriæ</foreign>.</q> A. J. Gordon: <q>Christ is now creation's sceptre-bearer, as he was once creation's +burden-bearer.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) With respect to his militant church, it is a kingdom of grace; he +founds, legislates for, administers, defends, and augments his church on +earth. +</p> + +<pb n='776'/><anchor id='Pg776'/> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Luke 2:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>born to you ... a Savior, who is Christ the lord</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>19:38</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Blessed is the King that cometh in +the name of the Lord</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>John 18:36, 37</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>Eph. 1:22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; +<hi rend='italic'>Heb. 1:8</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:677 (Syst. Doct., 4:142, 143)—<q>All great men can be said +to have an after-influence (<foreign lang='de' rend='italic'>Nachwirkung</foreign>) after their death, but only of Christ can it +be said that he has an after-activity (<foreign lang='de' rend='italic'>Fortwirkung</foreign>). The sending of the Spirit is part +of Christ's work as King.</q> P. S. Moxom, Bap. Quar. Rev., Jan. 1886:25-36—<q>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.</q> A. J. Gordon: <q>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.</q> Luther: <q>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.</q> 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 <hi rend='italic'>1 Cor. 15:25</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>For he must reign, till he hath put all +his enemies under his feet.</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>Thrice blessed is he to whom is given The instinct that can tell That God is in the +field when he Is most invisible.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) 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. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>John 17:24</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>1 Pet. 3:21, 22</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>Jesus Christ; who is on the right hand of God, having gone into +heaven; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him</hi></q>; <hi rend='italic'>2 Pet. 1:11</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>thus shall be richly supplied +unto you the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.</hi></q> See Andrew Murray, +With Christ in the School of Prayer, preface, vi—<q><hi rend='italic'>Rev. 1:6</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>made us to be a kingdom, to be +priests unto his God and Father.</hi></q></q> 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: <hi rend='italic'>Heb. 7:25</hi>—<q><hi rend='italic'>able to save to the uttermost, ... seeing he ever liveth to make +intercession</hi></q>. +</p> + +<p> +Watts, New Apologetic, preface, ix—<q>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.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Luther: <q>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.</q> 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. +</p> + +</quote> + +</div> + +</div> + +</div> + +</div> + +</body> +<back rend="page-break-before: right"> + <div rend="page-break-before: right"> + <divGen type="pgfooter" /> + </div> +</back> +</text> +</TEI.2> diff --git a/44555-tei/images/cover.jpg b/44555-tei/images/cover.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..016109f --- /dev/null +++ b/44555-tei/images/cover.jpg |
