{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_44555/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_44555","id":"gutenberg_44555","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44555","summary":null,"tags":["Baptists -- Doctrines","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Theology, Doctrinal"],"text":"Systematic Theology\n\n A Compendium and Commonplace-Book\n\n Designed For The Use Of Theological Students\n\n By\n\n Augustus Hopkins Strong, D.D., LL.D.\n\nPresident and Professor of Biblical Theology in the Rochester Theological\n Seminary\n\n Revised and Enlarged\n\n In Three Volumes\n\n Volume 2\n\n The Doctrine of Man\n\n The Judson Press\n\n Philadelphia\n\n 1907\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nPart IV. The Nature, Decrees, And Works of God. (Continued)\n Chapter IV. The Works Of God; Or The Execution Of The Decrees.\n Section I.\u2014Creation.\n I. Definition Of Creation.\n II. Proof of the Doctrine of Creation.\n 1. Direct Scripture Statements.\n 2. Indirect evidence from Scripture.\n III. Theories which oppose Creation.\n 1. Dualism.\n 2. Emanation.\n 3. Creation from eternity.\n 4. Spontaneous generation.\n IV. The Mosaic Account of Creation.\n 1. Its twofold nature,\u2014as uniting the ideas of creation and of\n development.\n 2. Its proper interpretation.\n V. God\u2019s End in Creation.\n 1. The testimony of Scripture.\n 2. The testimony of reason.\n VI. Relation of the Doctrine of Creation to other Doctrines.\n 1. To the holiness and benevolence of God.\n 2. To the wisdom and free-will of God.\n 3. To Christ as the Revealer of God.\n 4. To Providence and Redemption.\n 5. To the Observance of the Sabbath.\n Section II.\u2014Preservation.\n I. Definition of Preservation.\n II. Proof of the Doctrine of Preservation.\n 1. From Scripture.\n 2. From Reason.\n III. Theories which virtually deny the doctrine of Preservation.\n 1. Deism.\n 2. Continuous Creation.\n IV. Remarks upon the Divine Concurrence.\n Section III.\u2014Providence.\n I. Definition of Providence.\n II. Proof of the Doctrine of Providence.\n 1. Scriptural Proof.\n 2. Rational proof.\n III. Theories opposing the Doctrine of Providence.\n 1. Fatalism.\n 2. Casualism.\n 3. Theory of a merely general providence.\n IV. Relations of the Doctrine of Providence.\n 1. To miracles and works of grace.\n 2. To prayer and its answer.\n 3. To Christian activity.\n 4. To the evil acts of free agents.\n Section IV.\u2014Good And Evil Angels.\n I. Scripture Statements and Imitations.\n 1. As to the nature and attributes of angels.\n 2. As to their number and organization.\n 3. As to their moral character.\n 4. As to their employments.\n A. The employments of good angels.\n B. The employments of evil angels.\n II. Objections to the Doctrine of Angels.\n 1. To the doctrine of angels in general.\n 2. To the doctrine of evil angels in particular.\n III. Practical uses of the Doctrine of Angels.\n A. Uses of the doctrine of good angels.\n B. Uses of the doctrine of evil angels.\nPart V. Anthropology, Or The Doctrine Of Man.\n Chapter I. Preliminary.\n I. Man a Creation of God and a Child of God.\n II. Unity of the Human Race.\n 1. The argument from history.\n 2. The argument from language.\n 3. The argument from psychology.\n 4. The argument from physiology.\n III. Essential Elements of Human Nature.\n 1. The Dichotomous Theory.\n 2. The Trichotomous Theory.\n IV. Origin of the Soul.\n 1. The Theory of Pre\u00ebxistence.\n 2. The Creatian Theory.\n 3. The Traducian Theory.\n V. The Moral Nature of Man.\n 1. Conscience.\n 2. Will.\n Chapter II. The Original State Of Man.\n I. Essentials of Man\u2019s Original State.\n 1. Natural likeness to God, or personality.\n 2. Moral likeness to God, or holiness.\n A. The image of God as including only personality.\n B. The image of God as consisting simply in man\u2019s natural\n capacity for religion.\n II. Incidents of Man\u2019s Original State.\n 1. Results of man\u2019s possession of the divine image.\n 2. Concomitants of man\u2019s possession of the divine image.\n Chapter III. Sin, Or Man\u2019s State Of Apostasy.\n Section I.\u2014The Law Of God.\n I. Law in General.\n II. The Law of God in Particular.\n III. Relation of the Law to the Grace of God.\n Section II.\u2014Nature Of Sin.\n I. Definition of Sin.\n 1. Proof.\n 2. Inferences.\n II. The Essential Principle of Sin.\n 1. Sin as Sensuousness.\n 2. Sin as Finiteness.\n 3. Sin as Selfishness.\n Section III.\u2014Universality Of Sin.\n I. Every human being who has arrived at moral consciousness has\n committed acts, or cherished dispositions, contrary to the divine\n law.\n II. Every member of the human race, without exception, possesses\n a corrupted nature, which is a source of actual sin, and is\n itself sin.\n Section IV.\u2014Origin Of Sin In The Personal Act Of Adam.\n I. The Scriptural Account of the Temptation and Fall in Genesis\n 3:1-7.\n 1. Its general, character not mythical or allegorical, but\n historical.\n 2. The course of the temptation, and the resulting fall.\n II. Difficulties connected with the Fall considered as the\n personal Act of Adam.\n 1. How could a holy being fall?\n 2. How could God justly permit Satanic temptation?\n 3. How could a penalty so great be justly connected with\n disobedience to so slight a command?\n III. Consequences of the Fall, so far as respects Adam.\n 1. Death.\n 2. Positive and formal exclusion from God\u2019s presence.\n Section V.\u2014Imputation Of Adam\u2019s Sin To His Posterity.\n I. Theories of Imputation.\n 1. The Pelagian Theory, or Theory of Man\u2019s natural Innocence.\n 2. The Arminian Theory, or Theory of voluntarily appropriated\n Depravity.\n 3. The New School Theory, or Theory of uncondemnable\n Vitiosity.\n 4. The Federal Theory, or Theory of Condemnation by Covenant.\n 5. Theory of Mediate Imputation, or Theory of Condemnation for\n Depravity.\n 6. The Augustinian Theory, or Theory of Adam\u2019s Natural\n Headship.\n II.\u2014Objections to the Augustinian Doctrine of Imputation.\n Section VI.\u2014Consequences Of Sin To Adam\u2019s Posterity.\n I. Depravity.\n 1. Depravity partial or total?\n 2. Ability or inability?\n II. Guilt.\n 1. Nature of guilt.\n 2. Degrees of guilt.\n III. Penalty.\n 1. Idea of penalty.\n 2. The actual penalty of sin.\n Section VII.\u2014The Salvation Of Infants.\nPart VI. Soteriology, Or The Doctrine Of Salvation Through The Work Of\nChrist And Of The Holy Spirit.\n Chapter I. Christology, Or The Redemption Wrought By Christ.\n Section I.\u2014Historical Preparation For Redemption.\n I. Negative Preparation,\u2014in the history of the heathen world.\n II. Positive Preparation,\u2014in the history of Israel.\n Section II.\u2014The Person Of Christ.\n I. Historical Survey of Views Respecting the Person of Christ.\n II. The two Natures of Christ,\u2014their Reality and Integrity.\n 1. The Humanity of Christ.\n 2. The Deity of Christ.\n III. The Union of the two Natures in one Person.\n 1. Proof of this Union.\n 2. Modern misrepresentations of this Union.\n 3. The real nature of this Union.\n Section III.\u2014The Two States Of Christ.\n I. The State of Humiliation.\n 1. The nature of this humiliation.\n 2. The stages of Christ\u2019s humiliation.\n II. The State of Exaltation.\n 1. The nature of this exaltation.\n 2. The stages of Christ\u2019s exaltation.\n Section IV.\u2014The Offices Of Christ.\n I. The Prophetic Office of Christ.\n 1. The nature of Christ\u2019s prophetic work.\n 2. The stages of Christ\u2019s prophetic work.\n II. The Priestly Office of Christ.\n 1. Christ\u2019s Sacrificial Work, or the Doctrine of the\n Atonement.\n A. Scripture Methods of Representing the Atonement.\n B. The Institution of Sacrifice, more especially as found\n in the Mosaic system.\n C. Theories of the Atonement.\n 1st. The Socinian, or Example Theory of the Atonement.\n 2nd. The Bushnellian, or Moral Influence Theory of the\n Atonement.\n 3d. The Grotian, or Governmental Theory of the\n Atonement.\n 4th. The Irvingian Theory, or Theory of Gradually\n Extirpated Depravity.\n 5th. The Anselmic, or Commercial Theory of the\n Atonement.\n 6th. The Ethical Theory of the Atonement.\n D. Objections to the Ethical Theory of the Atonement.\n E. The Extent of the Atonement.\n 2. Christ\u2019s Intercessory Work.\n III. The Kingly Office of Christ.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [Cover Art]\n\n[Transcriber\u2019s Note: The above cover image was produced by the submitter\nat Distributed Proofreaders, and is being placed into the public domain.]\n\n\n\n\n\nChristo Deo Salvatori.\n\n\u201cTHE EYE SEES ONLY THAT WHICH IT BRINGS WITH IT THE POWER OF\nSEEING.\u201d\u2014_Cicero._\n\n\u201cOPEN THOU MINE EYES, THAT I MAY BEHOLD WONDROUS THINGS OUT OF THY\nLAW.\u201d\u2014_Psalm 119:18._\n\n\u201cFOR WITH THEE IS THE FOUNTAIN OF LIFE: IN THY LIGHT SHALL WE SEE\nLIGHT.\u201d\u2014_Psalm 36:9._\n\n\u201cFOR WE KNOW IN PART, AND WE PROPHESY IN PART; BUT WHEN THAT WHICH IS\nPERFECT IS COME, THAT WHICH IS IN PART SHALL BE DONE AWAY.\u201d\u2014_1 Cor. 13:9,\n10._\n\n\n\n\n\nPART IV. THE NATURE, DECREES, AND WORKS OF GOD. (CONTINUED)\n\n\n\n\nChapter IV. The Works Of God; Or The Execution Of The Decrees.\n\n\n\nSection I.\u2014Creation.\n\n\nI. Definition Of Creation.\n\n\nBy creation we mean that free act of the triune God by which in the\nbeginning for his own glory he made, without the use of pre\u00ebxisting\nmaterials, the whole visible and invisible universe.\n\nCreation is designed origination, by a transcendent and personal God, of\nthat which itself is not God. The universe is related to God as our own\nvolitions are related to ourselves. They are not ourselves, and we are\ngreater than they. Creation is not simply the idea of God, or even the\nplan of God, but it is the idea externalized, the plan executed; in other\nwords, it implied an exercise, not only of intellect, but also of will,\nand this will is not an instinctive and unconscious will, but a will that\nis personal and free. Such exercise of will seems to involve, not\nself-development, but self-limitation, on the part of God; the\ntransformation of energy into force, and so a beginning of time, with its\nfinite successions. But, whatever the relation of creation to time,\ncreation makes the universe wholly dependent upon God, as its originator.\n\n\n F. H. Johnson, in Andover Rev., March, 1891:280, and What is\n Reality, 285\u2014\u201cCreation is designed origination.... Men never could\n have thought of God as the Creator of the world, were it not that\n they had first known themselves as creators.\u201d We agree with the\n doctrine of Hazard, Man a Creative First Cause. Man creates ideas\n and volitions, without use of pre\u00ebxisting material. He also\n indirectly, through these ideas and volitions, creates\n brain-modifications. This creation, as Johnson has shown, is\n without hands, yet elaborate, selective, progressive.\n Schopenhauer: \u201cMatter is nothing more than causation; its true\n being is its action.\u201d\n\n Prof. C. L. Herrick, Denison Quarterly, 1896:248, and\n Psychological Review, March, 1899, advocates what he calls\n _dynamism_, which he regards as the only alternative to a\n materialistic dualism which posits matter, and a God above and\n distinct from matter. He claims that the predicate of reality can\n apply only to energy. To speak of energy as _residing in_\n something is to introduce an entirely incongruous concept, for it\n continues our guest _ad infinitum_. \u201cForce,\u201d he says, \u201cis energy\n under resistance, or self-limited energy, for all parts of the\n universe are derived from the energy. Energy manifesting itself\n under self-conditioning or differential forms is force. The change\n of pure energy into force is creation\u2014the introduction of\n resistance. The progressive complication of this interference is\n evolution\u2014a form of orderly resolution of energy. Substance is\n pure spontaneous energy. God\u2019s substance is his energy\u2014the\n infinite and inexhaustible store of spontaneity which makes up his\n being. The form which self-limitation impresses upon substance, in\n revealing it in force, is not God, because it no longer possesses\n the attributes of spontaneity and universality, though it emanates\n from him. When we speak of energy as self-limited, we simply imply\n that spontaneity is intelligent. The sum of God\u2019s acts is his\n being. There is no _causa posterior_ or _extranea_, which spurs\n him on. We must recognize in the source what appears in the\n outcome. We can speak of _absolute_, but not of _infinite_ or\n _immutable_, substance. The Universe is but the partial expression\n of an infinite God.\u201d\n\n Our view of creation is so nearly that of Lotze, that we here\n condense Ten Broeke\u2019s statement of his philosophy: \u201cThings are\n concreted laws of action. If the idea of being must include\n permanence as well as activity, we must say that only the personal\n truly is. All else is flow and process. We can interpret ontology\n only from the side of personality. Possibility of interaction\n requires the dependence of the mutually related many of the system\n upon an all-embracing, co\u00f6rdinating One. The finite is a mode or\n phenomenon of the One Being. Mere things are only modes of\n energizing of the One. Self-conscious personalities are created,\n posited, and depend on the One in a different way. Interaction of\n things is immanent action of the One, which the perceiving mind\n interprets as causal. Real interaction is possible only between\n the Infinite and the created finite, _i. e._, self-conscious\n persons. The finite is not a part of the Infinite, nor does it\n partly exhaust the stuff of the Infinite. The One, by an act of\n freedom, posits the many, and the many have their ground and unity\n in the Will and Thought of the One. Both the finite and the\n Infinite are free and intelligent.\n\n \u201cSpace is not an extra-mental reality, _sui generis_, nor an order\n of relations among realities, but a form of dynamic appearance,\n the ground of which is the fixed orderly changes in reality. So\n time is the form of change, the subjective interpretation of\n timeless yet successive changes in reality. So far as God is the\n ground of the world-process, he is in time. So far as he\n transcends the world-process in his self-conscious personality, he\n is not in time. Motion too is the subjective interpretation of\n changes in things, which changes are determined by the demands of\n the world-system and the purpose being realized in it. Not\n atomism, but dynamism, is the truth. Physical phenomena are\n referable to the activity of the Infinite, which activity is given\n a substantive character because we think under the form of\n substance and attribute. Mechanism is compatible with teleology.\n Mechanism is universal and is necessary to all system. But it is\n limited by purpose, and by the possible appearance of any new law,\n force, or act of freedom.\n\n \u201cThe soul is not a function of material activities, but is a true\n reality. The system is such that it can admit new factors, and the\n soul is one of these possible new factors. The soul is created as\n substantial reality, in contrast with other elements of the\n system, which are only phenomenal manifestations of the One\n Reality. The relation between soul and body is that of interaction\n between the soul and the universe, the body being that part of the\n universe which stands in closest relation with the soul (_versus_\n Bradley, who holds that \u2018body and soul alike are phenomenal\n arrangements, neither one of which has any title to fact which is\n not owned by the other\u2019). Thought is a knowledge of reality. We\n must assume an adjustment between subject and object. This\n assumption is founded on the postulate of a morally perfect God.\u201d\n To Lotze, then, the only real creation is that of finite\n personalities,\u2014matter being only a mode of the divine activity.\n See Lotze, Microcosmos, and Philosophy of Religion. Bowne, in his\n Metaphysics and his Philosophy of Theism, is the best expositor of\n Lotze\u2019s system.\n\n\nIn further explanation of our definition we remark that\n\n(_a_) Creation is not \u201cproduction out of nothing,\u201d as if \u201cnothing\u201d were a\nsubstance out of which \u201csomething\u201d could be formed.\n\n\n We do not regard the doctrine of Creation as bound to the use of\n the phrase \u201ccreation out of nothing,\u201d and as standing or falling\n with it. The phrase is a philosophical one, for which we have no\n Scriptural warrant, and it is objectionable as intimating that\n \u201cnothing\u201d can itself be an object of thought and a source of\n being. The germ of truth intended to be conveyed in it can better\n be expressed in the phrase \u201cwithout use of pre\u00ebxisting materials.\u201d\n\n\n(_b_) Creation is not a fashioning of pre\u00ebxisting materials, nor an\nemanation from the substance of Deity, but is a making of that to exist\nwhich once did not exist, either in form or substance.\n\n\n There is nothing divine in creation but the origination of\n substance. Fashioning is competent to the creature also. Gassendi\n said to Descartes that God\u2019s creation, if he is the author of\n forms but not of substances, is only that of the tailor who\n clothes a man with his apparel. But substance is not necessarily\n material. We are to conceive of it rather after the analogy of our\n own ideas and volitions, and as a manifestation of spirit.\n Creation is not simply the thought of God, nor even the plan of\n God, but rather the externalization of that thought and the\n execution of that plan. Nature is \u201ca great sheet let down from God\n out of heaven,\u201d and containing \u201cnothing that is common or\n unclean;\u201d but nature is not God nor a part of God, any more than\n our ideas and volitions are ourselves or a part of ourselves.\n Nature is a partial manifestation of God, but it does not exhaust\n God.\n\n\n(_c_) Creation is not an instinctive or necessary process of the divine\nnature, but is the free act of a rational will, put forth for a definite\nand sufficient end.\n\n\n Creation is different in kind from that eternal process of the\n divine nature in virtue of which we speak of generation and\n procession. The Son is begotten of the Father, and is of the same\n essence; the world is created without pre\u00ebxisting material, is\n different from God, and is made by God. Begetting is a necessary\n act; creation is the act of God\u2019s free grace. Begetting is\n eternal, out of time; creation is in time, or with time.\n\n Studia Biblica, 4:148\u2014\u201cCreation is the voluntary limitation which\n God has imposed on himself.... It can only be regarded as a\n Creation of free spirits.... It is a form of almighty power to\n submit to limitation. Creation is not a development of God, but a\n circumscription of God.... The world is not the expression of God,\n or an emanation from God, but rather his self-limitation.\u201d\n\n\n(_d_) Creation is the act of the triune God, in the sense that all the\npersons of the Trinity, themselves uncreated, have a part in it\u2014the Father\nas the originating, the Son as the mediating, the Spirit as the realizing\ncause.\n\n\n That all of God\u2019s creative activity is exercised through Christ\n has been sufficiently proved in our treatment of the Trinity and\n of Christ\u2019s deity as an element of that doctrine (see pages 310,\n 311). We may here refer to the texts which have been previously\n considered, namely, _John 1:3, 4_\u2014\u201c_All things were made through\n him, and without him was not anything made. That which hath been\n made was life in him_\u201d; _1 Cor. 8:6_\u2014\u201c_one Lord, Jesus Christ,\n through whom are all things_\u201d; _Col. 1:16_\u2014\u201c_all things have been\n created through him, and unto him_\u201d; _Heb. 1:10_\u2014\u201c_Thou, Lord, in\n the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the\n heavens are the works of thy hands._\u201d\n\n The work of the Holy Spirit seems to be that of completing,\n bringing to perfection. We can understand this only by remembering\n that our Christian knowledge and love are brought to their\n consummation by the Holy Spirit, and that he is also the principle\n of our natural self-consciousness, uniting subject and object in a\n subject-object. If matter is conceived of as a manifestation of\n spirit, after the idealistic philosophy, then the Holy Spirit may\n be regarded as the perfecting and realizing agent in the\n externalization of the divine ideas. While it was the Word though\n whom all things were made, the Holy Spirit was the author of life,\n order, and adornment. Creation is not a mere manufacturing,\u2014it is\n a spiritual act.\n\n John Caird, Fundamental Ideas of Christianity, 1:120\u2014\u201cThe creation\n of the world cannot be by a Being who is external. Power\n presupposes an object on which it is exerted. 129\u2014There is in the\n very nature of God a reason why he should reveal himself in, and\n communicate himself to, a world of finite existences, or fulfil\n and realize himself in the being and life of nature and man. His\n nature would not be what it is if such a world did not exist;\n something would be lacking to the completeness of the divine being\n without it. 144\u2014Even with respect to human thought or\n intelligence, it is mind or spirit which creates the world. It is\n not a ready-made world on which we look; in perceiving our world\n we make it. 152-154\u2014We make progress as we cease to think our own\n thoughts and become media of the universal Intelligence.\u201d While we\n accept Caird\u2019s idealistic interpretation of creation, we dissent\n from his intimation that creation is a necessity to God. The\n trinitarian being of God renders him sufficient to himself, even\n without creation. Yet those very trinitarian relations throw light\n upon the method of creation, since they disclose to us the order\n of all the divine activity. On the definition of Creation, see\n Shedd, History of Doctrine, 1:11.\n\n\nII. Proof of the Doctrine of Creation.\n\n\nCreation is a truth of which mere science or reason cannot fully assure\nus. Physical science can observe and record changes, but it knows nothing\nof origins. Reason cannot absolutely disprove the eternity of matter. For\nproof of the doctrine of Creation, therefore, we rely wholly upon\nScripture. Scripture supplements science, and renders its explanation of\nthe universe complete.\n\n\n Drummond, in his Natural Law in the Spiritual World, claims that\n atoms, as \u201cmanufactured articles,\u201d and the dissipation of energy,\n prove the creation of the visible from the invisible. See the same\n doctrine propounded in \u201cThe Unseen Universe.\u201d But Sir Charles\n Lyell tells us: \u201cGeology is the autobiography of the earth,\u2014but\n like all autobiographies, it does not go back to the beginning.\u201d\n Hopkins, Yale Lectures on the Scriptural View of Man: \u201cThere is\n nothing _a priori_ against the eternity of matter.\u201d Wardlaw, Syst.\n Theol., 2:65\u2014\u201cWe cannot form any distinct conception of creation\n out of nothing. The very idea of it might never have occurred to\n the mind of man, had it not been traditionally handed down as a\n part of the original revelation to the parents of the race.\u201d\n\n Hartmann, the German philosopher, goes back to the original\n elements of the universe, and then says that science stands\n petrified before the question of their origin, as before a\n Medusa\u2019s head. But in the presence of problems, says Dorner, the\n duty of science is not petrifaction, but solution. This is\n peculiarly true, if science is, as Hartmann thinks, a complete\n explanation of the universe. Since science, by her own\n acknowledgment, furnishes no such explanation of the origin of\n things, the Scripture revelation with regard to creation meets a\n demand of human reason, by adding the one fact without which\n science must forever be devoid of the highest unity and\n rationality. For advocacy of the eternity of matter, see\n Martineau, Essays, 1:157-169.\n\n E. H. Johnson, in Andover Review, Nov. 1891:505 sq., and Dec.\n 1891:592 sq., remarks that evolution can be traced backward to\n more and more simple elements, to matter without motion and with\n no quality but being. Now make it still more simple by divesting\n it of existence, and you get back to the necessity of a Creator.\n An infinite number of past stages is impossible. There is no\n infinite number. Somewhere there must be a beginning. We grant to\n Dr. Johnson that the only alternative to creation is a\n materialistic dualism, or an eternal matter which is the product\n of the divine mind and will. The theories of dualism and of\n creation from eternity we shall discuss hereafter.\n\n\n1. Direct Scripture Statements.\n\n\nA. Genesis 1:1\u2014\u201cIn the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.\u201d To\nthis it has been objected that the verb \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 does not necessarily denote\nproduction without the use of preexisting materials (see Gen. 1:27 \u201cGod\ncreated man in his own image\u201d; _cf._ 2:7\u2014\u201cthe Lord God formed man of the\ndust of the ground\u201d; also Ps. 51:10\u2014\u201cCreate in me a clean heart\u201d).\n\n\n \u201cIn the first two chapters of Genesis \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 is used (1) of the\n creation of the universe (_1:1_); (2) of the creation of the great\n sea monsters (_1:21_); (3) of the creation of man (_1:27_).\n Everywhere else we read of God\u2019s _making_, as from an already\n created substance, the firmament (_1:7_), the sun, moon and stars\n (_1:16_), the brute creation (_1:25_); or of his _forming_ the\n beasts of the field out of the ground (_2:19_); or, lastly, of his\n _building up_ into a woman the rib he had taken from man (_2:22_,\n margin)\u201d\u2014quoted from Bible Com., 1:31. Guyot, Creation, 30\u2014\u201c_Bara_\n is thus reserved for marking the first introduction of each of the\n three great spheres of existence\u2014the world of matter, the world of\n life, and the spiritual world represented by man.\u201d\n\n\nWe grant, in reply, that the argument for absolute creation derived from\nthe mere word \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 is not entirely conclusive. Other considerations in\nconnection with the use of this word, however, seem to render this\ninterpretation of Gen. 1:1 the most plausible. Some of these\nconsiderations we proceed to mention.\n\n(_a_) While we acknowledge that the verb \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 \u201cdoes not necessarily or\ninvariably denote production without the use of pre\u00ebxisting materials, we\nstill maintain that it signifies the production of an effect for which no\nnatural antecedent existed before, and which can be only the result of\ndivine agency.\u201d For this reason, in the Kal species it is used only of\nGod, and is never accompanied by any accusative denoting material.\n\n\n No accusative denoting material follows _bara_, in the passages\n indicated, for the reason that all thought of material was absent.\n See Dillmann, Genesis, 18; Oehler, Theol. O. T., 1:177. The\n quotation in the text above is from Green, Hebrew Chrestomathy,\n 67. But E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 88, remarks: \u201cWhether\n the Scriptures teach the absolute origination of matter\u2014its\n creation out of nothing\u2014is an open question.... No decisive\n evidence is furnished by the Hebrew word _bara_.\u201d\n\n A moderate and scholarly statement of the facts is furnished by\n Professor W. J. Beecher, in S. S. Times, Dec. 23, 1893:807\u2014\u201cTo\n create is to originate divinely.... Creation, in the sense in\n which the Bible uses the word, does not exclude the use of\n materials previously existing; for man was taken from the ground\n (_Gen. 2:7_), and woman was builded from the rib of a man\n (_2:22_). Ordinarily God brings things into existence through the\n operation of second causes. But it is possible, in our thinking,\n to withdraw attention from the second causes, and to think of\n anything as originating simply from God, apart from second causes.\n To think of a thing thus is to think of it as created. The Bible\n speaks of Israel as created, of the promised prosperity of\n Jerusalem as created, of the Ammonite people and the king of Tyre\n as created, of persons of any date in history as created (_Is.\n 43:1-15_; _65:18_; _Ez. 21:30_; _28:13, 15_; _Ps. 102:18_; _Eccl.\n 12:1_; _Mal. 2:10_). Miracles and the ultimate beginnings of\n second causes are necessarily thought of as creative acts; all\n other originating of things may be thought of, according to the\n purpose we have in mind, either as creation or as effected by\n second causes.\u201d\n\n\n(_b_) In the account of the creation, \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 seems to be distinguished from\n\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4, \u201cto make\u201d either with or without the use of already existing material\n(\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea, \u201ccreated in making\u201d or \u201cmade by creation,\u201d in 2:3; and \u05d5\u05d9\u05e2\u05e9,\nof the firmament, in 1:7), and from \u05d9\u05e6\u05e8, \u201cto form\u201d out of such material.\n(See \u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0, of man regarded as a spiritual being, in 1:27; but \u05d5\u05d9\u05e6\u05e8, of\nman regarded as a physical being, in 2:7.)\n\n\n See Conant, Genesis, 1; Bible Com., 1:37\u2014\u201c \u2018created to make\u2019 (in\n _Gen. 2:3_) = created out of nothing, in order that he might make\n out of it all the works recorded in the six days.\u201d Over against\n these texts, however, we must set others in which there appears no\n accurate distinguishing of these words from one another. _Bara_ is\n used in _Gen. 1:1_, _asah_ in _Gen. 2:4_, of the creation of the\n heaven and earth. Of earth, both _yatzar_ and _asah_ are used in\n _Is. 45:18_. In regard to man, in _Gen. 1:27_ we find _bara_; in\n _Gen. 1:26_ and _9:6_, _asah_; and in _Gen. 2:7_, _yatzar_. In\n _Is. 43:7_, all three are found in the same verse: \u201c_whom I have_\n _bara_ _for my glory, I have_ _yatzar_, _yea, I have_ _asah_\n _him_.\u201d In _Is. 45:12_, \u201c_asah_ _the earth, and_ _bara_ _man upon\n it_\u201d; but in _Gen. 1:1_ we read: \u201c_God_ _bara_ _the earth_,\u201d and\n in _9:6_ \u201c_asah_ _man_.\u201d _Is. 44:2\u2014__\u201c__the Lord that_ _asah_\n _thee_ (_i. e._, man) and _yatzar_ _thee_\u201d; but in _Gen. 1:27_,\n God \u201c_bara_ _man_.\u201d _Gen. 5:2_\u2014\u201c_male and female_ _bara_ _he\n them_.\u201d _Gen. 2:22_\u2014\u201c_the rib_ _asah_ _he a woman_\u201d; _Gen.\n 2:7_\u2014\u201c_he_ _yatzar_ _man_\u201d; _i. e._, _bara_ male and female, yet\n _asah_ the woman and _yatzar_ the man. _Asah_ is not always used\n for _transform_: _Is. 41:20_\u2014\u201c_fir-tree, pine, box-tree_\u201d in\n nature\u2014_bara_; _Ps. 51:10_\u2014\u201c_bara_ _in me a clean heart_\u201d; _Is.\n 65:18_\u2014God \u201c_bara_ _Jerusalem into a rejoicing_.\u201d\n\n\n(_c_) The context shows that the meaning here is a making without the use\nof pre\u00ebxisting materials. Since the earth in its rude, unformed, chaotic\ncondition is still called \u201cthe earth\u201d in verse 2, the word \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 in verse 1\ncannot refer to any shaping or fashioning of the elements, but must\nsignify the calling of them into being.\n\n\n Oehler, Theology of O.T., 1:177\u2014\u201cBy the absolute _berashith_, \u2018_in\n the beginning_,\u2019 the divine creation is fixed as an absolute\n beginning, not as a working on something that already existed.\u201d\n _Verse 2_ cannot be the beginning of a history, for it begins with\n \u201c_and_.\u201d Delitzsch says of the expression \u201c_the earth was without\n form and void_\u201d: \u201cFrom this it is evident that the void and\n formless state of the earth was not uncreated or without a\n beginning. ... It is evident that \u2018_the heaven and earth_\u2019 as God\n created them in the beginning were not the well-ordered universe,\n but the world in its elementary form.\u201d\n\n\n(_d_) The fact that \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 may have had an original signification of\n\u201ccutting,\u201d \u201cforming,\u201d and that it retains this meaning in the Piel\nconjugation, need not prejudice the conclusion thus reached, since terms\nexpressive of the most spiritual processes are derived from sensuous\nroots. If \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 does not signify absolute creation, no word exists in the\nHebrew language that can express this idea.\n\n(_e_) But this idea of production without the use of pre\u00ebxisting materials\nunquestionably existed among the Hebrews. The later Scriptures show that\nit had become natural to the Hebrew mind. The possession of this idea by\nthe Hebrews, while it is either not found at all or is very dimly and\nambiguously expressed in the sacred books of the heathen, can be best\nexplained by supposing that it was derived from this early revelation in\nGenesis.\n\n\n E. H. Johnson, Outline of Syst. Theol., 94\u2014\u201c_Rom. 4:17_ tells us\n that the faith of Abraham, to whom God had promised a son, grasped\n the fact that God calls into existence \u2018_the things that are\n not_.\u2019 This may be accepted as Paul\u2019s interpretation of the first\n verse of the Bible.\u201d It is possible that the heathen had\n occasional glimpses of this truth, though with no such clearness\n as that with which it was held in Israel. Perhaps we may say that\n through the perversions of later nature-worship something of the\n original revelation of absolute creation shines, as the first\n writing of a palimpsest appears faintly through the subsequent\n script with which it has been overlaid. If the doctrine of\n absolute creation is found at all among the heathen, it is greatly\n blurred and obscured. No one of the heathen books teaches it as do\n the sacred Scriptures of the Hebrews. Yet it seems as if this \u201cOne\n accent of the Holy Ghost The heedless world has never lost.\u201d\n\n Bib. Com., 1:31\u2014\u201cPerhaps no other ancient language, however\n refined and philosophical, could have so dearly distinguished the\n different acts of the Maker of all things [as the Hebrew did With\n its four different words], and that because all heathen philosophy\n esteemed matter to be eternal and uncreated.\u201d Prof. E. D. Burton:\n \u201cBrahmanism, and the original religion of which Zoroastrianism was\n a reformation, were Eastern and Western divisions of a primitive\n Aryan, and probably monotheistic, religion. The Vedas, which\n represented the Brahmanism, leave it a question whence the world\n came, whether from God by emanation, or by the shaping of material\n eternally existent. Later Brahmanism is pantheistic, and Buddhism,\n the Reformation of Brahmanism, is atheistic.\u201d See Shedd, Dogm.\n Theol., 1:471, and Mosheim\u2019s references in Cudworth\u2019s Intellectual\n System, 3:140.\n\n We are inclined still to hold that the doctrine of absolute\n creation was known to no other ancient nation besides the Hebrews.\n Recent investigations, however, render this somewhat more doubtful\n than it once seemed to be. Sayce, Hibbert Lectures, 142, 143,\n finds creation among the early Babylonians. In his Religions of\n Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, 372-397, he says: \u201cThe elements of\n Hebrew cosmology are all Babylonian; even the creative word itself\n was a Babylonian conception; but the spirit which inspires the\n cosmology is the antithesis to that which inspired the cosmology\n of Babylonia. Between the polytheism of Babylonia and the\n monotheism of Israel a gulf is fixed which cannot be spanned. So\n soon as we have a clear monotheism, absolute creation is a\n corollary. As the monotheistic idea is corrupted, creation gives\n place to pantheistic transformation.\u201d\n\n It is now claimed by others that Zoroastrianism, the Vedas, and\n the religion of the ancient Egyptians had the idea of absolute\n creation. On creation in the Zoroastrian system, see our treatment\n of Dualism, page 382. Vedic hymn in Rig Veda, 10:9, quoted by J.\n F. Clarke, Ten Great Religions, 2:205\u2014\u201cOriginally this universe\n was soul only; nothing else whatsoever existed, active or\n inactive. He thought: \u2018I will create worlds\u2019; thus he created\n these various worlds: earth, light, mortal being, and the waters.\u201d\n Renouf, Hibbert Lectures, 216-222, speaks of a papyrus on the\n staircase of the British Museum, which reads: \u201cThe great God, the\n Lord of heaven and earth, who made all things which are ... the\n almighty God, self-existent, who made heaven and earth; ... the\n heaven was yet uncreated, uncreated was the earth; thou hast put\n together the earth; ... who made all things, but was not made.\u201d\n\n But the Egyptian religion in its later development, as well as\n Brahmanism, was pantheistic, and it is possible that all the\n expressions we have quoted are to be interpreted, not as\n indicating a belief in creation out of nothing, but as asserting\n emanation, or the taking on by deity of new forms and modes of\n existence. On creation in heathen systems, see Pierret,\n Mythologie, and answer to it by Maspero; Hymn to Amen-Rha, in\n \u201cRecords of the Past\u201d; G. C. M\u00fcller, Literature of Greece, 87, 88;\n George Smith, Chaldean Genesis, chapters 1, 3, 5 and 6; Dillmann,\n Com. on Genesis, 6th edition, Introd., 5-10; LeNormant, Hist.\n Ancienne de l\u2019Orient, 1:17-26; 5:238; Otto Z\u00f6ckler, art.:\n Sch\u00f6pfung, in Herzog and Plitt, Encyclop.; S. B. Gould, Origin and\n Devel. of Relig. Beliefs, 281-292.\n\n\nB. Hebrews 11:3\u2014\u201cBy faith we understand that the worlds have been framed\nby the word of God, so that what is seen hath not been made out of things\nwhich appear\u201d = the world was not made out of sensible and pre\u00ebxisting\nmaterial, but by the direct fiat of omnipotence (see Alford, and L\u00fcnemann,\nMeyer\u2019s Com. _in loco_).\n\n\n Compare 2 Maccabees 7:28\u2014\u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2. This\n the Vulgate translated by \u201cquia ex nihilo fecit illa Deus,\u201d and\n from the Vulgate the phrase \u201ccreation out of nothing\u201d is derived.\n Hedge, Ways of the Spirit, points out that Wisdom 11:17 has \u1f10\u03be\n \u1f00\u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2, interprets by this the \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd in 2 Maccabees,\n and denies that this last refers to creation out of nothing. But\n we must remember that the later Apocryphal writings were composed\n under the influence of the Platonic philosophy; that the passage\n in Wisdom may be a rationalistic interpretation of that in\n Maccabees; and that even if it were independent, we are not to\n assume a harmony of view in the Apocrypha. 2 Maccabees 7:28 must\n stand by itself as a testimony to Jewish belief in creation\n without use of pre\u00ebxisting material,\u2014belief which can be traced to\n no other source than the Old Testament Scriptures. Compare _Ex.\n 34:10_\u2014\u201c_I will do marvels such as have not been wrought_ [marg.\n \u201c_created_\u201d] _in all the earth_\u201d; _Num. 16:30_\u2014\u201c_if Jehovah make a\n new thing_\u201d [marg. \u201c_create a creation_\u201d]; _Is. 4:5_\u2014\u201c_Jehovah\n will create ... a cloud and smoke_\u201d; _41:20_\u2014\u201c_the Holy One of\n Israel hath created it_\u201d; _45:7, 8_\u2014\u201c_I form the light, and create\n darkness_\u201d; _57:19_\u2014\u201c_I create the fruit of the lips_\u201d;\n _65:17_\u2014\u201c_I create new heavens and a new earth_\u201d; _Jer.\n 31:22_\u2014\u201c_Jehovah hath created a new thing._\u201d\n\n _Rom. 4:17_\u2014\u201c_God, who giveth life to the dead, and calleth the\n things that are not, as though they were_\u201d; _1 Cor. 1:28_\u2014\u201c_things\n that are not_\u201d [did God choose] \u201c_that he might bring to naught\n the things that are_\u201d; _2 Cor. 4:6_\u2014\u201c_God, that said, Light shall\n shine out of darkness_\u201d\u2014created light without pre\u00ebxisting\n material,\u2014for darkness is no material; _Col. 1:16, 17_\u2014\u201c_in him\n were all things created ... and he is before all things_\u201d; so also\n _Ps. 33:9_\u2014\u201c_he spake, and it was done_\u201d; _148:5_\u2014\u201c_he commanded,\n and they were created._\u201d See Philo, Creation of the World, chap.\n 1-7, and Life of Moses, book 3, chap. 36\u2014\u201cHe produced the most\n perfect work, the Cosmos, out of non-existence (\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) into\n being (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9).\u201d E. H. Johnson, Syst. Theol., 94\u2014\u201cWe have no\n reason to believe that the Hebrew mind had the idea of creation\n out of _invisible_ materials. But creation out of _visible_\n materials is in _Hebrews 11:3_ expressly denied. This text is\n therefore equivalent to an assertion that the universe was made\n without the use of _any_ pre\u00ebxisting materials.\u201d\n\n\n2. Indirect evidence from Scripture.\n\n\n(_a_) The past duration of the world is limited; (_b_) before the world\nbegan to be, each of the persons of the Godhead already existed; (_c_) the\norigin of the universe is ascribed to God, and to each of the persons of\nthe Godhead. These representations of Scripture are not only most\nconsistent with the view that the universe was created by God without use\nof pre\u00ebxisting material, but they are inexplicable upon any other\nhypothesis.\n\n\n (_a_) _Mark 13:19_\u2014\u201c_from the beginning of the creation which God\n created until now_\u201d; _John 17:5_\u2014\u201c_before the world was_\u201d; _Eph.\n 1:4_\u2014\u201c_before the foundation of the world._\u201d (_b_) _Ps.\n 90:2_\u2014\u201c_Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever thou\n hadst formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to\n everlasting thou art God_\u201d; _Prov. 8:23_\u2014\u201c_I was set up from\n everlasting, from the beginning, Before the earth was_\u201d; _John\n 1:1_\u2014\u201c_In the beginning was the Word_\u201d; _Col. 1:17_\u2014\u201c_he is before\n all things_\u201d; _Heb. 9:14_\u2014\u201c_the eternal Spirit_\u201d (see Tholuck,\n Com. _in loco_). (_c_) _Eph. 3:9_\u2014\u201c_God who created all things_\u201d;\n _Rom. 11:36_\u2014\u201c_of him ... are all things_\u201d; _1 Cor. 8:6_\u2014\u201c_one\n God, the Father, of whom we are all things ... one Lord, Jesus\n Christ, through whom are all things_\u201d; _John 1:3_\u2014\u201c_all things\n were made through him_\u201d; _Col 1:16_\u2014\u201c_in him were all things\n created ... all things have been created through him, and unto\n him_\u201d; _Heb. 1:2_\u2014\u201c_through whom also he made the worlds_\u201d; _Gen.\n 1:2_\u2014\u201c_and the Spirit of God moved_ [marg. \u201c_was brooding_\u201d] _upon\n the face of the waters._\u201d From these passages we may also infer\n that (1) all things are absolutely dependent upon God; (2) God\n exercises supreme control over all things; (3) God is the only\n infinite Being; (4) God alone is eternal; (5) there is no\n substance out of which God creates; (6) things do not proceed from\n God by necessary emanation; the universe has its source and\n originator in God\u2019s transcendent and personal will. See, on this\n indirect proof of creation, Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 2:231. Since\n other views, however, have been held to be more rational, we\n proceed to the examination of\n\n\nIII. Theories which oppose Creation.\n\n\n1. Dualism.\n\n\nOf dualism there are two forms:\n\nA. That which holds to two self-existent principles, God and matter. These\nare distinct from and co\u00ebternal with each other. Matter, however, is an\nunconscious, negative, and imperfect substance, which is subordinate to\nGod and is made the instrument of his will. This was the underlying\nprinciple of the Alexandrian Gnostics. It was essentially an attempt to\ncombine with Christianity the Platonic or Aristotelian conception of the\n\u1f55\u03bb\u03b7. In this way it was thought to account for the existence of evil, and\nto escape the difficulty of imagining a production without use of\npre\u00ebxisting material. Basilides (flourished 125) and Valentinus (died\n160), the representatives of this view, were influenced also by Hindu\nphilosophy, and their dualism is almost indistinguishable from pantheism.\nA similar view has been held in modern times by John Stuart Mill and\napparently by Frederick W. Robertson.\n\n\n Dualism seeks to show how the One becomes the many, how the\n Absolute gives birth to the relative, how the Good can consist\n with evil. The \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7 of Plato seems to have meant nothing but empty\n space, whose not-being, or merely negative existence, prevented\n the full realization of the divine ideas. Aristotle regarded the\n \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7 as a more positive cause of imperfection,\u2014it was like the hard\n material which hampers the sculptor in expressing his thought. The\n real problem for both Plato and Aristotle was to explain the\n passage from pure spiritual existence to that which is phenomenal\n and imperfect, from the absolute and unlimited to that which\n exists in space and time. Finiteness, instead of being created,\n was regarded as having eternal existence and as limiting all\n divine manifestations. The \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7, from being a mere abstraction,\n became either a negative or a positive source of evil. The\n Alexandrian Jews, under the influence of Hellenic culture, sought\n to make this dualism explain the doctrine of creation.\n\n Basilides and Valentinus, however, were also under the influence\n of a pantheistic philosophy brought in from the remote East\u2014the\n philosophy of Buddhism, which taught that the original Source of\n all was a nameless Being, devoid of all qualities, and so,\n indistinguishable from Nothing. From this Being, which is\n Not-being, all existing things proceed. Aristotle and Hegel\n similarly taught that pure Being = Nothing. But inasmuch as the\n object of the Alexandrian philosophers was to show how something\n could be originated, they were obliged to conceive of the\n primitive Nothing as capable of such originating. They, moreover,\n in the absence of any conception of absolute creation, were\n compelled to conceive of a material which could be fashioned.\n Hence the Void, the Abyss, is made to take the place of matter. If\n it be said that they did not conceive of the Void or the Abyss as\n substance, we reply that they gave it just as substantial\n existence as they gave to the first Cause of things, which, in\n spite of their negative descriptions of it, involved Will and\n Design. And although they do not attribute to this secondary\n substance a positive influence for evil, they notwithstanding see\n in it the unconscious hinderer of all good.\n\n Principal Tulloch, in Encyc. Brit., 10:704\u2014\u201cIn the Alexandrian\n Gnosis ... the stream of being in its ever outward flow at length\n comes in contact with dead matter which thus receives animation\n and becomes a living source of evil.\u201d Windelband, Hist.\n Philosophy, 129, 144, 239\u2014\u201cWith Valentinus, side by side with the\n Deity poured forth into the Pleroma or Fulness of spiritual forms,\n appears the Void, likewise original and from eternity; beside Form\n appears matter; beside the good appears the evil.\u201d Mansel, Gnostic\n Heresies, 139\u2014\u201cThe Platonic theory of an inert, semi-existent\n matter, ... was adopted by the Gnosis of Egypt.... 187\u2014Valentinus\n does not content himself, like Plato, ... with assuming as the\n germ of the natural world an unformed matter existing from all\n eternity.... The whole theory may be described as a development,\n in allegorical language of the pantheistic hypothesis which in its\n outline had been previously adopted by Basilides.\u201d A. H. Newman,\n Ch. History, 1:181-192, calls the philosophy of Basilides\n \u201cfundamentally pantheistic.\u201d \u201cValentinus,\u201d he says, \u201cwas not so\n careful to insist on the original non-existence of God and\n everything.\u201d We reply that even to Basilides the Non-existent One\n is endued with power; and this power accomplishes nothing until it\n comes in contact with things non-existent, and out of them\n fashions the seed of the world. The things non-existent are as\n substantial as is the Fashioner, and they imply both objectivity\n and limitation.\n\n Lightfoot, Com. on Colossians, 76-113, esp. 82, has traced a\n connection between the Gnostic doctrine, the earlier Colossian\n heresy, and the still earlier teaching of the Essenes of\n Palestine. All these were characterized by (1) the spirit of caste\n or intellectual exclusiveness; (2) peculiar tenets as to creation\n and as to evil; (3) practical asceticism. Matter is evil and\n separates man from God; hence intermediate beings between man and\n God as objects of worship; hence also mortification of the body as\n a means of purifying man from sin. Paul\u2019s antidote for both errors\n was simply the person of Christ, the true and only Mediator and\n Sanctifier. See Guericke, Church History, 1:161.\n\n Harnack, Hist. Dogma, 1:128\u2014\u201cThe majority of Gnostic undertakings\n may be viewed as attempts to transform Christianity into a\n theosophy.... In Gnosticism the Hellenic spirit desired to make\n itself master of Christianity, or more correctly, of the Christian\n communities.\u201d... 232\u2014Harnack represents one of the fundamental\n philosophic doctrines of Gnosticism to be that of the Cosmos as a\n mixture of matter with divine sparks, which has arisen from a\n descent of the latter into the former [Alexandrian Gnosticism],\n or, as some say, from the perverse, or at least merely permitted\n undertaking of a subordinate spirit [Syrian Gnosticism]. We may\n compare the Hebrew Sadducee with the Greek Epicurean; the Pharisee\n with the Stoic; the Essene with the Pythagorean. The Pharisees\n overdid the idea of God\u2019s transcendence. Angels must come in\n between God and the world. Gnostic intermediaries were the logical\n outcome. External works of obedience were alone valid. Christ\n preached, instead of this, a religion of the heart. Wendt,\n Teaching of Jesus, 1:52\u2014\u201cThe rejection of animal sacrifices and\n consequent abstaining from temple-worship on the part of the\n Essenes, which seems out of harmony with the rest of their legal\n obedience, is most simply explained as the consequence of their\n idea that to bring to God a bloody animal offering was derogatory\n to his transcendental character. Therefore they interpreted the O.\n T. command in an allegorizing way.\u201d\n\n Lyman Abbott: \u201cThe Oriental dreams; the Greek defines; the Hebrew\n acts. All these influences met and intermingled at Alexandria.\n Emanations were mediations between the absolute, unknowable,\n all-containing God, and the personal, revealed and holy God of\n Scripture. Asceticism was one result: matter is undivine,\n therefore get rid of it. License was another result: matter is\n undivine, therefore disregard it\u2014there is no disease and there is\n no sin\u2014the modern doctrine of Christian Science.\u201d Kedney,\n Christian Doctrine, 1:360-373; 2:354, conceives of the divine\n glory as an eternal material environment of God, out of which the\n universe is fashioned.\n\n The author of \u201cThe Unseen Universe\u201d (page 17) wrongly calls John\n Stuart Mill a Manich\u00e6an. But Mill disclaims belief in the\n _personality_ of this principle that resists and limits God,\u2014see\n his posthumous Essays on Religion, 176-195. F. W. Robertson,\n Lectures on Genesis, 4-16\u2014\u201cBefore the creation of the world all\n was chaos ... but with the creation, order began.... God did not\n cease from creation, for creation is going on every day. Nature is\n God at work. Only after surprising changes, as in spring-time, do\n we say figuratively, \u2018God rests.\u2019 \u201d See also Frothingham,\n Christian Philosophy.\n\n\nWith regard to this view, we remark:\n\n(_a_) The maxim _ex nihilo nihil fit_, upon which it rests, is true only\nin so far as it asserts that no event takes place without a cause. It is\nfalse, if it mean that nothing can ever be made except out of material\npreviously existing. The maxim is therefore applicable only to the realm\nof second causes, and does not bar the creative power of the great first\nCause. The doctrine of creation does not dispense with a cause; on the\nother hand, it assigns to the universe a sufficient cause in God.\n\n\n Lucretius: \u201cNihil posse creari De nihilo, neque quod genitum est\n ad nihil revocari.\u201d Persius: \u201cGigni De nihilo nihil, in nihilum\n nil posse reverti.\u201d Martensen, Dogmatics, 116\u2014\u201cThe nothing, out of\n which God creates the world, is the eternal possibilities of his\n will, which are the sources of all the actualities of the world.\u201d\n Lewes, Problems of Life and Mind, 2:292\u2014\u201cWhen therefore it is\n argued that the creation of something from nothing is unthinkable\n and is therefore peremptorily to be rejected, the argument seems\n to me to be defective. The process is thinkable, but not\n imaginable, conceivable but not probable.\u201d See Cudworth,\n Intellectual System, 3:81 _sq._ Lipsius, Dogmatik, 288, remarks\n that the theory of dualism is quite as difficult as that of\n absolute creation. It holds to a point of time when God began to\n fashion pre\u00ebxisting material, and can give no reason why God did\n not do it before, since there must always have been in him an\n impulse toward this fashioning.\n\n\n(_b_) Although creation without the use of pre\u00ebxisting material is\ninconceivable, in the sense of being unpicturable to the imagination, yet\nthe eternity of matter is equally inconceivable. For creation without\npre\u00ebxisting material, moreover, we find remote analogies in our own\ncreation of ideas and volitions, a fact as inexplicable as God\u2019s bringing\nof new substances into being.\n\n\n Mivart, Lessons from Nature, 371, 372\u2014\u201cWe have to a certain extent\n an aid to the thought of absolute creation in our own free\n volition, which, as absolutely originating and determining, may be\n taken as the type to us of the creative act.\u201d We speak of \u201cthe\n creative faculty\u201d of the artist or poet. We cannot give reality to\n the products of our imaginations, as God can to his. But if\n thought were only substance, the analogy would be complete. Shedd,\n Dogm. Theol., 1:467\u2014\u201cOur thoughts and volitions are created ex\n nihilo, in the sense that one thought is not made out of another\n thought, nor one volition out of another volition.\u201d So created\n substance may be only the mind and will of God in exercise,\n automatically in matter, freely in the case of free beings (see\n pages 90, 105-110, 383, and in our treatment of Preservation).\n\n Beddoes: \u201cI have a bit of _Fiat_ in my soul, And can myself create\n my little world.\u201d Mark Hopkins: \u201cMan is an image of God as a\n creator.... He can purposely create, or cause to be, a future\n that, but for him, would not have been.\u201d E. C. Stedman, Nature of\n Poetry, 223\u2014\u201cSo far as the Poet, the artist, is creative, he\n becomes a sharer of the divine imagination and power, and even of\n the divine responsibility.\u201d Wordsworth calls the poet a \u201cserene\n creator of immortal things.\u201d Imagination, he says, is but another\n name for \u201cclearest insight, amplitude of mind, And reason in her\n most exalted mood.\u201d \u201cIf we are \u2018_gods_\u2019 (_Ps. 82:6_), that part of\n the Infinite which is embodied in us must partake to a limited\n extent of his power to create.\u201d Veitch, Knowing and Being,\n 289\u2014\u201cWill, the expression of personality, both as originating\n resolutions and moulding existing material into form, is the\n nearest approach in thought which we can make to divine creation.\u201d\n\n Creation is not simply the thought of God,\u2014it is also the will of\n God\u2014thought in expression, reason externalized. Will is creation\n out of nothing, in the sense that there is no use of pre\u00ebxisting\n material. In man\u2019s exercise of the creative imagination there is\n will, as well as intellect. Royce, Studies of Good and Evil, 256,\n points out that we can be original in (1) the style or form of our\n work; (2) in the selection of the objects we imitate; (3) in the\n invention of relatively novel combinations of material. Style,\n subject, combination, then, comprise the methods of our\n originality. Our new conceptions of nature as the expression of\n the divine mind and will bring creation more within our\n comprehension than did the old conception of the world as\n substance capable of existing apart from God. Hudson, Law of\n Psychic Phenomena, 294, thinks that we have power to create\n visible phantasms, or embodied thoughts, that can be subjectively\n perceived by others. See also Hudson\u2019s Scientific Demonstration of\n Future Life, 153. He defines genius as the result of the\n synchronous action of the objective and subjective faculties.\n Jesus of Nazareth, in his judgment, was a wonderful psychic.\n Intuitive perception and objective reason were with him always in\n the ascendant. His miracles were misinterpreted psychic phenomena.\n Jesus never claimed that his works were outside of natural law.\n All men have the same intuitional power, though in differing\n degrees.\n\n We may add that the begetting of a child by man is the giving of\n substantial existence to another. Christ\u2019s creation of man may be\n like his own begetting by the Father. Behrends: \u201cThe relation\n between God and the universe is more intimate and organic than\n that between an artist and his work. The marble figure is\n independent of the sculptor the moment it is completed. It\n remains, though he die. But the universe would vanish in the\n withdrawal of the divine presence and indwelling. If I were to use\n any figure, it would be that of generation. The immanence of God\n is the secret of natural permanence and uniformity. Creation is\n primarily a spiritual act. The universe is not what we see and\n handle. The real universe is an empire of energies, a hierarchy of\n correlated forces, whose reality and unity are rooted in the\n rational will of God perpetually active in preservation. But there\n is no identity of substance, nor is there any division of the\n divine substance.\u201d\n\n Bowne, Theory of Thought and Knowledge, 36\u2014\u201cA mind is conceivable\n which should create its objects outright by pure self-activity and\n without dependence on anything beyond itself. Such is our\n conception of the Creator\u2019s relation to his objects. But this is\n not the case with us except to a very slight extent. Our mental\n life itself begins, and we come only gradually to a knowledge of\n things, and of ourselves. In some sense our objects are given;\n that is, we cannot have objects at will or vary their properties\n at our pleasure. In this sense we are passive in knowledge, and no\n idealism can remove this fact. But in some sense also our objects\n are our own products; for an existing object becomes an object for\n us only as we think it, and thus make it our object. In this\n sense, knowledge is an active process, and not a passive reception\n of readymade information from without.\u201d Clarke, Self and the\n Father, 38\u2014\u201cAre we humiliated by having data for our imaginations\n to work upon? by being unable to create material? Not unless it be\n a shame to be second to the Creator.\u201d Causation is as mysterious\n as Creation. Balzac lived with his characters as actual beings. On\n the Creative Principle, see N. R. Wood, The Witness of Sin,\n 114-135.\n\n\n(_c_) It is unphilosophical to postulate two eternal substances, when one\nself-existent Cause of all things will account for the facts. (_d_) It\ncontradicts our fundamental notion of God as absolute sovereign to suppose\nthe existence of any other substance to be independent of his will. (_e_)\nThis second substance with which God must of necessity work, since it is,\naccording to the theory, inherently evil and the source of evil, not only\nlimits God\u2019s power, but destroys his blessedness. (_f_) This theory does\nnot answer its purpose of accounting for moral evil, unless it be also\nassumed that spirit is material,\u2014in which case dualism gives place to\nmaterialism.\n\n\n Martensen, Dogmatics, 121\u2014\u201cGod becomes a mere demiurge, if nature\n existed before spirit. That spirit only who in a perfect sense is\n able to commence his work of creation can have power to complete\n it.\u201d If God does not create, he must use what material he finds,\n and this working with intractable material must be his perpetual\n sorrow. Such limitation in the power of the deity seemed to John\n Stuart Mill the best explanation of the existing imperfections of\n the universe.\n\n\nThe other form of dualism is:\n\nB. That which holds to the eternal existence of two antagonistic spirits,\none evil and the other good. In this view, matter is not a negative and\nimperfect substance which nevertheless has self-existence, but is either\nthe work or the instrument of a personal and positively malignant\nintelligence, who wages war against all good. This was the view of the\nManich\u00e6ans. Manich\u00e6anism is a compound of Christianity and the Persian\ndoctrine of two eternal and opposite intelligences. Zoroaster, however,\nheld matter to be pure, and to be the creation of the good Being. Mani\napparently regarded matter as captive to the evil spirit, if not\nabsolutely his creation.\n\n\n The old story of Mani\u2019s travels in Greece is wholly a mistake.\n Guericke, Church History, 1:185-187, maintains that Manich\u00e6anism\n contains no mixture of Platonic philosophy, has no connection with\n Judaism, and as a sect came into no direct relations with the\n Catholic church. Harnoch, Wegweiser, 22, calls Manich\u00e6anism a\n compound of Gnosticism and Parseeism. Herzog, Encyclop\u00e4die, art.:\n Mani und die Manich\u00e4er, regards Manich\u00e6anism as the fruit, acme,\n and completion of Gnosticism. Gnosticism was a heresy in the\n church; Manich\u00e6anism, like New Platonism, was an anti-church. J.\n P. Lange: \u201cThese opposing theories represent various pagan\n conceptions of the world, which, after the manner of palimpsests,\n show through Christianity.\u201d Isaac Taylor speaks of \u201cthe creator of\n the carnivora\u201d; and some modern Christians practically regard\n Satan as a second and equal God.\n\n On the Religion of Zoroaster, see Haug, Essays on Parsees,\n 139-161, 302-309; also our quotations on pp. 347-349; Monier\n Williams, in 19th Century, Jan. 1881:155-177\u2014Ahura Mazda was the\n creator of the universe. Matter was created by him, and was\n neither identified with him nor an emanation from him. In the\n divine nature there were two opposite, but not opposing,\n principles or forces, called \u201ctwins\u201d\u2014the one constructive, the\n other destructive; the one beneficent, the other maleficent.\n Zoroaster called these \u201ctwins\u201d also by the name of \u201cspirits,\u201d and\n declared that \u201cthese two spirits created, the one the reality, the\n other the non-reality.\u201d Williams says that these two principles\n were conflicting only in name. The only antagonism was between the\n resulting good and evil brought about by the free agent, man. See\n Jackson, Zoroaster.\n\n We may add that in later times this personification of principles\n in the deity seems to have become a definite belief in two\n opposing personal spirits, and that Mani, Manes, or Manich\u00e6us\n adopted this feature of Parseeism, with the addition of certain\n Christian elements. Hagenbach, History of Doctrine, 1:470\u2014\u201cThe\n doctrine of the Manich\u00e6ans was that creation was the work of\n Satan.\u201d See also Gieseler, Church History, 1:203; Neander, Church\n History, 1:478-505; Blunt, Dict. Doct. and Hist. Theology, art.:\n Dualism; and especially Baur, Das manich\u00e4ische Religionssystem. A.\n H. Newman, Ch. History, 1:194\u2014\u201cManich\u00e6ism is Gnosticism, with its\n Christian elements reduced to a minimum, and the Zoroastrian, old\n Babylonian, and other Oriental elements raised to the maximum.\n Manich\u00e6ism is Oriental dualism under Christian names, the\n Christian names employed retaining scarcely a trace of their\n proper meaning. The most fundamental thing in Manich\u00e6ism is its\n absolute dualism. The kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness\n with their rulers stand eternally opposed to each other.\u201d\n\n\nOf this view we need only say that it is refuted (_a_) by all the\narguments for the unity, omnipotence, sovereignty, and blessedness of God;\n(_b_) by the Scripture representations of the prince of evil as the\ncreature of God and as subject to God\u2019s control.\n\n\n Scripture passages showing that Satan is God\u2019s creature or subject\n are the following: _Col. 1:16_\u2014\u201c_for in him were all things\n created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and\n things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities\n or powers_\u201d; _cf._ _Eph. 6:12_\u2014\u201c_our wrestling is not against\n flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the\n powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the\n spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places_\u201d; _2 Pet.\n 2:4_\u2014\u201c_God spared not the angels when they sinned, but cast them\n down to hell, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be\n reserved unto judgment_\u201d; _Rev. 20:2_\u2014\u201c_laid hold on the dragon,\n the old serpent, which is the Devil and Satan_\u201d; _10_\u2014\u201c_and the\n devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and\n brimstone._\u201d\n\n The closest analogy to Manich\u00e6an dualism is found in the popular\n conception of the devil held by the medi\u00e6val Roman church. It is a\n question whether he was regarded as a rival or as a servant of\n God. Matheson, Messages of Old Religions, says that Parseeism\n recognizes an obstructive element in the nature of God himself.\n Moral evil is reality, and there is that element of truth in\n Parseeism. But there is no reconciliation, nor is it shown that\n all things work together for good. E. H. Johnson: \u201cThis theory\n sets up matter as a sort of deity, a senseless idol endowed with\n the truly divine attribute of self-existence. But we can\n acknowledge but one God. To erect matter into an eternal Thing,\n independent of the Almighty but forever beside him, is the most\n revolting of all theories.\u201d Tennyson, Unpublished Poem (Life,\n 1:314)\u2014\u201cOh me! for why is all around us here As if some lesser God\n had made the world, But had not force to shape it as he would Till\n the high God behold it from beyond, And enter it and make it\n beautiful?\u201d\n\n E. G. Robinson: \u201cEvil is not eternal; if it were, we should be\n paying our respects to it.... There is much Manich\u00e6anism in modern\n piety. We would influence soul through the body. Hence\n sacramentarianism and penance. Puritanism is theological\n Manich\u00e6anism. Christ recommended fasting because it belonged to\n his age. Christianity came from Judaism. Churchism comes largely\n from reproducing what Christ did. Christianity is not perfunctory\n in its practices. We are to fast only when there is good reason\n for it.\u201d L. H. Mills, New World, March, 1895:51, suggests that\n Phariseeism may be the same with Farseeism, which is but another\n name for Parseeism. He thinks that Resurrection, Immortality,\n Paradise, Satan, Judgment, Hell, came from Persian sources, and\n gradually drove out the old Sadduceean simplicity. Pfleiderer,\n Philos, Religion, 1:206\u2014\u201cAccording to the Persian legend, the\n first human pair was a good creation of the all-wise Spirit,\n Ahura, who had breathed into them his own breath. But soon the\n primeval men allowed themselves to be seduced by the hostile\n Spirit Angromainyu into lying and idolatry, whereby the evil\n spirits obtained power over them and the earth and spoiled the\n good creation.\u201d\n\n Disselhoff, Die klassische Poesie und die g\u00f6ttliche Offenbarung,\n 13-25\u2014\u201cThe Gathas of Zoroaster are the first poems of humanity. In\n them man rouses himself to assert his superiority to nature and\n the spirituality of God. God is not identified with nature. The\n impersonal nature-gods are vain idols and are causes of\n corruption. Their worshippers are servants of falsehood.\n Ahura-Mazda (living-wise) is a moral and spiritual personality.\n Ahriman is equally eternal but not equally powerful. Good has not\n complete victory over evil. Dualism is admitted and unity is lost.\n The conflict of faiths leads to separation. While one portion of\n the race remains in the Iranian highlands to maintain man\u2019s\n freedom and independence of nature, another portion goes\n South-East to the luxuriant banks of the Ganges to serve the\n deified forces of nature. The East stands for unity, as the West\n for duality. Yet Zoroaster in the Gathas is almost deified; and\n his religion, which begins by giving predominance to the good\n Spirit, ends by being honey-combed with nature-worship.\u201d\n\n\n2. Emanation.\n\n\nThis theory holds that the universe is of the same substance with God, and\nis the product of successive evolutions from his being. This was the view\nof the Syrian Gnostics. Their system was an attempt to interpret\nChristianity in the forms of Oriental theosophy. A similar doctrine was\ntaught, in the last century, by Swedenborg.\n\nWe object to it on the following grounds: (_a_) It virtually denies the\ninfinity and transcendence of God,\u2014by applying to him a principle of\nevolution, growth, and progress which belongs only to the finite and\nimperfect. (_b_) It contradicts the divine holiness,\u2014since man, who by the\ntheory is of the substance of God, is nevertheless morally evil. (_c_) It\nleads logically to pantheism,\u2014since the claim that human personality is\nillusory cannot be maintained without also surrendering belief in the\npersonality of God.\n\n\n Saturninus of Antioch, Bardesanes of Edessa, Tatian of Assyria,\n Marcion of Sinope, all of the second century, were representatives\n of this view. Blunt, Dict. of Doct. and Hist. Theology, art.:\n Emanation: \u201cThe divine operation was symbolized by the image of\n the rays of light proceeding from the sun, which were most intense\n when nearest to the luminous substance of the body of which they\n formed a part, but which decreased in intensity as they receded\n from their source, until at last they disappeared altogether in\n darkness. So the spiritual effulgence of the Supreme Mind formed a\n world of spirit, the intensity of which varied inversely with its\n distance from its source, until at length it vanished in matter.\n Hence there is a chain of ever expanding \u00c6ons which are increasing\n attenuations of his substance and the sum of which constitutes his\n fulness, _i. e._, the complete revelation of his hidden being.\u201d\n Emanation, from _e_, and _manare_, to flow forth. Guericke, Church\n History, 1:160\u2014\u201cmany flames from one light ... the direct contrary\n to the doctrine of creation from nothing.\u201d Neander, Church\n History, 1:372-74. The doctrine of emanation is distinctly\n materialistic. We hold, on the contrary, that the universe is an\n expression of God, but not an emanation from God.\n\n On the difference between Oriental emanation and eternal\n generation, see Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 1:470, and History Doctrine,\n 1:11-18, 318, note\u2014\u201c1. That which is eternally generated is\n infinite, not finite; it is a divine and eternal person who is not\n the world or any portion of it. In the Oriental schemes, emanation\n is a mode of accounting for the origin of the finite. But eternal\n generation still leaves the finite to be originated. The begetting\n of the Son is the generation of an infinite person who afterwards\n creates the finite universe _de nihilo_. 2. Eternal generation has\n for its result a subsistence or personal hypostasis totally\n distinct from the world; but emanation In relation to the deity\n yields only an impersonal or at most a personified energy or\n effluence which is one of the powers or principles of nature\u2014a\n mere _anima mundi_.\u201d The truths of which emanation was the\n perversion and caricature were therefore the generation of the Son\n and the procession of the Spirit.\n\n Principal Tulloch, in Encyc. Brit., 10:704\u2014\u201cAll the Gnostics agree\n in regarding this world as not proceeding immediately from the\n Supreme Being.... The Supreme Being is regarded as wholly\n inconceivable and indescribable\u2014as the unfathomable Abyss\n (Valentinus)\u2014the Unnameable (Basilides). From this transcendent\n source existence springs by emanation in a series of spiritual\n powers.... The passage from the higher spiritual world to the\n lower material one is, on the one hand, apprehended as a mere\n continued degeneracy from the Source of Life, at length\n terminating in the kingdom of darkness and death\u2014the bordering\n chaos surrounding the kingdom of light. On the other hand the\n passage is apprehended in a more precisely dualistic form, as a\n positive invasion of the kingdom of light by a self-existent\n kingdom of darkness. According as Gnosticism adopted one or other\n of these modes of explaining the existence of the present world,\n it fell into the two great divisions which, from their places of\n origin, have received the respective names of the Alexandrian and\n Syrian Gnosis. The one, as we have seen, presents more a Western,\n the other more an Eastern type of speculation. The dualistic\n element in the one case scarcely appears beneath the pantheistic,\n and bears resemblance to the Platonic notion of the \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7, a mere\n blank necessity, a limitless void. In the other case, the\n dualistic element is clear and prominent, corresponding to the\n Zarathustrian doctrine of an active principle of evil as well as\n of good\u2014of a kingdom of Ahriman, as well as a kingdom of Ormuzd.\n In the Syrian Gnosis ... there appears from the first a hostile\n principle of evil in collision with the good.\u201d\n\n We must remember that dualism is an attempt to substitute for the\n doctrine of absolute creation, a theory that matter and evil are\n due to something negative or positive outside of God. Dualism is a\n theory of origins, not of results. Keeping this in mind, we may\n call the Alexandrian Gnostics dualists, while we regard emanation\n as the characteristic teaching of the Syrian Gnostics. These\n latter made matter to be only an efflux from God and evil only a\n degenerate form of good. If the Syrians held the world to be\n independent of God, this independence was conceived of only as a\n later result or product, not as an original fact. Some like\n Saturninus and Bardesanes verged toward Manich\u00e6an doctrine; others\n like Tatian and Marcion toward Egyptian dualism; but all held to\n emanation as the philosophical explanation of what the Scriptures\n call creation. These remarks will serve as qualification and\n criticism of the opinions which we proceed to quote.\n\n Sheldon, Ch. Hist., 1:206\u2014\u201cThe Syrians were in general more\n dualistic than the Alexandrians. Some, after the fashion of the\n Hindu pantheists, regarded the material realm as the region of\n emptiness and illusion, the void opposite of the Pleroma, that\n world of spiritual reality and fulness; others assigned a more\n positive nature to the material, and regarded it as capable of an\n evil aggressiveness even apart from any quickening by the incoming\n of life from above.\u201d Mansel, Gnostic Heresies, 139\u2014\u201cLike\n Saturninus, Bardesanes is said to have combined the doctrine of\n the malignity of matter with that of an active principle of evil;\n and he connected together these two usually antagonistic theories\n by maintaining that the inert matter was co-eternal with God,\n while Satan as the active principle of evil was produced from\n matter (or, according to another statement, co-eternal with it),\n and acted in conjunction with it. 142\u2014The feature which is usually\n selected as characteristic of the Syrian Gnosis is the doctrine of\n dualism; that is to say, the assumption of the existence of two\n active and independent principles, the one of good, the other of\n evil. This assumption was distinctly held by Saturninus and\n Bardesanes ... in contradistinction to the Platonic theory of an\n inert semi-existent matter, which was adopted by the Gnosis of\n Egypt. The former principle found its logical development in the\n next century in Manich\u00e6aism; the latter leads with almost equal\n certainty to Pantheism.\u201d\n\n A. H. Newman, Ch. History, 1:192\u2014\u201cMarcion did not speculate as to\n the origin of evil. The Demiurge and his kingdom are apparently\n regarded as existing from eternity. Matter he regarded as\n intrinsically evil, and he practised a rigid asceticism.\u201d Mansel,\n Gnostic Heresies, 210\u2014\u201cMarcion did not, with the majority of the\n Gnostics, regard the Demiurge as a derived and dependent being,\n whose imperfection is due to his remoteness from the highest\n Cause; nor yet, according to the Persian doctrine, did he assume\n an eternal principle of pure malignity. His second principle is\n independent of and co-eternal with, the first; opposed to it\n however, not as evil to good, but as imperfection to perfection,\n or, as Marcion expressed it, as a just to a good being.\n 218\u2014Non-recognition of any principle of pure evil. Three\n principles only: the Supreme God, the Demiurge, and the eternal\n Matter, the two latter being imperfect but not necessarily evil.\n Some of the Marcionites seem to have added an evil spirit as a\n fourth principle.... Marcion is the least Gnostic of all the\n Gnostics.... 31\u2014The Indian influence may be seen in Egypt, the\n Persian in Syria.... 32\u2014To Platonism, modified by Judaism,\n Gnosticism owed much of its philosophical form and tendencies. To\n the dualism of the Persian religion it owed one form at least of\n its speculations on the origin and remedy of evil, and many of the\n details of its doctrine of emanations. To the Buddhism of India,\n modified again probably by Platonism, it was indebted for the\n doctrines of the antagonism between spirit and matter and the\n unreality of derived existence (the germ of the Gnostic Docetism),\n and in part at least for the theory which regards the universe as\n a series of successive emanations from the absolute Unity.\u201d\n\n Emanation holds that some stuff has proceeded from the nature of\n God, and that God has formed this stuff into the universe. But\n matter is not composed of stuff at all. It is merely an activity\n of God. Origen held that \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae etymologically denotes a being\n which, struck off from God the central source of light and warmth,\n has cooled in its love for the good, but still has the possibility\n of returning to its spiritual origin. Pfleiderer, Philosophy of\n Religion, 2:271, thus describes Origen\u2019s view: \u201cAs our body, while\n consisting of many members, is yet an organism which is held\n together by one soul, so the universe is to be thought of as an\n immense living being, which is held together by one soul, the\n power and the Logos of God.\u201d Palmer, Theol. Definition, 63,\n note\u2014\u201cThe evil of Emanationism is seen in the history of\n Gnosticism. An emanation is a portion of the divine essence\n regarded as separated from it and sent forth as independent.\n Having no perpetual bond of connection with the divine, it either\n sinks into degradation, as Basilides taught, or becomes actively\n hostile to the divine, as the Ophites believed.... In like manner\n the Deists of a later time came to regard the laws of nature as\n having an independent existence, _i. e._, as emanations.\u201d\n\n John Milton, Christian Doctrine, holds this view. Matter is an\n efflux from God himself, not intrinsically bad, and incapable of\n annihilation. Finite existence is an emanation from God\u2019s\n substance, and God has loosened his hold on those living portions\n or centres of finite existence which he has endowed with free\n will, so that these independent beings may originate actions not\n morally referable to himself. This doctrine of free will relieves\n Milton from the charge of pantheism; see Masson, Life of Milton,\n 6:824-826. Lotze, Philos. Religion, xlviii, li, distinguishes\n creation from emanation by saying that creation necessitates a\n divine Will, while emanation flows by natural consequence from the\n being of God. God\u2019s motive in creation is love, which urges him to\n communicate his holiness to other beings. God creates individual\n finite spirits, and then permits the thought, which at first was\n only his, to become the thought of these other spirits. This\n transference of his thought by will is the creation of the world.\n F. W. Farrar, on _Heb. 1:2_\u2014\u201cThe word _\u00c6on_ was used by the\n Gnostics to describe the various emanations by which they tried at\n once to widen and to bridge over the gulf between the human and\n the divine. Over that imaginary chasm John threw the arch of the\n Incarnation, when he wrote: \u2018_The Word became flesh_\u2019 (_John\n 1:14_).\u201d\n\n Upton, Hibbert Lectures, chap. 2\u2014\u201cIn the very making of souls of\n his own essence and substance, and in the vacating of his own\n causality in order that men may be free, God already dies in order\n that they may live. God withdraws himself from our wills, so as to\n make possible free choice and even possible opposition to himself.\n Individualism admits dualism but not complete division. Our\n dualism holds still to underground connections of life between man\n and man, man and nature, man and God. Even the physical creation\n is ethical at heart: each thing is dependent on other things, and\n must serve them, or lose its own life and beauty. The branch must\n abide in the vine, or it withers and is cut off and burned\u201d (275).\n\n Swedenborg held to emanation,\u2014see Divine Love and Wisdom, 283,\n 303, 905\u2014\u201cEvery one who thinks from clear reason sees that the\n universe is not created from nothing.... All things were created\n out of a substance.... As God alone is substance in itself and\n therefore the real _esse_, it is evidence that the existence of\n things is from no other source.... Yet the created universe is not\n God, because God is not in time and space.... There is a creation\n of the universe, and of all things therein, by continual\n mediations from the First.... In the substances and matters of\n which the earths consist, there is nothing of the Divine in\n itself, but they are deprived of all that is divine in itself....\n Still they have brought with them by continuation from the\n substance of the spiritual sum that which was there from the\n Divine.\u201d Swedenborgianism is \u201cmaterialism driven deep and clinched\n on the inside.\u201d This system reverses the Lord\u2019s prayer; it should\n read: \u201cAs on earth, so in heaven.\u201d He disliked certain sects, and\n he found that all who belonged to those sects were in the hells,\n condemned to everlasting punishment. The truth is not\n materialistic emanation, as Swedenborg imagined, but rather divine\n energizing in space and time. The universe is God\u2019s system of\n graded self-limitation, from matter up to mind. It has had a\n beginning, and God has instituted it. It is a finite and partial\n manifestation of the infinite Spirit. Matter is an expression of\n spirit, but not an emanation from spirit, any more than our\n thoughts and volitions are. Finite spirits, on the other hand, are\n differentiations within the being of God himself, and so are not\n emanations from him.\n\n Napoleon asked Goethe what matter was. \u201c_Esprit gel\u00e9_,\u201d\u2014frozen\n spirit was the answer Schelling wished Goethe had given him. But\n neither is matter spirit, nor are matter and spirit together mere\n natural effluxes from God\u2019s substance. A divine institution of\n them is requisite (quoted substantially from Dorner, System of\n Doctrine, 2:40). Schlegel in a similar manner called architecture\n \u201cfrozen music,\u201d and another writer calls music \u201cdissolved\n architecture.\u201d There is a \u201cpsychical automatism,\u201d as Ladd says, in\n his Philosophy of Mind, 169; and Hegel calls nature \u201cthe corpse of\n the understanding\u2014spirit to alienation from itself.\u201d But spirit is\n the Adam, of which nature is the Eve; and man says to nature:\n \u201c_This is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh_,\u201d as Adam did\n in _Gen. 2:23_.\n\n\n3. Creation from eternity.\n\n\nThis theory regards creation as an act of God in eternity past. It was\npropounded by Origen, and has been held in recent times by Martensen,\nMartineau, John Caird, Knight, and Pfleiderer. The necessity of supposing\nsuch creation from eternity has been argued from God\u2019s omnipotence, God\u2019s\ntimelessness, God\u2019s immutability, and God\u2019s love. We consider each of\nthese arguments in their order.\n\n\n Origen held that God was from eternity the creator of the world of\n spirits. Martensen, in his Dogmatics, 114, shows favor to the\n maxims: \u201cWithout the world God is not God.... God created the\n world to satisfy a want in himself.... He cannot but constitute\n himself the Father of spirits.\u201d Schiller, Die Freundschaft, last\n stanza, gives the following popular expression to this view:\n \u201cFreundlos war der grosse Weltenmeister; F\u00fchlte Mangel, darum\n schuf er Geister, Sel\u2019ge Spiegel seiner Seligkeit. Fand das\n h\u00f6chste Wesen schon kein Gleiches; Aus dem Kelch des ganzen\n Geisterreiches Sch\u00e4umt ihm die Unendlichkeit.\u201d The poet\u2019s thought\n was perhaps suggested by Goethe\u2019s Sorrows of Werther: \u201cThe flight\n of a bird above my head inspired me with the desire of being\n transported to the shores of the immeasurable waters, there to\n quaff the pleasures of life from the foaming goblet of the\n infinite.\u201d Robert Browning, Rabbi Ben Ezra, 31\u2014\u201cBut I need now as\n then, Thee, God, who mouldest men. And since, not even when the\n whirl was worst, Did I\u2014to the wheel of life With shapes and colors\n rife, Bound dizzily\u2014mistake my end, To slake thy thirst.\u201d But this\n regards the Creator as dependent upon, and in bondage to, his own\n world.\n\n Pythagoras held that nature\u2019s substances and laws are eternal.\n Martineau, Study of Religion, 1:144; 2:250, seems to make the\n creation of the world an eternal process, conceiving of it as a\n self-sundering of the Deity, in whom in some way the world was\n always contained (Schurman, Belief in God, 140). Knight, Studies\n in Philos. and Lit., 94, quotes from Byron\u2019s Cain, I:1\u2014\u201cLet him\n Sit on his vast and solitary throne, Creating worlds, to make\n eternity Less burdensome to his immense existence And\n unparticipated solitude.... He, so wretched in his height, So\n restless in his wretchedness, must still Create and recreate.\u201d\n Byron puts these words into the mouth of Lucifer. Yet Knight, in\n his Essays in Philosophy, 143, 247, regards the universe as the\n everlasting effect of an eternal Cause. Dualism, he thinks, is\n involved in the very notion of a search for God.\n\n W. N. Clarke, Christian Theology, 117\u2014\u201cGod is the source of the\n universe. Whether by immediate production at some point of time,\n so that after he had existed alone there came by his act to be a\n universe, or by perpetual production from his own spiritual being,\n so that his eternal existence was always accompanied by a universe\n in some stage of being, God has brought the universe into\n existence.... Any method in which the independent God could\n produce a universe which without him could have had no existence,\n is accordant with the teachings of Scripture. Many find it easier\n philosophically to hold that God has eternally brought forth\n creation from himself, so that there has never been a time when\n there was not a universe in some stage of existence, than to think\n of an instantaneous creation of all existing things when there had\n been nothing but God before. Between these two views theology is\n not compelled to decide, provided we believe that God is a free\n Spirit greater than the universe.\u201d We dissent from this conclusion\n of Dr. Clarke, and hold that Scripture requires us to trace the\n universe back to a beginning, while reason itself is better\n satisfied with this view than it can be with the theory of\n creation from eternity.\n\n\n(_a_) Creation from eternity is not necessitated by God\u2019s omnipotence.\nOmnipotence does not necessarily imply actual creation; it implies only\npower to create. Creation, moreover, is in the nature of the case a thing\nbegun. Creation from eternity is a contradiction in terms, and that which\nis self-contradictory is not an object of power.\n\n\n The argument rests upon a misconception of eternity, regarding it\n as a prolongation of time into the endless past. We have seen in\n our discussion of eternity as an attribute of God, that eternity\n is not endless time, or time without beginning, but rather\n superiority to the law of time. Since eternity is no more past\n than it is present, the idea of creation from eternity is an\n irrational one. We must distinguish _creation in eternity past_ (=\n God and the world co\u00ebternal, yet God the cause of the world, as he\n is the begetter of the Son) from _continuous creation_ (which is\n an explanation of preservation, but not of creation at all). It is\n this latter, not the former, to which Rothe holds (see under the\n doctrine of Preservation, pages 415, 416). Birks, Difficulties of\n Belief, 81, 82\u2014\u201cCreation is not from eternity, since past eternity\n cannot be actually traversed any more than we can reach the bound\n of an eternity to come. There was no _time_ before creation,\n because there was no _succession_.\u201d\n\n Birks, Scripture Doctrine of Creation, 78-105\u2014\u201cThe first verse of\n Genesis excludes five speculative falsehoods: 1. that there is\n nothing but uncreated matter; 2. that there is no God distinct\n from his creatures; 3. that creation is a series of acts without a\n beginning; 4. that there is no real universe; 5. that nothing can\n be known of God or the origin of things.\u201d Veitch, Knowing and\n Being, 22\u2014\u201cThe ideas of creation and creative energy are emptied\n of meaning, and for them is substituted the conception or fiction\n of an eternally related or double-sided world, not of what has\n been, but of what always is. It is another form of the see-saw\n philosophy. The eternal Self only is, if the eternal manifold is;\n the eternal manifold is, if the eternal Self is. The one, in being\n the other, is or makes itself the one; the other, in being the\n one, is or makes itself the other. This may be called a unity; it\n is rather, if we might invent a term suited to the new and\n marvellous conception, an unparalleled and unbegotten twinity.\u201d\n\n\n(_b_) Creation from eternity is not necessitated by God\u2019s timelessness.\nBecause God is free from the law of time it does not follow that creation\nis free from that law. Rather is it true that no eternal creation is\nconceivable, since this involves an infinite number. Time must have had a\nbeginning, and since the universe and time are co\u00ebxistent, creation could\nnot have been from eternity.\n\n\n _Jude 25_\u2014\u201c_Before all time_\u201d\u2014implies that time had a beginning,\n and _Eph. 1:4_\u2014\u201c_before the foundation of the world_\u201d\u2014implies that\n creation itself had a beginning. Is creation infinite? No, says\n Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 1:459, because to a perfect creation unity\n is as necessary as multiplicity. The universe is an organism, and\n there can be no organism without a definite number of parts. For a\n similar reason Dorner, System Doctrine, 2:28, denies that the\n universe can be eternal. Granting on the one hand that the world\n though eternal might be dependent upon God and as soon as the plan\n was evolved there might be no reason why the execution should be\n delayed, yet on the other hand the absolutely limitless is the\n imperfect and no universe with an infinite number of parts is\n conceivable or possible. So Julius M\u00fcller, Doctrine of Sin,\n 1:220-225\u2014\u201cWhat has a goal or end must have a beginning; history,\n as teleological, implies creation.\u201d\n\n Lotze, Philos. Religion, 74\u2014\u201cThe world, with respect to its\n existence as well as its content, is completely dependent on the\n will of God, and not as a mere involuntary development of his\n nature.... The word \u2018creation\u2019 ought not to be used to designate a\n deed of God so much as the absolute dependence of the world on his\n will.\u201d So Schurman, Belief in God, 146, 156, 225\u2014\u201cCreation is the\n eternal dependence of the world on God.... Nature is the\n externalization of spirit.... Material things exist simply as\n modes of the divine activity; they have no existence for\n themselves.\u201d On this view that God is the Ground but not the\n Creator of the world, see Hovey, Studies in Ethics and Religion,\n 23-56\u2014\u201cCreation is no more of a mystery than is the causal action\u201d\n in which both Lotze and Schurman believe. \u201cTo deny that divine\n power can originate real being\u2014can add to the sum total of\n existence\u2014is much like saying that such power is finite.\u201d No one\n can prove that \u201cit is of the essence of spirit to reveal itself,\u201d\n or if so, that it must do this by means of an organism or\n externalization. Eternal succession of changes in nature is no\n more comprehensible than are a creating God and a universe\n originating in time.\n\n\n(_c_) Creation from eternity is not necessitated by God\u2019s immutability.\nHis immutability requires, not an eternal creation, but only an eternal\nplan of creation. The opposite principle would compel us to deny the\npossibility of miracles, incarnation, and regeneration. Like creation,\nthese too would need to be eternal.\n\n\n We distinguish between idea and plan, between plan and execution.\n Much of God\u2019s plan is not yet executed. The beginning of its\n execution is as easy to conceive as is the continuation of its\n execution. But the beginning of the execution of God\u2019s plan is\n creation. Active will is an element in creation. God\u2019s will is not\n always active. He waits for \u201c_the fulness of the time_\u201d (_Gal.\n 4:4_) before he sends forth his Son. As we can trace back Christ\u2019s\n earthly life to a beginning, so we can trace back the life of the\n universe to a beginning. Those who hold to creation from eternity\n usually interpret _Gen. 1:1_\u2014\u201c_In the beginning God created the\n heavens and the earth,_\u201d and _John 1:1_\u2014\u201c_In the beginning was the\n Word,_\u201d as both and alike meaning \u201cin eternity.\u201d But neither of\n these texts has this meaning. In each we are simply carried back\n to the beginning of the creation, and it is asserted that God was\n its author and that the Word already was.\n\n\n(_d_) Creation from eternity is not necessitated by God\u2019s love. Creation\nis finite and cannot furnish perfect satisfaction to the infinite love of\nGod. God has moreover from eternity an object of love infinitely superior\nto any possible creation, in the person of his Son.\n\n\n Since all things are created in Christ, the eternal Word, Reason,\n and Power of God, God can \u201c_reconcile all things to himself_\u201d in\n Christ (_Col. 1:20_). Athanasius called God \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, \u03bf\u03cd\n \u03c4\u03b5\u03c7\u03bd\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\u2014Creator, not Artisan. By this he meant that God is\n immanent, and not the God of deism. But the moment we conceive of\n God as _revealing_ himself in Christ, the idea of creation as an\n eternal satisfaction of his love vanishes. God can have a plan\n without executing his plan. Decree can precede creation. Ideas of\n the universe may exist in the divine mind before they are realized\n by the divine will. There are purposes of salvation in Christ\n which antedate the world (_Eph. 1:4_). The doctrine of the\n Trinity, once firmly grasped, enables us to see the fallacy of\n such views as that of Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 1:286\u2014\u201cA\n beginning and ending in time of the creating of God are not\n thinkable. That would be to suppose a change of creating and\n resting in God, which would equalize God\u2019s being with the\n changeable course of human life. Nor could it be conceived what\n should have hindered God from creating the world up to the\n beginning of his creating.... We say rather, with Scotus Erigena,\n that the divine creating is equally eternal with God\u2019s being.\u201d\n\n\n(_e_) Creation from eternity, moreover, is inconsistent with the divine\nindependence and personality. Since God\u2019s power and love are infinite, a\ncreation that satisfied them must be infinite in extent as well as eternal\nin past duration\u2014in other words, a creation equal to God. But a God thus\ndependent upon external creation is neither free nor sovereign. A God\nexisting in necessary relations to the universe, if different in substance\nfrom the universe, must be the God of dualism; if of the same substance\nwith the universe, must be the God of pantheism.\n\n\n Gore, Incarnation, 136, 137\u2014\u201cChristian theology is the harmony of\n pantheism and deism.... It enjoys all the riches of pantheism\n without its inherent weakness on the moral side, without making\n God dependent on the world, as the world is dependent on God. On\n the other hand, Christianity converts an unintelligible deism into\n a rational theism. It can explain how God became a creator in\n time, because it knows how creation has its eternal analogue in\n the uncreated nature; it was God\u2019s nature eternally to produce, to\n communicate itself, to live.\u201d In other words, it can explain how\n God can be eternally alive, independent, self-sufficient, since he\n is Trinity. Creation from eternity is a natural and logical\n outgrowth of Unitarian tendencies in theology. It is of a piece\n with the Stoic monism of which we read in Hatch, Hibbert Lectures,\n 177\u2014\u201cStoic monism conceived of the world as a self-evolution of\n God. Into such a conception the idea of a beginning does not\n necessarily enter. It is consistent with the idea of an eternal\n process of differentiation. That which is always has been under\n changed and changing forms. The theory is cosmological rather than\n cosmogonical. It rather explains the world as it is, than gives an\n account of its origin.\u201d\n\n\n4. Spontaneous generation.\n\n\nThis theory holds that creation is but the name for a natural process\nstill going on,\u2014matter itself having in it the power, under proper\nconditions, of taking on new functions, and of developing into organic\nforms. This view is held by Owen and Bastian. We object that\n\n(_a_) It is a pure hypothesis, not only unverified, but contrary to all\nknown facts. No credible instance of the production of living forms from\ninorganic material has yet been adduced. So far as science can at present\nteach us, the law of nature is \u201comne vivum e vivo,\u201d or \u201cex ovo.\u201d\n\n\n Owen, Comparative Anatomy of the Vertebrates, 3:814-818\u2014on\n Monogeny or Thaumatogeny; quoted in Argyle, Reign of Law, 281\u2014\u201cWe\n discern no evidence of a pause or intromission in the creation or\n coming-to-be of new plants and animals.\u201d So Bastian, Modes of\n Origin of Lowest Organisms, Beginnings of Life, and articles on\n Heterogeneous Evolution of Living Things, in Nature, 2:170, 193,\n 219, 410, 431. See Huxley\u2019s Address before the British\n Association, and Reply to Bastian, in Nature, 2:400, 473; also\n Origin of Species, 69-79, and Physical Basis of Life, in Lay\n Sermons, 142. Answers to this last by Stirling, in Half-hours with\n Modern Scientists, and by Beale, Protoplasm or Life, Matter, and\n Mind, 73-75.\n\n In favor of Redi\u2019s maxim, \u201comne vivum e vivo,\u201d see Huxley, in\n Encyc. Britannica, art.: Biology, 689\u2014\u201cAt the present moment there\n is not a shadow of trustworthy direct evidence that abiogenesis\n does take place or has taken place within the period during which\n the existence of the earth is recorded\u201d; Flint, Physiology of Man,\n 1:263-265\u2014\u201cAs the only true philosophic view to take of the\n question, we shall assume in common with nearly all the modern\n writers on physiology that there is no such thing as spontaneous\n generation,\u2014admitting that the exact mode of production of the\n infusoria lowest in the scale of life is not understood.\u201d On the\n Philosophy of Evolution, see A. H. Strong, Philosophy and\n Religion, 39-57.\n\n\n(_b_) If such instances could be authenticated, they would prove nothing\nas against a proper doctrine of creation,\u2014for there would still exist an\nimpossibility of accounting for these vivific properties of matter, except\nupon the Scriptural view of an intelligent Contriver and Originator of\nmatter and its laws. In short, evolution implies previous involution,\u2014if\nanything comes out of matter, it must first have been put in.\n\n\n Sully: \u201cEvery doctrine of evolution must assume some definite\n initial arrangement which is supposed to contain the possibilities\n of the order which we find to be evolved and no other\n possibility.\u201d Bixby, Crisis of Morals, 258\u2014\u201cIf no creative fiat\n can be believed to create something out of nothing, still less is\n evolution able to perform such a contradiction.\u201d As we can get\n morality only out of a moral germ, so we can get vitality only out\n of a vital germ. Martineau, Seat of Authority, 14\u2014\u201cBy brooding\n long enough on an egg that is next to nothing, you can in this way\n hatch any universe actual or possible. Is it not evident that this\n is a mere trick of imagination, concealing its thefts of causation\n by committing them little by little, and taking the heap from the\n divine storehouse grain by grain?\u201d\n\n Hens come before eggs. Perfect organic forms are antecedent to all\n life-cells, whether animal or vegetable. \u201cOmnis cellula e cellula,\n sed primaria cellula ex organismo.\u201d God created first the tree,\n and its seed was in it when created (_Gen. 1:12_). Protoplasm is\n not _proton_, but _deuteron_; the elements are antecedent to it.\n It is not true that man was never made at all but only \u201cgrowed\u201d\n like Topsy; see Watts, New Apologetic, xvi, 312. Royce, Spirit of\n Modern Philosophy, 273\u2014\u201cEvolution is the attempt to comprehend the\n world of experience in terms of the fundamental idealistic\n postulates: (1) without ideas, there is no reality; (2) rational\n order requires a rational Being to introduce it; (3) beneath our\n conscious self there must be an infinite Self. The question is:\n Has the world a meaning? It is not enough to refer ideas to\n mechanism. Evolution, from the nebula to man, is only the\n unfolding of the life of a divine Self.\u201d\n\n\n(_c_) This theory, therefore, if true, only supplements the doctrine of\noriginal, absolute, immediate creation, with another doctrine of mediate\nand derivative creation, or the development of the materials and forces\noriginated at the beginning. This development, however, cannot proceed to\nany valuable end without guidance of the same intelligence which initiated\nit. The Scriptures, although they do not sanction the doctrine of\nspontaneous generation, do recognize processes of development as\nsupplementing the divine fiat which first called the elements into being.\n\n\n There is such a thing as free will, and free will does not, like\n the deterministic will, run in a groove. If there be free will in\n man, then much more is there free will in God, and God\u2019s will does\n not run in a groove. God is not bound by law or to law. Wisdom\n does not imply monotony or uniformity. God can do a thing once\n that is never done again. Circumstances are never twice alike.\n Here is the basis not only of creation but of new creation,\n including miracle, incarnation, resurrection, regeneration,\n redemption. Though will both in God and in man is for the most\n part automatic and acts according to law, yet the power of new\n beginnings, of creative action, resides in will, wherever it is\n free, and this free will chiefly makes God to be God and man to be\n man. Without it life would be hardly worth the living, for it\n would be only the life of the brute. All schemes of evolution\n which ignore this freedom of God are pantheistic in their\n tendencies, for they practically deny both God\u2019s transcendence and\n his personality.\n\n Leibnitz declined to accept the Newtonian theory of gravitation\n because it seemed to him to substitute natural forces for God. In\n our own day many still refuse to accept the Darwinian theory of\n evolution because it seems to them to substitute natural forces\n for God; see John Fiske, Idea of God, 97-102. But law is only a\n method; it presupposes a lawgiver and requires an agent.\n Gravitation and evolution are but the habitual operations of God.\n If spontaneous generation should be proved true, it would be only\n God\u2019s way of originating life. E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology,\n 91\u2014\u201cSpontaneous generation does not preclude the idea of a\n creative will working by natural law and secondary causes.... Of\n beginnings of life physical science knows nothing.... Of the\n processes of nature science is competent to speak and against its\n teachings respecting these there is no need that theology should\n set itself in hostility.... Even if man were derived from the\n lower animals, it would not prove that God did not create and\n order the forces employed. It may be that God bestowed upon animal\n life a plastic power.\u201d\n\n Ward, Naturalism and Agnosticism, 1:180\u2014\u201cIt is far truer to say\n that the universe is a life, than to say that it is a\n mechanism.... We can never get to God through a mere mechanism....\n With Leibnitz I would argue that absolute passivity or inertness\n is not a reality but a limit. 269\u2014Mr. Spencer grants that to\n interpret spirit in terms of matter is impossible. 302\u2014Natural\n selection without teleological factors is not adequate to account\n for biological evolution, and such teleological factors imply a\n psychical something endowed with feelings and will, _i. e._, Life\n and Mind. 2:130-135\u2014Conation is more fundamental than cognition.\n 149-151\u2014Things and events precede space and time. There is no\n empty space or time. 252-257\u2014Our assimilation of nature is the\n greeting of spirit by spirit. 259-267\u2014Either nature is itself\n intelligent, or there is intelligence beyond it.\n 274-276\u2014Appearances do not veil reality. 274\u2014The truth is not God\n _and_ mechanism, but God _only_ and no mechanism. 283\u2014Naturalism\n and Agnosticism, in spite of themselves, lead us to a world of\n Spiritualistic Monism.\u201d Newman Smyth, Christian Ethics,\n 36\u2014\u201cSpontaneous generation is a fiction in ethics, as it is in\n psychology and biology. The moral cannot be derived from the\n non-moral, any more than consciousness can be derived from the\n unconscious, or life from the azoic rocks.\u201d\n\n\nIV. The Mosaic Account of Creation.\n\n\n1. Its twofold nature,\u2014as uniting the ideas of creation and of\ndevelopment.\n\n\n(_a_) Creation is asserted.\u2014The Mosaic narrative avoids the error of\nmaking the universe eternal or the result of an eternal process. The\ncosmogony of Genesis, unlike the cosmogonies of the heathen, is prefaced\nby the originating act of God, and is supplemented by successive\nmanifestations of creative power in the introduction of brute and of human\nlife.\n\n\n All nature-worship, whether it take the form of ancient polytheism\n or modern materialism, looks upon the universe only as a birth or\n growth. This view has a basis of truth, inasmuch as it regards\n natural forces as having a real existence. It is false in\n regarding these forces as needing no originator or upholder.\n Hesiod taught that in the beginning was formless matter. Genesis\n does not begin thus. God is not a demiurge, working on eternal\n matter. God antedates matter. He is the creator of matter at the\n first (_Gen. 1:1_\u2014_bara_) and he subsequently created animal life\n (_Gen. 1:21_\u2014\u201c_and God created_\u201d\u2014_bara_) and the life of man\n (_Gen. 1:27_\u2014\u201c_and God create man_\u201d\u2014_bara_ again).\n\n Many statements of the doctrine of evolution err by regarding it\n as an eternal or self-originated process. But the process requires\n an originator, and the forces require an upholder. Each forward\n step implies increment of energy, and progress toward a rational\n end implies intelligence and foresight in the governing power.\n Schurman says well that Darwinism explains the _survival_ of the\n fittest, but cannot explain the _arrival_ of the fittest.\n Schurman, Agnosticism and Religion, 34\u2014\u201cA primitive chaos of\n star-dust which held in its womb not only the cosmos that fills\n space, not only the living creatures that teem upon it, but also\n the intellect that interprets it, the will that confronts it, and\n the conscience that transfigures it, must as certainly have God at\n the centre, as a universe mechanically arranged and periodically\n adjusted must have him at the circumference.... There is no real\n antagonism between creation and evolution. 59\u2014Natural causation is\n the expression of a supernatural Mind in nature, and man\u2014a being\n at once of sensibility and of rational and moral self-activity\u2014is\n a signal and ever-present example of the interfusion of the\n natural with the supernatural in that part of universal existence\n nearest and best known to us.\u201d\n\n Seebohm, quoted in J. J. Murphy, Nat. Selection and Spir. Freedom,\n 76\u2014\u201cWhen we admit that Darwin\u2019s argument in favor of the theory of\n evolution proves its truth, we doubt whether natural selection can\n be in any sense the _cause_ of the origin of species. It has\n probably played an important part in the history of evolution; its\n r\u00f4le has been that of increasing the rapidity with which the\n process of development has proceeded. Of itself it has probably\n been powerless to originate a species; the machinery by which\n species have been evolved has been completely independent of\n natural selection and could have produced all the results which we\n call the evolution of species without its aid; though the process\n would have been slow had there been no struggle of life to\n increase its pace.\u201d New World, June, 1896:237-262, art. by Howison\n on the Limits of Evolution, finds limits in (1) the noumenal\n Reality; (2) the break between the organic and the inorganic; (3)\n break between physiological and logical genesis; (4) inability to\n explain the great fact on which its own movement rests; (5) the _a\n priori_ self-consciousness which is the essential being and true\n person of the mind.\n\n Evolution, according to Herbert Spencer, is \u201can integration of\n matter and concomitant dissipation of motion, during which the\n matter passes from an indefinite incoherent homogeneity to a\n definite coherent heterogeneity, and during which the retained\n motion goes through a parallel transformation.\u201d D. W. Simon\n criticizes this definition as defective \u201cbecause (1) it omits all\n mention both of energy and its differentiations; and (2) because\n it introduces into the definition of the process one of the\n phenomena thereof, namely, motion. As a matter of fact, both\n energy or force, and law, are subsequently and illicitly\n introduced as distinct factors of the process; they ought\n therefore to have found recognition in the definition or\n description.\u201d Mark Hopkins, Life, 189\u2014\u201cGod: what need of him? Have\n we not force, uniform force, and do not all things continue as\n they were from the beginning of the creation, if it ever had a\n beginning? Have we not the \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd, the universal All, the Soul of\n the universe, working itself up from unconsciousness through\n molecules and maggots and mice and marmots and monkeys to its\n highest culmination in man?\u201d\n\n\n(_b_) Development is recognized.\u2014The Mosaic account represents the present\norder of things as the result, not simply of original creation, but also\nof subsequent arrangement and development. A fashioning of inorganic\nmaterials is described, and also a use of these materials in providing the\nconditions of organized existence. Life is described as reproducing\nitself, after its first introduction, according to its own laws and by\nvirtue of its own inner energy.\n\n\n Martensen wrongly asserts that \u201cJudaism represented the world\n exclusively as _creatura_, not _natura_; as \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, not \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2.\u201d\n This is not true. Creation is represented as the bringing forth,\n not of something dead, but of something living and capable of\n self-development. Creation lays the foundation for cosmogony. Not\n only is there a fashioning and arrangement of the material which\n the original creative act has brought into being (see Gen. 1:2, 4,\n 6, 7, 9, 16, 17; 2:2, 6, 7, 8\u2014Spirit brooding; dividing light from\n darkness, and waters from waters; dry land appearing; setting\n apart of sun, moon, and stars; mist watering; forming man\u2019s body;\n planting garden) but there is also an imparting and using of the\n productive powers of the things and beings created (_Gen. 1:12,\n 22, 24, 28_\u2014earth brought forth grass; trees yielding fruit whose\n seed was in itself; earth brought forth the living creatures; man\n commanded to be fruitful and multiply).\n\n The tendency at present among men of science is to regard the\n whole history of life upon the planet as the result of evolution,\n thus excluding creation, both at the beginning of the history and\n along its course. On the progress from the Orohippus, the lowest\n member of the equine series, an animal with four toes, to\n Anchitherium with three, then to Hipparion, and finally to our\n common horse, see Huxley, in Nature for May 11, 1873:33, 34. He\n argues that, if a complicated animal like the horse has arisen by\n gradual modification of a lower and less specialized form, there\n is no reason to think that other animals have arisen in a\n different way. Clarence King, Address at Yale College, 1877,\n regards American geology as teaching the doctrine of sudden yet\n natural modification of species. \u201cWhen catastrophic change burst\n in upon the ages of uniformity and sounded in the ear of every\n living thing the words: \u2018Change or die!\u2019 plasticity became the\n sole principle of action.\u201d Nature proceeded then by leaps, and\n corresponding to the leaps of geology we find leaps of biology.\n\n We grant the probability that the great majority of what we call\n species were produced in some such ways. If science should render\n it certain that all the present species of living creatures were\n derived by natural descent from a few original germs, and that\n these germs were themselves an evolution of inorganic forces and\n materials, we should not therefore regard the Mosaic account as\n proved untrue. We should only be required to revise our\n interpretation of the word _bara_ in _Gen. 1:21, 27_, and to give\n it there the meaning of mediate creation, or creation by law. Such\n a meaning might almost seem to be favored by _Gen. 1:11_\u2014\u201c_let the\n earth put forth grass_\u201d; _20_\u2014\u201c_let the waters bring forth\n abundantly __ the moving creature that hath life_\u201d; _2:7_\u2014\u201c_the\n Lord God formed man of the dust_\u201d; _9_\u2014\u201c_out of the ground made\n the Lord God to grow every tree_\u201d; _cf._ _Mark 4:28_\u2014\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7 \u1f23 \u03b3\u03ae\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u2014\u201c_the earth brings forth fruit automatically_.\u201d Goethe,\n Spr\u00fcche in Reimen: \u201cWas w\u00e4r ein Gott der nur von aussen stiesse,\n Im Kreis das All am Finger laufen liesse? Ihm ziemt\u2019s die Welt im\n Innern zu bewegen, Sich in Natur, Natur in sich zu hegen, So dass,\n was in Ihm lebt und webt und ist, Nie seine Kraft, nie seinen\n Geist vermisst\u201d\u2014\u201cNo, such a God my worship may not win, Who lets\n the world about his finger spin, A thing eternal; God must dwell\n within.\u201d\n\n All the growth of a tree takes place in from four to six weeks in\n May, June and July. The addition of woody fibre between the bark\n and the trunk results, not by impartation into it of a new force\n from without, but by the awakening of the life within. Environment\n changes and growth begins. We may even speak of an immanent\n transcendence of God\u2014an unexhausted vitality which at times makes\n great movements forward. This is what the ancients were trying to\n express when they said that trees were inhabited by dryads and so\n groaned and bled when wounded. God\u2019s life is in all. In evolution\n we cannot say, with LeConte, that the higher form of energy is\n \u201cderived from the lower.\u201d Rather let us say that both the higher\n and the lower are constantly dependent for their being on the will\n of God. The lower is only God\u2019s preparation for his higher\n self-manifestation; see Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 165, 166.\n\n Even Haeckel, Hist. Creation, 1:38, can say that in the Mosaic\n narrative \u201ctwo great and fundamental ideas meet us\u2014the idea of\n separation or differentiation, and the idea of progressive\n development or perfecting. We can bestow our just and sincere\n admiration on the Jewish lawgiver\u2019s grand insight into nature, and\n his simple and natural hypothesis of creation, without discovering\n in it a divine revelation.\u201d Henry Drummond, whose first book,\n Natural Law in the Spiritual World, he himself in his later days\n regretted as tending in a deterministic and materialistic\n direction, came to believe rather in \u201cspiritual law in the natural\n world.\u201d His Ascent of Man regards evolution and law as only the\n methods of a present Deity. Darwinism seemed at first to show that\n the past history of life upon the planet was a history of\n heartless and cruel slaughter. The survival of the fittest had for\n its obverse side the destruction of myriads. Nature was \u201cred in\n tooth and claw with ravine.\u201d But further thought has shown that\n this gloomy view results from a partial induction of facts.\n Pal\u00e6ontological life was not only a struggle for life, but a\n struggle for the life of others. The beginnings of altruism are to\n be seen in the instinct of reproduction and in the care of\n offspring. In every lion\u2019s den and tiger\u2019s lair, in every\n mother-eagle\u2019s feeding of her young, there is a self-sacrifice\n which faintly shadows forth man\u2019s subordination of personal\n interests to the interests of others.\n\n Dr. George Harris, in his Moral Evolution, has added to Drummond\u2019s\n doctrine the further consideration that the struggle for one\u2019s own\n life has its moral side as well as the struggle for the life of\n others. The instinct of self-preservation is the beginning of\n right, righteousness, justice and law upon earth. Every creature\n owes it to God to preserve its own being. So we can find an\n adumbration of morality even in the predatory and internecine\n warfare of the geologic ages. The immanent God was even then\n preparing the way for the rights, the dignity, the freedom of\n humanity. B. P. Bowne, in the Independent, April 19, 1900\u2014\u201cThe\n Copernican system made men dizzy for a time, and they held on to\n the Ptolemaic system to escape vertigo. In like manner the\n conception of God, as revealing himself in a great historic\n movement and process, in the consciences and lives of holy men, in\n the unfolding life of the church, makes dizzy the believer in a\n dictated book, and he longs for some fixed word that shall be sure\n and stedfast.\u201d God is not limited to creating from without: he can\n also create from within; and development is as much a part of\n creation as is the origination of the elements. For further\n discussion of man\u2019s origin, see section on Man a Creation of God,\n in our treatment of Anthropology.\n\n\n2. Its proper interpretation.\n\n\nWe adopt neither (_a_) the allegorical, or mythical, (_b_) the\nhyperliteral, nor (_c_) the hyperscientific interpretation of the Mosaic\nnarrative; but rather (_d_) the pictorial-summary interpretation,\u2014which\nholds that the account is a rough sketch of the history of creation, true\nin all its essential features, but presented in a graphic form suited to\nthe common mind and to earlier as well as to later ages. While conveying\nto primitive man as accurate an idea of God\u2019s work as man was able to\ncomprehend, the revelation was yet given in pregnant language, so that it\ncould expand to all the ascertained results of subsequent physical\nresearch. This general correspondence of the narrative with the teachings\nof science, and its power to adapt itself to every advance in human\nknowledge, differences it from every other cosmogony current among men.\n\n\n (_a_) The _allegorical_, or _mythical interpretation_, represents\n the Mosaic account as embodying, like the Indian and Greek\n cosmogonies, the poetic speculations of an early race as to the\n origin of the present system. We object to this interpretation\n upon the ground that the narrative of creation is inseparably\n connected with the succeeding history, and is therefore most\n naturally regarded as itself historical. This connection of the\n narrative of creation with the subsequent history, moreover,\n prevents us from believing it to be the description of a vision\n granted to Moses. It is more probably the record of an original\n revelation to the first man, handed down to Moses\u2019 time, and used\n by Moses as a proper introduction to his history.\n\n We object also to the view of some higher critics that the book of\n Genesis contains two inconsistent stories. Marcus Dods, Book of\n Genesis, 2\u2014\u201cThe compiler of this book ... lays side by side two\n accounts of man\u2019s creation which no ingenuity can reconcile.\u201d\n Charles A. Briggs: \u201cThe doctrine of creation in Genesis 1 is\n altogether different from that taught in Genesis 2.\u201d W. N. Clarke,\n Christian Theology, 199-201\u2014\u201cIt has been commonly assumed that the\n two are parallel, and tell one and the same story; but examination\n shows that this is not the case.... We have here the record of a\n tradition, rather than a revelation.... It cannot be taken as\n literal history, and it does not tell by divine authority how man\n was created.\u201d To these utterances we reply that the two accounts\n are not inconsistent but complementary, the first chapter of\n Genesis describing man\u2019s creation as the crown of God\u2019s general\n work, the second describing man\u2019s creation with greater\n particularity as the beginning of human history.\n\n Canon Rawlinson, in Aids to Faith, 275, compares the Mosaic\n account with the cosmogony of Berosus, the Chaldean. Pfleiderer,\n Philos. of Religion, 1:267-272, gives an account of heathen\n theories of the origin of the universe. Anaxagoras was the first\n who represented the chaotic first matter as formed through the\n ordering understanding (\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2) of God, and Aristotle for that\n reason called him \u201cthe first sober one among many drunken.\u201d\n Schurman, Belief in God, 138\u2014\u201cIn these cosmogonies the world and\n the gods grow up together; cosmogony is, at the same time,\n theogony.\u201d Dr. E. G. Robinson: \u201cThe Bible writers believed and\n intended to state that the world was made in three literal days.\n But, on the principle that God may have meant more than they did,\n the doctrine of periods may not be inconsistent with their\n account.\u201d For comparison of the Biblical with heathen cosmogonies,\n see Blackie in Theol. Eclectic, 1:77-87; Guyot, Creation, 58-63;\n Pope, Theology, 1:401, 402; Bible Commentary, 1:36, 48; McIlvaine,\n Wisdom of Holy Scripture, 1-54; J. F. Clarke, Ten Great Religions,\n 2:193-221. For the theory of \u201cprophetic vision,\u201d see Kurtz, Hist.\n of Old Covenant, Introd., i-xxxvii, civ-cxxx; and Hugh Miller,\n Testimony of the Rocks, 179-210; Hastings, Dict. Bible, art.:\n Cosmogony; Sayce, Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia,\n 372-397.\n\n (_b_) The _hyperliteral interpretation_ would withdraw the\n narrative from all comparison with the conclusions of science, by\n putting the ages of geological history between the first and\n second verses of _Gen. 1_, and by making the remainder of the\n chapter an account of the fitting up of the earth, or of some\n limited portion of it, in six days of twenty-four hours each.\n Among the advocates of this view, now generally discarded, are\n Chalmers, Natural Theology, Works, 1:228-258, and John Pye Smith,\n Mosaic Account of Creation, and Scripture and Geology. To this\n view we object that there is no indication, in the Mosaic\n narrative, of so vast an interval between the first and the second\n verses; that there is no indication, in the geological history, of\n any such break between the ages of preparation and the present\n time (see Hugh Miller, Testimony of the Rocks, 141-178); and that\n there are indications in the Mosaic record itself that the word\n \u201c_day_\u201d is not used in its literal sense; while the other\n Scriptures unquestionably employ it to designate a period of\n indefinite duration (_Gen. 1:5_\u2014\u201c_God called the light Day_\u201d\u2014a day\n before there was a sun; _8_\u2014\u201c_there was evening and there was\n morning, a second day_\u201d; _2:2_\u2014God \u201c_rested on the seventh day_\u201d;\n _cf._ _Heb. 4:3-10_\u2014where God\u2019s day of rest seems to continue, and\n his people are exhorted to enter into it; _Gen. 2:4_\u2014\u201c_the day\n that Jehovah made earth and heaven_\u201d\u2014\u201c_day_\u201d here covers all the\n seven days; _cf._ _Is. 2:12_\u2014\u201c_a day of Jehovah of hosts_\u201d; _Zech.\n 14:7_\u2014\u201c_it shall be one day which is known unto Jehovah; not day,\n and not night_\u201d; _2 Pet. 3:8_\u2014\u201c_one day is with the Lord as __ a\n thousand years, and a thousand years as one day_\u201d). Guyot,\n Creation, 34, objects also to this interpretation, that the\n narrative purports to give a history of the making of the heavens\n as well as of the earth (_Gen. 2:4_\u2014\u201c_these are the generations of\n the heaven and of the earth_\u201d), whereas this interpretation\n confines the history to the earth. On the meaning of the word\n \u201c_day_,\u201d as a period of indefinite duration, see Dana, Manual of\n Geology, 744; LeConte, Religion and Science, 262.\n\n (_c_) The _hyperscientific interpretation_ would find in the\n narrative a minute and precise correspondence with the geological\n record. This is not to be expected, since it is foreign to the\n purpose of revelation to teach science. Although a general concord\n between the Mosaic and geological histories may be pointed out, it\n is a needless embarrassment to compel ourselves to find in every\n detail of the former an accurate statement of some scientific\n fact. Far more probable we hold to be\n\n (_d_) The _pictorial-summary interpretation_. Before explaining\n this in detail, we would premise that we do not hold this or any\n future scheme of reconciling Genesis and geology to be a finality.\n Such a settlement of all the questions involved would presuppose\n not only a perfected science of the physical universe, but also a\n perfected science of hermeneutics. It is enough if we can offer\n tentative solutions which represent the present state of thought\n upon the subject. Remembering, then, that any such scheme of\n reconciliation may speedily be outgrown without prejudice to the\n truth of the Scripture narrative, we present the following as an\n approximate account of the coincidences between the Mosaic and the\n geological records. The scheme here given is a combination of the\n conclusions of Dana and Guyot, and assumes the substantial truth\n of the nebular hypothesis. It is interesting to observe that\n Augustine, who knew nothing of modern science, should have\n reached, by simple study of the text, some of the same results.\n See his Confessions, 12:8\u2014\u201cFirst God created a chaotic matter,\n which was _next_ to _nothing_. This chaotic matter was made from\n nothing, before all days. Then this chaotic, amorphous matter was\n subsequently arranged, in the succeeding six days\u201d; De Genes. ad\n Lit., 4:27\u2014\u201cThe length of these days is not to be determined by\n the length of our week-days. There is a series in both cases, and\n that is all.\u201d We proceed now to the scheme:\n\n 1. The earth, if originally in the condition of a gaseous fluid,\n must have been void and formless as described in _Genesis 1:2_.\n Here the earth is not yet separated from the condensing nebula,\n and its fluid condition is indicated by the term \u201c_waters_.\u201d\n\n 2. The beginning of activity in matter would manifest itself by\n the production of light, since light is a resultant of molecular\n activity. This corresponds to the statement in _verse 3_. As the\n result of condensation, the nebula becomes luminous, and this\n process from darkness to light is described as follows: \u201c_there\n was evening and there was morning, one day_.\u201d Here we have a day\n without a sun\u2014a feature in the narrative quite consistent with two\n facts of science: first, that the nebula would naturally be\n self-luminous, and, secondly, that the earth proper, which reached\n its present form before the sun, would, when it was thrown off, be\n itself a self-luminous and molten mass. The day was therefore\n continuous\u2014day without night.\n\n 3. The development of the earth into an independent sphere and its\n separation from the fluid around it answers to the dividing of\n \u201c_the waters under the firmament from the waters above_,\u201d in\n _verse 7_. Here the word \u201c_waters_\u201d is used to designate the\n \u201cprimordial cosmic material\u201d (Guyot, Creation, 35-37), or the\n molten mass of earth and sun united, from which the earth is\n thrown off. The term \u201c_waters_\u201d is the best which the Hebrew\n language affords to express this idea of a fluid mass. _Ps. 148_\n seems to have this meaning, where it speaks of the \u201c_waters that\n are above the heavens_\u201d (_verse 4_)\u2014waters which are distinguished\n from the \u201c_deeps_\u201d below (_verse 7_), and the \u201c_vapor_\u201d above\n (_verse 8_).\n\n 4. The production of the earth\u2019s physical features by the partial\n condensation of the vapors which enveloped the igneous sphere, and\n by the consequent outlining of the continents and oceans, is next\n described in _verse 9_ as the gathering of the waters into one\n place and the appearing of the dry land.\n\n 5. The expression of the idea of life in the lowest plants, since\n it was in type and effect the creation of the vegetable kingdom,\n is next described in _verse 11_ as a bringing into existence of\n the characteristic forms of that kingdom. This precedes all\n mention of animal life, since the vegetable kingdom is the natural\n basis of the animal. If it be said that our earliest fossils are\n animal, we reply that the earliest vegetable forms, the _alg\u00e6_,\n were easily dissolved, and might as easily disappear; that\n graphite and bog-iron ore, appearing lower down than any animal\n remains, are the result of preceding vegetation; that animal\n forms, whenever and wherever existing, must subsist upon and\n presuppose the vegetable. The Eozo\u00f6n is of necessity preceded by\n the Eophyte. If it be said that fruit-trees could not have been\n created on the third day, we reply that since the creation of the\n vegetable kingdom was to be described at one stroke and no mention\n of it was to be made subsequently, this is the proper place to\n introduce it and to mention its main characteristic forms. See\n Bible Commentary, 1:36; LeConte, Elements of Geology, 136, 285.\n\n 6. The vapors which have hitherto shrouded the planet are now\n cleared away as preliminary to the introduction of life in its\n higher animal forms. The consequent appearance of solar light is\n described in _verses 16_ and _17_ as a making of the sun, moon,\n and stars, and a giving of them as luminaries to the earth.\n Compare _Gen. 9:13_\u2014\u201c_I do set my bow in the cloud._\u201d As the\n rainbow had existed in nature before, but was now appointed to\n serve a peculiar purpose, so in the record of creation sun, moon\n and stars, which existed before, were appointed as visible lights\n for the earth,\u2014and that for the reason that the earth was no\n longer self-luminous, and the light of the sun struggling through\n the earth\u2019s encompassing clouds was not sufficient for the higher\n forms of life which were to come.\n\n 7. The exhibition of the four grand types of the animal kingdom\n (radiate, molluscan, articulate, vertebrate), which characterizes\n the next stage of geological progress, is represented in _verses\n 20_ and _21_ as a creation of the lower animals\u2014those that swarm\n in the waters, and the creeping and flying species of the land.\n Huxley, in his American Addresses, objects to this assigning of\n the origin of birds to the fifth day, and declares that\n terrestrial animals exist in lower strata than any form of\n bird,\u2014birds appearing only in the O\u00f6litic, or New Red Sandstone.\n But we reply that the fifth day is devoted to sea-productions,\n while land-productions belong to the sixth. Birds, according to\n the latest science, are sea-productions, not land-productions.\n They originated from Saurians, and were, at the first, flying\n lizards. There being but one mention of sea-productions, all\n these, birds included, are crowded into the fifth day. Thus\n Genesis anticipates the latest science. On the ancestry of birds,\n see Pop. Science Monthly, March, 1884:606; Baptist Magazine,\n 1877:505.\n\n 8. The introduction of mammals\u2014viviparous species, which are\n eminent above all other vertebrates for a quality prophetic of a\n high moral purpose, that of suckling their young\u2014is indicated in\n _verses 24_ and _25_ by the creation, on the sixth day, of cattle\n and beasts of prey.\n\n 9. Man, the first being of moral and intellectual qualities, and\n the first in whom the unity of the great design has full\n expression, forms in both the Mosaic and geologic record the last\n step of progress in creation (see _verses 26-31_). With Prof.\n Dana, we may say that \u201cin this succession we observe not merely an\n order of events like that deduced from science; there is a system\n in the arrangement, and a far-reaching prophecy, to which\n philosophy could not have attained, however instructed.\u201d See Dana,\n Manual of Geology, 741-746, and Bib. Sac., April, 1885:201-224.\n Richard Owen: \u201cMan from the beginning of organisms was ideally\n present upon the earth\u201d; see Owen, Anatomy of Vertebrates, 3:796;\n Louis Agassiz: \u201cMan is the purpose toward which the whole animal\n creation tends from the first appearance of the first pal\u00e6ozoic\n fish.\u201d\n\n Prof. John M. Taylor: \u201cMan is not merely a mortal but a moral\n being. If he sinks below this plane of life he misses the path\n marked out for him by all his past development. In order to\n progress, the higher vertebrate had to subordinate everything to\n mental development. In order to become human it had to develop the\n rational intelligence. In order to become higher man, present man\n must subordinate everything to moral development. This is the\n great law of animal and human development clearly revealed in the\n sequence of physical and psychical functions.\u201d W. E. Gladstone in\n S. S. Times, April 26, 1890, calls the Mosaic days \u201cchapters in\n the history of creation.\u201d He objects to calling them epochs or\n periods, because they are not of equal length, and they sometimes\n overlap. But he defends the general correspondence of the Mosaic\n narrative with the latest conclusions of science, and remarks:\n \u201cAny man whose labor and duty for several scores of years has\n included as their central point the study of the means of making\n himself intelligible to the mass of men, is in a far better\n position to judge what would be the forms and methods of speech\n proper for the Mosaic writer to adopt, than the most perfect\n Hebraist as such, or the most consummate votary of physical\n science as such.\u201d\n\n On the whole subject, see Guyot, Creation; Review of Guyot, in N.\n Eng., July, 1884:591-594; Tayler Lewis, Six Days of Creation;\n Thompson, Man in Genesis and in Geology; Agassiz, in Atlantic\n Monthly, Jan. 1874; Dawson, Story of the Earth and Man, 82, and in\n Expositor, Apl. 1886; LeConte, Science and Religion, 264; Hill, in\n Bib. Sac., April, 1875; Peirce, Ideality in the Physical Sciences,\n 38-72; Boardman, The Creative Week; Godet, Bib. Studies of O. T.,\n 65-138; Bell, in Nature, Nov. 24 and Dec. 1, 1882; W. E.\n Gladstone, in Nineteenth Century, Nov. 1885:685-707, Jan. 1886:1,\n 176; reply by Huxley, in Nineteenth Century, Dec. 1885, and Feb.\n 1886; Schmid, Theories of Darwin; Bartlett, Sources of History in\n the Pentateuch, 1-35; Cotterill, Does Science Aid Faith in Regard\n to Creation? Cox, Miracles, 1-39\u2014chapter 1, on the Original\n Miracle\u2014that of Creation; Z\u00f6ckler, Theologie und\n Naturwissenschaft, and Urgeschichte, 1-77; Reusch, Bib.\n Sch\u00f6pfungsgeschichte. On difficulties of the nebular hypothesis,\n see Stallo, Modern Physics, 277-293.\n\n\nV. God\u2019s End in Creation.\n\n\nInfinite wisdom must, in creating, propose to itself the most\ncomprehensive and the most valuable of ends,\u2014the end most worthy of God,\nand the end most fruitful in good. Only in the light of the end proposed\ncan we properly judge of God\u2019s work, or of God\u2019s character as revealed\ntherein.\n\n\n It would seem that Scripture should give us an answer to the\n question: Why did God create? The great Architect can best tell\n his own design. Ambrose: \u201cTo whom shall I give greater credit\n concerning God than to God himself?\u201d George A. Gordon, New Epoch\n for Faith, 15\u2014\u201cGod is necessarily a being of ends. Teleology is\n the warp and woof of humanity; it must be in the warp and woof of\n Deity. Evolutionary science has but strengthened this view.\n Natural science is but a mean disguise for ignorance if it does\n not imply cosmical purpose. The movement of life from lower to\n higher is a movement upon ends. Will is the last account of the\n universe, and will is the faculty for ends. The moment one\n concludes that God is, it appears certain that he is a being of\n ends. The universe is alive with desire and movement.\n Fundamentally it is throughout an expression of will. And it\n follows, that the ultimate end of God in human history must be\n worthy of himself.\u201d\n\n\nIn determining this end, we turn first to:\n\n\n1. The testimony of Scripture.\n\n\nThis may be summed up in four statements. God finds his end (_a_) in\nhimself; (_b_) in his own will and pleasure; (_c_) in his own glory; (_d_)\nin the making known of his power, his wisdom, his holy name. All these\nstatements may be combined in the following, namely, that God\u2019s supreme\nend in creation is nothing outside of himself, but is his own glory\u2014in the\nrevelation, in and through creatures, of the infinite perfection of his\nown being.\n\n\n (_a_) _Rom. 11:36_\u2014\u201c_unto him are all things_\u201d; _Col. 1:16_\u2014\u201c_all\n things have been created ... unto him_\u201d (Christ); compare _Is.\n 48:11_\u2014\u201c_for mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it\n ... and my glory will I not give to another_\u201d; and _1 Cor.\n 15:28_\u2014\u201c_subject all things unto him, that God may be all in\n all._\u201d _Proverbs 16:4_\u2014not \u201cThe Lord hath made all things for\n himself\u201d (A. V.) but \u201c_Jehovah hath made everything for its own\n end_\u201d (Rev. Vers.).\n\n (_b_) _Eph. 1:5, 6, 9_\u2014\u201c_having foreordained us ... according to\n the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his\n grace ... mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure\n which he purposed in him_\u201d; _Rev. 4:11_\u2014\u201c_thou didst create all\n things, and because of thy will they were, and were created._\u201d\n\n (_c_) _Is. 43:7_\u2014\u201c_whom I have created for my glory_\u201d; _60:21_ and\n _61:3_\u2014the righteousness and blessedness of the redeemed are\n secured, that \u201c_he may be glorified_\u201d; _Luke 2:14_\u2014the angels\u2019\n song at the birth of Christ expressed the design of the work of\n salvation: \u201c_Glory to God in the highest_,\u201d and only through, and\n for its sake, \u201c_on earth peace among men in whom he is well\n pleased_.\u201d\n\n (_d_) _Ps. 143:11_\u2014\u201c_In thy righteousness bring my soul out of\n trouble_\u201d; _Ez. 36:21, 22_\u2014\u201c_I do not this for your sake ... but\n for mine holy name_\u201d; _39:7_\u2014\u201c_my holy name will I make known_\u201d;\n _Rom. 9:17_\u2014to Pharaoh: \u201c_For this very purpose did I raise thee\n up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be\n published abroad in all the earth_\u201d; _22, 23_\u2014\u201c_riches of his\n glory_\u201d made known in vessels of wrath, and in vessels of mercy;\n _Eph. 3:9, 10_\u2014\u201c_created all things; to the intent that now unto\n the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places might be\n made known through the church the manifold wisdom of God._\u201d See\n Godet, on Ultimate Design of Man; \u201cGod in man and man in God,\u201d in\n Princeton Rev., Nov. 1880; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 1:436, 535, 565,\n 568. _Per contra_, see Miller, Fetich in Theology, 19, 39-45,\n 88-98, 143-146.\n\n\nSince holiness is the fundamental attribute in God, to make himself, his\nown pleasure, his own glory, his own manifestation, to be his end in\ncreation, is to find his chief end in his own holiness, its maintenance,\nexpression, and communication. To make this his chief end, however, is not\nto exclude certain subordinate ends, such as the revelation of his wisdom,\npower, and love, and the consequent happiness of innumerable creatures to\nwhom this revelation is made.\n\n\n God\u2019s glory is that which makes him glorious. It is not something\n without, like the praise and esteem of men, but something within,\n like the dignity and value of his own attributes. To a noble man,\n praise is very distasteful unless he is conscious of something in\n himself that justifies it. We must be like God to be\n self-respecting. Pythagoras said well: \u201cMan\u2019s end is to be like\n God.\u201d And so God must look within, and find his honor and his end\n in himself. Robert Browning, Hohenstiel-Schwangau: \u201cThis is the\n glory, that in all conceived Or felt or known, I recognize a Mind,\n Not mine but like mine,\u2014for the double joy Making all things for\n me, and me for Him.\u201d Schurman, Belief in God, 214-216\u2014\u201cGod\n glorifies himself in communicating himself.\u201d The object of his\n love is the exercise of his holiness. Self-affirmation conditions\n self-communication.\n\n E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 94, 196\u2014\u201cLaw and gospel are\n only two sides of the one object, the highest glory of God in the\n highest good of man.... Nor is it unworthy of God to make himself\n his own end: (_a_) It is both unworthy and criminal for a finite\n being to make himself his own end, because it is an end that can\n be reached only by degrading self and wronging others; but (_b_)\n For an infinite Creator not to make himself his own end would be\n to dishonor himself and wrong his creatures; since, thereby, (_c_)\n he must either act without an end, which is irrational, or from an\n end which is impossible without wronging his creatures; because\n (_d_) the highest welfare of his creatures, and consequently their\n happiness, is impossible except through the subordination and\n conformity of their wills to that of their infinitely perfect\n Ruler; and (_e_) without this highest welfare and happiness of his\n creatures God\u2019s own end itself becomes impossible, for he is\n glorified only as his character is reflected in, and recognized\n by, his intelligent creatures.\u201d Creation can add nothing to the\n essential wealth or worthiness of God. If the end were outside\n himself, it would make him dependent and a servant. The old\n theologians therefore spoke of God\u2019s \u201cdeclarative glory,\u201d rather\n than God\u2019s \u201cessential glory,\u201d as resulting from man\u2019s obedience\n and salvation.\n\n\n2. The testimony of reason.\n\n\nThat his own glory, in the sense just mentioned, is God\u2019s supreme end in\ncreation, is evident from the following considerations:\n\n(_a_) God\u2019s own glory is the only end actually and perfectly attained in\nthe universe. Wisdom and omnipotence cannot choose an end which is\ndestined to be forever unattained; for _\u201c__what his soul desireth, even\nthat he doeth__\u201d__ (Job 23:13)_. God\u2019s supreme end cannot be the happiness\nof creatures, since many are miserable here and will be miserable forever.\nGod\u2019s supreme end cannot be the holiness of creatures, for many are unholy\nhere and will be unholy forever. But while neither the holiness nor the\nhappiness of creatures is actually and perfectly attained, God\u2019s glory is\nmade known and will be made known in both the saved and the lost. This\nthen must be God\u2019s supreme end in creation.\n\n\n This doctrine teaches us that none can frustrate God\u2019s plan. God\n will get glory out of every human life. Man may glorify God\n voluntarily by love and obedience, but if he will not do this he\n will be compelled to glorify God by his rejection and punishment.\n Better be the molten iron that runs freely into the mold prepared\n by the great Designer, than be the hard and cold iron that must be\n hammered into shape. Cleanthes, quoted by Seneca: \u201cDucunt volentem\n fata, nolentem trahunt.\u201d W. C. Wilkinson, Epic of Saul, 271\u2014\u201cBut\n some are tools, and others ministers, Of God, who works his holy\n will with all.\u201d Christ baptizes _\u201c__in the Holy Spirit and in\n fire__\u201d__ (Mat. 3:11)_. Alexander McLaren: \u201cThere are two fires,\n to one or other of which we must be delivered. Either we shall\n gladly accept the purifying fire of the Spirit which burns sin out\n of us, or we shall have to meet the punitive fire which burns up\n us and our sins together. To be cleansed by the one or to be\n consumed by the other is the choice before each one of us.\u201d Hare,\n Mission of the Comforter, on _John 16:8_, shows that the Holy\n Spirit either _convinces_ those who yield to his influence, or\n _convicts_ those who resist\u2014the word \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c7\u03c9 having this double\n significance.\n\n\n(_b_) God\u2019s glory is the end intrinsically most valuable. The good of\ncreatures is of insignificant importance compared with this. Wisdom\ndictates that the greater interest should have precedence of the less.\nBecause God can choose no greater end, he must choose for his end himself.\nBut this is to choose his holiness, and his glory in the manifestation of\nthat holiness.\n\n\n _Is. 40:15, 16_\u2014\u201c_Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket,\n and are counted as the small dust of the balance_\u201d\u2014like the drop\n that falls unobserved from the bucket, like the fine dust of the\n scales which the tradesman takes no notice of in weighing, so are\n all the combined millions of earth and heaven before God. He\n created, and he can in an instant destroy. The universe is but a\n drop of dew upon the fringe of his garment. It is more important\n that God should be glorified than that the universe should be\n happy. As we read in _Heb. 6:13_\u2014\u201c_since he could swear by none\n greater, he sware by himself_\u201d\u2014so here we may say: Because he\n could choose no greater end in creating, he chose himself. But to\n swear by himself is to swear by his holiness (_Ps. 89:35_). We\n infer that to find his end in himself is to find that end in his\n holiness. See Martineau on Malebranche, in Types, 177.\n\n The stick or the stone does not exist for itself, but for some\n consciousness. The soul of man exists in part for itself. But it\n is conscious that in a more important sense it exists for God.\n \u201cModern thought,\u201d it is said, \u201cworships and serves the creature\n more than the Creator; indeed, the chief end of the Creator seems\n to be to glorify man and to enjoy him forever.\u201d So the small boy\n said his Catechism: \u201cMan\u2019s chief end is to glorify God and to\n annoy him forever.\u201d Prof. Clifford: \u201cThe kingdom of God is\n obsolete; the kingdom of man has now come.\u201d All this is the\n insanity of sin. _Per contra_, see Allen, Jonathan Edwards, 329,\n 330\u2014\u201cTwo things are plain in Edwards\u2019s doctrine: first, that God\n cannot love anything other than himself: he is so great, so\n preponderating an amount of being, that what is left is hardly\n worth considering; secondly, so far as God has any love for the\n creature, it is because he is himself diffused therein: the\n fulness of his own essence has overflowed into an outer world, and\n that which he loves in created beings is his essence imparted to\n them.\u201d But we would add that Edwards does not say they are\n themselves of the essence of God; see his Works, 2:210, 211.\n\n\n(_c_) His own glory is the only end which consists with God\u2019s independence\nand sovereignty. Every being is dependent upon whomsoever or whatsoever he\nmakes his ultimate end. If anything in the creature is the last end of\nGod, God is dependent upon the creature. But since God is dependent only\non himself, he must find in himself his end.\n\n\n To create is not to increase his blessedness, but only to reveal\n it. There is no need or deficiency which creation supplies. The\n creatures who derive all from him can add nothing to him. All our\n worship is only the rendering back to him of that which is his\n own. He notices us only for his own sake and not because our\n little rivulets of praise add anything to the ocean-like fulness\n of his joy. For his own sake, and not because of our misery or our\n prayers, he redeems and exalts us. To make our pleasure and\n welfare his ultimate end would be to abdicate his throne. He\n creates, therefore, only for his own sake and for the sake of his\n glory. To this reasoning the London Spectator replies: \u201cThe glory\n of God is the splendor of a manifestation, not the intrinsic\n splendor manifested. The splendor of a manifestation, however,\n consists in the effect of the manifestation on those to whom it is\n given. Precisely because the manifestation of God\u2019s goodness can\n be useful to us and cannot be useful to him, must its\n manifestation be intended for our sake and not for his sake. We\n gain everything by it\u2014he nothing, except so far as it is his own\n will that we should gain what he desires to bestow upon us.\u201d In\n this last clause we find the acknowledgment of weakness in the\n theory that God\u2019s supreme end is the good of his creatures. God\n does gain the fulfilment of his plan, the doing of his will, the\n manifestation of himself. The great painter loves his picture less\n than he loves his ideal. He paints in order to express himself.\n God loves each soul which he creates, but he loves yet more the\n expression of his own perfections in it. And this self-expression\n is his end. Robert Browning, Paracelsus, 54\u2014\u201cGod is the perfect\n Poet, Who in creation acts his own conceptions.\u201d Shedd, Dogm.\n Theol., 1:357, 358; Shairp, Province of Poetry, 11, 12.\n\n God\u2019s love makes him a self-expressing being. Self-expression is\n an inborn impulse in his creatures. All genius partakes of this\n characteristic of God. Sin substitutes concealment for outflow,\n and stops this self-communication which would make the good of\n each the good of all. Yet even sin cannot completely prevent it.\n The wicked man is impelled to confess. By natural law the secrets\n of all hearts will be made manifest at the judgment. Regeneration\n restores the freedom and joy of self-manifestation. Christianity\n and confession of Christ are inseparable. The preacher is simply a\n Christian further advanced in this divine privilege. We need\n utterance. Prayer is the most complete self-expression, and God\u2019s\n presence is the only land of perfectly free speech.\n\n The great poet comes nearest, in the realm of secular things, to\n realizing this privilege of the Christian. No great poet ever\n wrote his best work for money, or for fame, or even for the sake\n of doing good. Hawthorne was half-humorous and only partially\n sincere, when he said he would never have written a page except\n for pay. The hope of pay may have set his pen a-going, but only\n love for his work could have made that work what it is. Motley\n more truly declared that it was all up with a writer when he began\n to consider the money he was to receive. But Hawthorne needed the\n money to live on, while Motley had a rich father and uncle to back\n him. The great writer certainly absorbs himself in his work. With\n him necessity and freedom combine. He sings as the bird sings,\n without dogmatic intent. Yet he is great in proportion as he is\n moral and religious at heart. \u201cArma virumque cano\u201d is the only\n first person singular in the \u00c6neid in which the author himself\n speaks, yet the whole \u00c6neid is a revelation of Virgil. So we know\n little of Shakespeare\u2019s life, but much of Shakespeare\u2019s genius.\n\n Nothing is added to the tree when it blossoms and bears fruit; it\n only reveals its own inner nature. But we must distinguish in man\n his true nature from his false nature. Not his private\n peculiarities, but that in him which is permanent and universal,\n is the real treasure upon which the great poet draws. Longfellow:\n \u201cHe is the greatest artist then, Whether of pencil or of pen, Who\n follows nature. Never man, as artist or as artizan, Pursuing his\n own fantasies, Can touch the human heart or please, Or satisfy our\n nobler needs.\u201d Tennyson, after observing the subaqueous life of a\n brook, exclaimed: \u201cWhat an imagination God has!\u201d Caird, Philos.\n Religion, 245\u2014\u201cThe world of finite intelligences, though distinct\n from God, is still in its ideal nature one with him. That which\n God creates, and by which he reveals the hidden treasures of his\n wisdom and love, is still not foreign to his own infinite life,\n but one with it. In the knowledge of the minds that know him, in\n the self-surrender of the hearts that love him, it is no paradox\n to affirm that he knows and loves himself.\u201d\n\n\n(_d_) His own glory is an end which comprehends and secures, as a\nsubordinate end, every interest of the universe. The interests of the\nuniverse are bound up in the interests of God. There is no holiness or\nhappiness for creatures except as God is absolute sovereign, and is\nrecognized as such. It is therefore not selfishness, but benevolence, for\nGod to make his own glory the supreme object of creation. Glory is not\nvain-glory, and in expressing his ideal, that is, in expressing himself,\nin his creation, he communicates to his creatures the utmost possible\ngood.\n\n\n This self-expression is not selfishness but benevolence. As the\n true poet forgets himself in his work, so God does not manifest\n himself for the sake of what he can make by it. Self-manifestation\n is an end in itself. But God\u2019s self-manifestation comprises all\n good to his creatures. We are bound to love ourselves and our own\n interests just in proportion to the value of those interests. The\n monarch of a realm or the general of an army must be careful of\n his life, because the sacrifice of it may involve the loss of\n thousands of lives of soldiers or subjects. So God is the heart of\n the great system. Only by being tributary to the heart can the\n members be supplied with streams of holiness and happiness. And so\n for only one Being in the universe is it safe to live for himself.\n Man should not live for himself, because there is a higher end.\n But there is no higher end for God. \u201cOnly one being in the\n universe is excepted from the duty of subordination. Man must be\n subject to the \u2018_higher powers_\u2019 (_Rom. 13:1_). But there are no\n higher powers to God.\u201d See Park, Discourses, 181-209.\n\n Bismarck\u2019s motto: \u201cOhne Kaiser, kein Reich\u201d\u2014\u201cWithout an emperor,\n there can be no empire\u201d\u2014applies to God, as Von Moltke\u2019s motto:\n \u201cErst w\u00e4gen, dann wagen\u201d\u2014\u201cFirst weigh, then dare\u201d\u2014applies to man.\n Edwards, Works, 2:215\u2014\u201cSelfishness is no otherwise vicious or\n unbecoming than as one is less than a multitude. The public weal\n is of greater value than his particular interest. It is fit and\n suitable that God should value himself infinitely more than his\n creatures.\u201d Shakespeare, Hamlet, 3:3\u2014\u201cThe single and peculiar life\n is bound With all the strength and armor of the mind To keep\n itself from noyance; but much more That spirit upon whose weal\n depends and rests The lives of many. The cease of majesty Dies not\n alone, but like a gulf doth draw What\u2019s near it with it: it is a\n massy wheel Fixed on the summit of the highest mount, To whose\n huge spokes ten thousand lesser things Are mortis\u2019d and adjoined;\n which, when it falls, Each small annexment, petty consequence,\n Attends the boisterous ruin. Never alone did the king sigh, But\n with a general groan.\u201d\n\n\n(_e_) God\u2019s glory is the end which in a right moral system is proposed to\ncreatures. This must therefore be the end which he in whose image they are\nmade proposes to himself. He who constitutes the centre and end of all his\ncreatures must find his centre and end in himself. This principle of moral\nphilosophy, and the conclusion drawn from it, are both explicitly and\nimplicitly taught in Scripture.\n\n\n The beginning of all religion is the choosing of God\u2019s end as our\n end\u2014the giving up of our preference of happiness, and the entrance\n upon a life devoted to God. That happiness is not the ground of\n moral obligation, is plain from the fact that there is no\n happiness in seeking happiness. That the holiness of God is the\n ground of moral obligation, is plain from the fact that the search\n after holiness is not only successful in itself, but brings\n happiness also in its train. Archbishop Leighton, Works, 695\u2014\u201cIt\n is a wonderful instance of wisdom and goodness that God has so\n connected his own glory with our happiness, that we cannot\n properly intend the one, but that the other must follow as a\n matter of course, and our own felicity is at last resolved into\n his eternal glory.\u201d That God will certainly secure the end for\n which he created, his own glory, and that his end is our end, is\n the true source of comfort in affliction, of strength in labor, of\n encouragement in prayer. See _Psalm 25:11_\u2014\u201c_For thy name\u2019s\n sake.... Pardon mine iniquity, for it is great_\u201d; _115:1_\u2014\u201c_Not\n unto us, O Jehovah, not unto us, But unto thy name give glory_\u201d;\n _Mat. 6:33_\u2014\u201c_Seek ye first his kingdom, and his righteousness;\n and all these things shall be added unto you_\u201d; _1 Cor.\n 10:31_\u2014\u201c_Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do,\n do all to the glory of God_\u201d; _1 Pet. 2:9_\u2014\u201c_ye are an elect race\n ... that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you\n out of darkness into his marvelous light_\u201d; _4:11_\u2014speaking,\n ministering, \u201c_that in all things God may be glorified through\n Jesus Christ, whose is the glory and the dominion for ever and\n ever. Amen._\u201d On the whole subject, see Edwards, Works, 2:193-257;\n Janet, Final Causes, 443-455; Princeton Theol. Essays, 2:15-32;\n Murphy, Scientific Bases of Faith, 358-362.\n\n It is a duty to make the most of ourselves, but only for God\u2019s\n sake. _Jer. 45:5_\u2014\u201c_seekest thou great things for thyself? seek\n them not!_\u201d But it is nowhere forbidden us to seek great things\n for God. Rather we are to \u201c_desire earnestly the greater gifts_\u201d\n (_1 Cor. 12:31_). Self-realization as well as self-expression is\n native to humanity. Kant: \u201cMan, and with him every rational\n creature, is an end in himself.\u201d But this seeking of his own good\n is to be subordinated to the higher motive of God\u2019s glory. The\n difference between the regenerate and the unregenerate may consist\n wholly in motive. The latter lives for self, the former for God.\n Illustrate by the young man in Yale College who began to learn his\n lessons for God instead of for self, leaving his salvation in\n Christ\u2019s hands. God requires self-renunciation, taking up the\n cross, and following Christ, because the first need of the sinner\n is to change his centre. To be self-centered is to be a savage.\n The struggle for the life of others is better. But there is\n something higher still. Life has dignity according to the worth of\n the object we install in place of self. Follow Christ, make God\n the center of your life,\u2014so shall you achieve the best; see\n Colestock, Changing Viewpoint, 113-123.\n\n George A. Gordon, The New Epoch for Faith, 11-13\u2014\u201cThe ultimate\n view of the universe is the religious view. Its worth is\n ultimately worth for the supreme Being. Here is the note of\n permanent value in Edwards\u2019s great essay on The End of Creation.\n The final value of creation is its value for God.... Men are men\n in and through society\u2014here is the truth which Aristotle\n teaches\u2014but Aristotle fails to see that society attains its end\n only in and through God.\u201d Hovey, Studies, 65\u2014\u201cTo manifest the\n glory or perfection of God is therefore the chief end of our\n existence. To live in such a manner that his life is reflected in\n ours; that his character shall reappear, at least faintly, in\n ours; that his holiness and love shall be recognized and declared\n by us, is to do that for which we are made. And so, in requiring\n us to glorify himself, God simply requires us to do what is\n absolutely right, and what is at the same time indispensable to\n our highest welfare. Any lower aim could not have been placed\n before us, without making us content with a character unlike that\n of the First Good and the First Fair.\u201d See statement and criticism\n of Edwards\u2019s view in Allen, Jonathan Edwards, 227-238.\n\n\nVI. Relation of the Doctrine of Creation to other Doctrines.\n\n\n1. To the holiness and benevolence of God.\n\n\nCreation, as the work of God, manifests of necessity God\u2019s moral\nattributes. But the existence of physical and moral evil in the universe\nappears, at first sight, to impugn these attributes, and to contradict the\nScripture declaration that the work of God\u2019s hand was \u201cvery good\u201d (Gen.\n1:31). This difficulty may be in great part removed by considering that:\n\n(_a_) At its first creation, the world was good in two senses: first, as\nfree from moral evil,\u2014sin being a later addition, the work, not of God,\nbut of created spirits; secondly, as adapted to beneficent ends,\u2014for\nexample, the revelation of God\u2019s perfection, and the probation and\nhappiness of intelligent and obedient creatures.\n\n(_b_) Physical pain and imperfection, so far as they existed before the\nintroduction of moral evil, are to be regarded: first, as congruous parts\nof a system of which sin was foreseen to be an incident; and secondly, as\nconstituting, in part, the means of future discipline and redemption for\nthe fallen.\n\n\n The coprolites of Saurians contain the scales and bones of fish\n which they have devoured. _Rom. 8:20-22_\u2014\u201c_For the creation was\n subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him who\n subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also shall be\n delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the\n glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation_\n [the irrational creation] _groaneth and travaileth in pain\n together until now_\u201d; _23_\u2014our mortal body, as a part of nature,\n participates in the same groaning. _2 Cor. 4:17_\u2014\u201c_our light\n affliction, which is for the moment, worketh for us more and more\n exceedingly an eternal weight of glory._\u201d Bowne, Philosophy of\n Theism, 224-240\u2014\u201cHow explain our rather shabby universe? Pessimism\n assumes that perfect wisdom is compatible only with a perfect\n work, and that we know the universe to be truly worthless and\n insignificant.\u201d John Stuart Mill, Essays on Religion, 29, brings\n in a fearful indictment of nature, her storms, lightnings,\n earthquakes, blight, decay, and death. Christianity however\n regards these as due to man, not to God; as incidents of sin; as\n the groans of creation, crying out for relief and liberty. Man\u2019s\n body, as a part of nature, waits for the adoption, and\n resurrection of the body is to accompany the renewal of the world.\n\n It was Darwin\u2019s judgment that in the world of nature and of man,\n on the whole, \u201chappiness decidedly prevails.\u201d Wallace, Darwinism,\n 36-40\u2014\u201cAnimals enjoy all the happiness of which they are capable.\u201d\n Drummond, Ascent of Man, 203 _sq._\u2014\u201cIn the struggle for life there\n is no hate\u2014only hunger.\u201d Martineau, Study, 1:330\u2014\u201cWaste of life is\n simply nature\u2019s exuberance.\u201d Newman Smyth, Place of Death in\n Evolution, 44-56\u2014\u201cDeath simply buries the useless waste. Death has\n entered for life\u2019s sake.\u201d These utterances, however, come far\n short of a proper estimate of the evils of the world, and they\n ignore the Scriptural teaching with regard to the connection\n between death and sin. A future world into which sin and death do\n not enter shows that the present world is abnormal, and that\n morality is the only cure for mortality. Nor can the imperfections\n of the universe be explained by saying that they furnish\n opportunity for struggle and for virtue. Robert Browning, Ring and\n Book, Pope, 1875\u2014\u201cI can believe this dread machinery Of sin and\n sorrow, would confound me else, Devised,\u2014all pain, at most\n expenditure Of pain by Who devised pain,\u2014to evolve, By new\n machinery in counterpart, The moral qualities of man\u2014how else?\u2014To\n make him love in turn and be beloved, Creative and\n self-sacrificing too, And thus eventually godlike.\u201d This seems\n like doing evil that good may come. We can explain mortality only\n by immorality, and that not in God but in man. Fairbairn:\n \u201cSuffering is God\u2019s protest against sin.\u201d\n\n Wallace\u2019s theory of the survival of the fittest was suggested by\n the prodigal destructiveness of nature. Tennyson: \u201cFinding that of\n fifty seeds She often brings but one to bear.\u201d William James: \u201cOur\n dogs are _in_ our human life, but not _of_ it. The dog, under the\n knife of vivisection, cannot understand the purpose of his\n suffering. For him it is only pain. So we may lie soaking in a\n spiritual atmosphere, a dimension of Being which we have at\n present no organ for apprehending. If we knew the purpose of our\n life, all that is heroic in us would religiously acquiesce.\u201d\n Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 72\u2014\u201cLove is prepared to take deeper\n and sterner measures than benevolence, which is by itself a\n shallow thing.\u201d The Lakes of Killarny in Ireland show what a\n paradise this world might be if war had not desolated it, and if\n man had properly cared for it. Our moral sense cannot justify the\n evil in creation except upon the hypothesis that this has some\n cause and reason in the misconduct of man.\n\n This is not a perfect world. It was not perfect even when\n originally constituted. Its imperfection is due to sin. God made\n it with reference to the Fall,\u2014the stage was arranged for the\n great drama of sin and redemption which was to be enacted thereon.\n We accept Bushnell\u2019s idea of \u201canticipative consequences,\u201d and\n would illustrate it by the building of a hospital-room while yet\n no member of the family is sick, and by the salvation of the\n patriarchs through a Christ yet to come. If the earliest\n vertebrates of geological history were types of man and\n preparations for his coming, then pain and death among those same\n vertebrates may equally have been a type of man\u2019s sin and its\n results of misery. If sin had not been an incident, foreseen and\n provided for, the world might have been a paradise. As a matter of\n fact, it will become a paradise only at the completion of the\n redemptive work of Christ. Kreibig, Vers\u00f6hnung, 369\u2014\u201cThe death of\n Christ was accompanied by startling occurrences in the outward\n world, to show that the effects of his sacrifice reached even into\n nature.\u201d Perowne refers _Ps. 96:10_\u2014\u201c_The world also is\n established that it cannot be moved_\u201d\u2014to the restoration of the\n inanimate creation; _cf._ _Heb. 12:27_\u2014\u201c_And this word, Yet once\n more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as\n of things that have been made, that those things which are not\n shaken may remain_\u201d; _Rev. 21:1, 5_\u2014\u201c_a new heaven and a new earth\n ... Behold, I make all things new._\u201d\n\n Much sport has been made of this doctrine of anticipative\n consequences. James D. Dana: \u201cIt is funny that the sin of Adam\n should have killed those old trilobites! The blunderbuss must have\n kicked back into time at a tremendous rate to have hit those poor\n innocents!\u201d Yet every insurance policy, every taking out of an\n umbrella, every buying of a wedding ring, is an anticipative\n consequence. To deny that God made the world what it is in view of\n the events that were to take place in it, is to concede to him\n less wisdom than we attribute to our fellow-man. The most rational\n explanation of physical evil in the universe is that of _Rom.\n 8:20, 21_\u2014\u201c_the creation was subjected to vanity ... by reason of\n him who subjected it_\u201d\u2014_i. e._, by reason of the first man\u2019s\n sin\u2014\u201c_in hope that the creation itself also shall be delivered_.\u201d\n\n Martineau, Types, 2:151\u2014\u201cWhat meaning could Pity have in a world\n where suffering was not meant to be?\u201d Hicks, Critique of Design\n Arguments, 386\u2014\u201cThe very badness of the world convinces us that\n God is good.\u201d And Sir Henry Taylor\u2019s words: \u201cPain in man Bears the\n high mission of the flail and fan; In brutes \u2019tis surely\n piteous\u201d\u2014receive their answer: The brute is but an appendage to\n man, and like inanimate nature it suffers from man\u2019s fall\u2014suffers\n not wholly in vain, for even pain in brutes serves to illustrate\n the malign influence of sin and to suggest motives for resisting\n it. Pascal: \u201cWhatever virtue can be bought with pain is cheaply\n bought.\u201d The pain and imperfection of the world are God\u2019s frown\n upon sin and his warning against it. See Bushnell, chapter on\n Anticipative Consequences, in Nature and the Supernatural,\n 194-219. Also McCosh, Divine Government, 26-35, 249-261; Farrar,\n Science and Theology, 82-105; Johnson, in Bap. Rev., 6:141-154;\n Fairbairn, Philos. Christ. Religion, 94-168.\n\n\n2. To the wisdom and free-will of God.\n\n\nNo plan whatever of a finite creation can fully express the infinite\nperfection of God. Since God, however, is immutable, he must always have\nhad a plan of the universe; since he is perfect, he must have had the best\npossible plan. As wise, God cannot choose a plan less good, instead of one\nmore good. As rational, he cannot between plans equally good make a merely\narbitrary choice. Here is no necessity, but only the certainty that\ninfinite wisdom will act wisely. As no compulsion from without, so no\nnecessity from within, moves God to create the actual universe. Creation\nis both wise and free.\n\n\n As God is both rational and wise, his having a plan of the\n universe must be better than his not having a plan would be. But\n the universe once was not; yet without a universe God was blessed\n and sufficient to himself. God\u2019s perfection therefore requires,\n not that he have a universe, but that he have a plan of the\n universe. Again, since God is both rational and wise, his actual\n creation cannot be the worst possible, nor one arbitrarily chosen\n from two or more equally good. It must be, all things considered,\n the best possible. We are optimists rather than pessimists.\n\n But we reject that form of optimism which regards evil as the\n indispensable condition of the good, and sin as the direct product\n of God\u2019s will. We hold that other form of optimism which regards\n sin as naturally destructive, but as made, in spite of itself, by\n an overruling providence, to contribute to the highest good. For\n the optimism which makes evil the necessary condition of finite\n being, see Leibnitz, Opera Philosophica, 468, 624; Hedge, Ways of\n the Spirit, 241; and Pope\u2019s Essay on Man. For the better form of\n optimism, see Herzog, Encyclop\u00e4die, art.: Sch\u00f6pfung, 13:651-653;\n Chalmers, Works, 2:286; Mark Hopkins, in Andover Rev., March,\n 1885:197-210; Luthardt, Lehre des freien Willens, 9, 10\u2014\u201cCalvin\u2019s\n _Quia voluit_ is not the last answer. We could have no heart for\n such a God, for he would himself have no heart. Formal will alone\n has no heart. In God real freedom controls formal, as in fallen\n man, formal controls real.\u201d\n\n Janet, in his Final Causes, 429 sq. and 490-503, claims that\n optimism subjects God to fate. We have shown that this objection\n mistakes the certainty which is consistent with freedom for the\n necessity which is inconsistent with freedom. The opposite\n doctrine attributes an irrational arbitrariness to God. We are\n warranted in saying that the universe at present existing,\n considered as a partial realization of God\u2019s developing plan, is\n the best possible for this particular point of time,\u2014in short,\n that all is for the best,\u2014see _Rom. 8:28_\u2014\u201c_to them that love God\n all things work together for good_\u201d; _1 Cor. 3:21_\u2014\u201c_all things\n are yours._\u201d\n\n For denial of optimism in any form, see Watson, Theol. Institutes,\n 1:419; Hovey, God with Us, 206-208; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 1:419,\n 432, 566, and 2:145; Lipsius, Dogmatik, 234-255; Flint, Theism,\n 227-256; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 397-409, and esp. 405\u2014\u201cA wisdom\n the resources of which have been so expended that it cannot equal\n its past achievements is a finite capacity, and not the boundless\n depth of the infinite God.\u201d But we reply that a wisdom which does\n not do that which is best is not wisdom. The limit is not in God\u2019s\n abstract power, but in his other attributes of truth, love, and\n holiness. Hence God can say in _Is. 5:4_\u2014\u201c_what could have been\n done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?_\u201d\n\n The perfect antithesis to an ethical and theistic optimism is\n found in the non-moral and atheistic pessimism of Schopenhauer\n (Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung) and Hartmann (Philosophie des\n Unbewussten). \u201cAll life is summed up in effort, and effort is\n painful; therefore life is pain.\u201d But we might retort: \u201cLife is\n active, and action is always accompanied with pleasure; therefore\n life is pleasure.\u201d See Frances Power Cobbe, Peak in Darien,\n 95-134, for a graphic account of Schopenhauer\u2019s heartlessness,\n cowardice and arrogance. Pessimism is natural to a mind soured by\n disappointment and forgetful of God: _Eccl. 2:11_\u2014\u201c_all was vanity\n and a striving after wind._\u201d Homer: \u201cThere is nothing whatever\n more wretched than man.\u201d Seneca praises death as the best\n invention of nature. Byron: \u201cCount o\u2019er the joys thine hours have\n seen, Count o\u2019er thy days from anguish free, And know, whatever\n thou hast been, \u2019Tis something better not to be.\u201d But it has been\n left to Schopenhauer and Hartmann to define will as unsatisfied\n yearning, to regard life itself as a huge blunder, and to urge\n upon the human race, as the only measure of permanent relief, a\n united and universal act of suicide.\n\n G. H. Beard, in Andover Rev., March, 1892\u2014\u201cSchopenhauer utters one\n New Testament truth: the utter delusiveness of self-indulgence.\n Life which is dominated by the desires, and devoted to mere\n getting, is a pendulum swinging between pain and ennui.\u201d Bowne,\n Philos. of Theism, 124\u2014\u201cFor Schopenhauer the world-ground is pure\n will, without intellect or personality. But pure will is nothing.\n Will itself, except as a function of a conscious and intelligent\n spirit, is nothing.\u201d Royce, Spirit of Mod. Philos.,\n 253-280\u2014\u201cSchopenhauer united Kant\u2019s thought, \u2018The inmost life of\n all things is one,\u2019 with the Hindoo insight, \u2018The life of all\n these things, That art Thou.\u2019 To him music shows best what the\n will is: passionate, struggling, wandering, restless, ever\n returning to itself, full of longing, vigor, majesty, caprice.\n Schopenhauer condemns individual suicide, and counsels\n resignation. That I must ever desire yet never fully attain, leads\n Hegel to the conception of the absolutely active and triumphant\n spirit. Schopenhauer finds in it proof of the totally evil nature\n of things. Thus while Hegel is an optimist, Schopenhauer is a\n pessimist.\u201d\n\n Winwood Reade, in the title of his book, The Martyrdom of Man,\n intends to describe human history. O. W. Holmes says that Bunyan\u2019s\n Pilgrim\u2019s Progress \u201crepresents the universe as a trap which\n catches most of the human vermin that have its bait dangled before\n them.\u201d Strauss: \u201cIf the prophets of pessimism prove that man had\n better never have lived, they thereby prove that themselves had\n better never have prophesied.\u201d Hawthorne, Note-book: \u201cCurious to\n imagine what mournings and discontent would be excited, if any of\n the great so-called calamities of human beings were to be\n abolished,\u2014as, for instance, death.\u201d\n\n On both the optimism of Leibnitz and the pessimism of\n Schopenhauer, see Bowen, Modern Philosophy; Tulloch, Modern\n Theories, 169-221; Thompson, on Modern Pessimism, in Present Day\n Tracts, 6: no. 34; Wright, on Ecclesiastes, 141-216; Barlow,\n Ultimatum of Pessimism: Culture tends to misery; God is the most\n miserable of beings; creation is a plaster for the sore. See also\n Mark Hopkins, in Princeton Review, Sept. 1882:197\u2014\u201cDisorder and\n misery are so mingled with order and beneficence, that both\n optimism and pessimism are possible.\u201d Yet it is evident that there\n must be more construction than destruction, or the world would not\n be existing. Buddhism, with its Nirvana-refuge, is essentially\n pessimistic.\n\n\n3. To Christ as the Revealer of God.\n\n\nSince Christ is the Revealer of God in creation as well as in redemption,\nthe remedy for pessimism is (1) the recognition of God\u2019s transcendence\u2014the\nuniverse at present not fully expressing his power, his holiness or his\nlove, and nature being a scheme of progressive evolution which we\nimperfectly comprehend and in which there is much to follow; (2) the\nrecognition of sin as the free act of the creature, by which all sorrow\nand pain have been caused, so that God is in no proper sense its author;\n(3) the recognition of Christ _for_ us on the Cross and Christ _in_ us by\nhis Spirit, as revealing the age-long sorrow and suffering of God\u2019s heart\non account of human transgression, and as manifested, in self-sacrificing\nlove, to deliver men from the manifold evils in which their sins have\ninvolved them; and (4) the recognition of present probation and future\njudgment, so that provision is made for removing the scandal now resting\nupon the divine government and for justifying the ways of God to men.\n\n\n Christ\u2019s Cross is the proof that God suffers more than man from\n human sin, and Christ\u2019s judgment will show that the wicked cannot\n always prosper. In Christ alone we find the key to the dark\n problems of history and the guarantee of human progress. _Rom.\n 3:25_\u2014\u201c_whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in\n his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over\n of the sins done aforetime in the forbearance of God_\u201d;\n _8:32_\u2014\u201c_He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for\n us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all\n things?_\u201d _Heb. 2:8, 9_\u2014\u201c_we see not yet all things subjected to\n him. But we behold ... Jesus ... crowned with glory and honor_\u201d;\n _Acts 17:31_\u2014\u201c_he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the\n earth in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained._\u201d See\n Hill, Psychology, 283; Bradford, Heredity and Christian Problems,\n 240, 241; Bruce, Providential Order, 71-88; J. M. Whiton, in Am.\n Jour. Theology, April, 1901:318.\n\n G. A. Gordon, New Epoch of Faith, 199\u2014\u201cThe book of Job is called\n by Huxley the classic of pessimism.\u201d Dean Swift, on the successive\n anniversaries of his own birth, was accustomed to read the third\n chapter of Job, which begins with the terrible \u201c_Let the day\n perish wherein I was born_\u201d (_3:3_). But predestination and\n election are not arbitrary. Wisdom has chosen the best possible\n plan, has ordained the salvation of all who could wisely have been\n saved, has permitted the least evil that it was wise to permit.\n _Rev. 4:11_\u2014\u201c_Thou didst create all things, and because of thy\n will they were, and were created._\u201d Mason, Faith of the Gospel,\n 79\u2014\u201cAll things were present to God\u2019s mind because of his will, and\n then, when it pleased him, had being given to them.\u201d Pfleiderer,\n Grundriss, 36, advocates a realistic idealism. Christianity, he\n says, is not abstract optimism, for it recognizes the evil of the\n actual and regards conflict with it as the task of the world\u2019s\n history; it is not pessimism, for it regards the evil as not\n unconquerable, but regards the good as the end and the power of\n the world.\n\n Jones, Robert Browning, 109, 311\u2014\u201cPantheistic optimism asserts\n that all things _are_ good; Christian optimism asserts that all\n things are _working together_ for good. Reverie in Asolando: \u2018From\n the first Power was\u2014I knew. Life has made clear to me That, strive\n but for closer view, Love were as plain to see.\u2019 Balaustion\u2019s\n Adventure: \u2018Gladness be with thee, Helper of the world! I think\n this is the authentic sign and seal Of Godship, that it ever waxes\n glad, And more glad, until gladness blossoms, bursts Into a rage\n to suffer for mankind And recommence at sorrow.\u2019 Browning\n endeavored to find God in man, and still to leave man free. His\n optimistic faith sought reconciliation with morality. He abhorred\n the doctrine that the evils of the world are due to merely\n arbitrary sovereignty, and this doctrine he has satirized in the\n monologue of Caliban on Setebos: \u2018Loving not, hating not, just\n choosing so.\u2019 Pippa Passes: \u2018God\u2019s in his heaven\u2014All\u2019s right with\n the world.\u2019 But how is this consistent with the guilt of the\n sinner? Browning does not say. He leaves the antinomy unsolved,\n only striving to hold both truths in their fulness. Love demands\n distinction between God and man, yet love unites God and man.\n Saul: \u2018All\u2019s love, but all\u2019s law.\u2019 Carlyle forms a striking\n contrast to Browning. Carlyle was a pessimist. He would renounce\n happiness for duty, and as a means to this end would suppress, not\n idle speech alone, but thought itself. The battle is fought\n moreover in a foreign cause. God\u2019s cause is not ours. Duty is a\n menace, like the duty of a slave. The moral law is not a\n beneficent revelation, reconciling God and man. All is fear, and\n there is no love.\u201d Carlyle took Emerson through the London slums\n at midnight and asked him: \u201cDo you believe in a devil now?\u201d But\n Emerson replied: \u201cI am more and more convinced of the greatness\n and goodness of the English people.\u201d On Browning and Carlyle, see\n A. H. Strong, Great Poets and their Theology, 373-447.\n\n Henry Ward Beecher, when asked whether life was worth living,\n replied that that depended very much upon the liver. Optimism and\n pessimism are largely matters of digestion. President Mark Hopkins\n asked a bright student if he did not believe this the best\n possible system. When the student replied in the negative, the\n President asked him how he could improve upon it. He answered: \u201cI\n would kill off all the bed-bugs, mosquitoes and fleas, and make\n oranges and bananas grow further north.\u201d The lady who was bitten\n by a mosquito asked whether it would be proper to speak of the\n creature as \u201ca depraved little insect.\u201d She was told that this\n would be improper, because depravity always implies a previous\n state of innocence, whereas the mosquito has always been as bad as\n he now is. Dr. Lyman Beecher, however, seems to have held the\n contrary view. When he had captured the mosquito who had bitten\n him, he crushed the insect, saying: \u201cThere! I\u2019ll show you that\n there is a God in Israel!\u201d He identified the mosquito with all the\n corporate evil of the world. Allen, Religious Progress,\n 22\u2014\u201cWordsworth hoped still, although the French Revolution\n depressed him; Macaulay, after reading Ranke\u2019s History of the\n Popes, denied all religious progress.\u201d On Huxley\u2019s account of\n evil, see Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 265 _sq._\n\n Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 1:301, 302\u2014\u201cThe Greeks of Homer\u2019s\n time had a na\u00efve and youthful optimism. But they changed from an\n optimistic to a pessimistic view. This change resulted from their\n increasing contemplation of the moral disorder of the world.\u201d On\n the melancholy of the Greeks, see Butcher, Aspects of Greek\n Genius, 130-165. Butcher holds that the great difference between\n Greeks and Hebrews was that the former had no hope or ideal of\n progress. A. H. Bradford, Age of Faith, 74-102\u2014\u201cThe voluptuous\n poets are pessimistic, because sensual pleasure quickly passes,\n and leaves lassitude and enervation behind. Pessimism is the basis\n of Stoicism also. It is inevitable where there is no faith in God\n and in a future life. The life of a seed underground is not\n inspiring, except in prospect of sun and flowers and fruit.\u201d\n Bradley, Appearance and Reality, xiv, sums up the optimistic view\n as follows: \u201cThe world is the best of all possible worlds, and\n everything in it is a necessary evil.\u201d He should have added that\n pain is the exception in the world, and finite free will is the\n cause of the trouble. Pain is made the means of developing\n character, and, when it has accomplished its purpose, pain will\n pass away.\n\n Jackson, James Martineau, 390\u2014\u201cAll is well, says an American\n preacher, for if there is anything that is not well, it is well\n that it is not well. It is well that falsity and hate are not\n well, that malice and envy and cruelty are not well. What hope for\n the world or what trust in God, if they were well?\u201d _Live_ spells\n _Evil_, only when we read it the wrong way. James Russell Lowell,\n Letters, 2:51\u2014\u201cThe more I learn ... the more my confidence in the\n general good sense and honest intentions of mankind increases....\n The signs of the times cease to alarm me, and seem as natural as\n to a mother the teething of her seventh baby. I take great comfort\n in God. I think that he is considerably amused with us sometimes,\n and that he likes us on the whole, and would not let us get at the\n matchbox so carelessly as he does, unless he knew that the frame\n of his universe was fireproof.\u201d\n\n Compare with all this the hopeless pessimism of Omar Kh\u00e1yy\u00e1m,\n Rub\u00e1iy\u00e1t, stanza 99\u2014\u201cAh Love! could you and I with Him conspire To\n grasp this sorry scheme of things entire, Would not we shatter it\n to bits\u2014and then Remould it nearer to the heart\u2019s desire?\u201d Royce,\n Studies of Good and Evil, 14, in discussing the Problem of Job,\n suggests the following solution: \u201cWhen you suffer, your sufferings\n are God\u2019s sufferings, not his external work, not his external\n penalty, not the fruit of his neglect, but identically his own\n personal woe. In you God himself suffers, precisely as you do, and\n has all your concern in overcoming this grief.\u201d F. H. Johnson,\n What is Reality, 349, 505\u2014\u201cThe Christian ideal is not\n maintainable, if we assume that God could as easily develop his\n creation without conflict.... Happiness is only one of his ends;\n the evolution of moral character is another.\u201d A. E. Waffle, Uses\n of Moral Evil: \u201c(1) It aids development of holy character by\n opposition; (2) affords opportunity for ministering; (3) makes\n known to us some of the chief attributes of God; (4) enhances the\n blessedness of heaven.\u201d\n\n\n4. To Providence and Redemption.\n\n\nChristianity is essentially a scheme of supernatural love and power. It\nconceives of God as above the world, as well as in it,\u2014able to manifest\nhimself, and actually manifesting himself, in ways unknown to mere nature.\n\nBut this absolute sovereignty and transcendence, which are manifested in\nprovidence and redemption, are inseparable from creatorship. If the world\nbe eternal, like God, it must be an efflux from the substance of God and\nmust be absolutely equal with God. Only a proper doctrine of creation can\nsecure God\u2019s absolute distinctness from the world and his sovereignty over\nit.\n\nThe logical alternative of creation is therefore a system of pantheism, in\nwhich God is an impersonal and necessary force. Hence the pantheistic\n_dicta_ of Fichte: \u201cThe assumption of a creation is the fundamental error\nof all false metaphysics and false theology\u201d; of Hegel: \u201cGod evolves the\nworld out of himself, in order to take it back into himself again in the\nSpirit\u201d; and of Strauss: \u201cTrinity and creation, speculatively viewed, are\none and the same,\u2014only the one is viewed absolutely, the other\nempirically.\u201d\n\n\n Sterrett, Studies, 155, 156\u2014\u201cHegel held that it belongs to God\u2019s\n nature to create. Creation is God\u2019s positing an _other_ which is\n not an _other_. The creation is _his_, belongs to his being or\n essence. This involves the finite as his own self-posited object\n and self-revelation. It is necessary for God to create. Love,\n Hegel says, is only another expression of the eternally Triune\n God. Love must create and love _another_. But in loving this\n _other_, God is only loving himself.\u201d We have already, in our\n discussion of the theory of creation from eternity, shown the\n insufficiency of creation to satisfy either the love or the power\n of God. A proper doctrine of the Trinity renders the hypothesis of\n an eternal creation unnecessary and irrational. That hypothesis is\n pantheistic in tendency.\n\n Luthardt, Compendium der Dogmatik, 97\u2014\u201cDualism might be called a\n logical alternative of creation, but for the fact that its notion\n of two gods in self-contradictory, and leads to the lowering of\n the idea of the Godhead, so that the impersonal god of pantheism\n takes its place.\u201d Dorner, System of Doctrine, 2:11\u2014\u201cThe world\n cannot be necessitated in order to satisfy either want or\n over-fulness in God.... The doctrine of absolute creation prevents\n the _confounding_ of God with the world. The declaration that the\n Spirit brooded over the formless elements, and that life was\n developed under the continuous operation of God\u2019s laws and\n presence, prevents the _separation_ of God from the world. Thus\n pantheism and deism are both avoided.\u201d See Kant and Spinoza\n contrasted in Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 1:468, 469. The unusually full\n treatment of the doctrine of creation in this chapter is due to a\n conviction that the doctrine constitutes an antidote to most of\n the false philosophy of our time.\n\n\n5. To the Observance of the Sabbath.\n\n\nWe perceive from this point of view, moreover, the importance and value of\nthe Sabbath, as commemorating God\u2019s act of creation, and thus God\u2019s\npersonality, sovereignty, and transcendence.\n\n(_a_) The Sabbath is of perpetual obligation as God\u2019s appointed memorial\nof his creating activity. The Sabbath requisition antedates the decalogue\nand forms a part of the moral law. Made at the creation, it applies to man\nas man, everywhere and always, in his present state of being.\n\n\n _Gen. 2:3_\u2014\u201c_And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it;\n because that in it he rested from all his work which God had\n created and made._\u201d Our rest is to be a miniature representation\n of God\u2019s rest. As God worked six divine days and rested one divine\n day, so are we in imitation of him to work six human days and to\n rest one human day. In the Old Testament there are indications of\n an observance of the Sabbath day before the Mosaic legislation:\n _Gen. 4:3_\u2014\u201c_And in process of time_ [lit. \u201c_at the end of days_\u201d]\n _it came to pass that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an\n offering unto Jehovah_\u201d; _Gen. 8:10, 12_\u2014Noah twice waited seven\n days before sending forth the dove from the ark; _Gen. 29:27,\n 28_\u2014\u201c_fulfil the week_\u201d; _cf._ _Judges 14:12_\u2014\u201c_the seven days of\n the feast_\u201d; _Ex. 16:5_\u2014double portion of manna promised on the\n sixth day, that none be gathered on the Sabbath (_cf._ _verses 20,\n 30_). This division of days into weeks is best explained by the\n original institution of the Sabbath at man\u2019s creation. Moses in\n the fourth commandment therefore speaks of it as already known and\n observed: _Ex. 20:8_\u2014\u201c_Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy._\u201d\n\n The Sabbath is recognized in Assyrian accounts of the Creation;\n see Trans. Soc. Bib. Arch., 5:427, 428; Schrader, Keilinschriften,\n ed. 1883:18-22. Professor Sayce: \u201cSeven was a sacred number\n descended to the Semites from their Accadian predecessors. Seven\n by seven had the magic knots to be tied by the witch; seven times\n had the body of the sick man to be anointed by the purifying oil.\n As the Sabbath of rest fell on each seventh day of the week, so\n the planets, like the demon-messengers of Anu, were seven in\n number, and the gods of the number seven received a particular\n honor.\u201d But now the discovery of a calendar tablet in Mesopotamia\n shows us the week of seven days and the Sabbath in full sway in\n ancient Babylon long before the days of Moses. In this tablet the\n seventh, the fourteenth, the twenty-first and the twenty-eighth\n days are called Sabbaths, the very word used by Moses, and\n following it are the words: \u201cA day of rest.\u201d The restrictions are\n quite as rigid in this tablet as those in the law of Moses. This\n institution must have gone back to the Accadian period, before the\n days of Abraham. In one of the recent discoveries this day is\n called \u201cthe day of rest for the heart,\u201d but of the gods, on\n account of the propitiation offered on that day, their heart being\n put at rest. See Jastrow, in Am. Jour. Theol., April, 1898.\n\n S. S. Times, Jan. 1892, art. by Dr. Jensen of the University of\n Strassburg on the Biblical and Babylonian Week: \u201c_Subattu_ in\n Babylonia means day of propitiation, implying a religious purpose.\n A week of seven days is implied in the Babylonian Flood-Story, the\n rain continuing six days and ceasing on the seventh, and another\n period of seven days intervening between the cessation of the\n storm and the disembarking of Noah, the dove, swallow and raven\n being sent out again on the seventh day. Sabbaths are called days\n of rest for the heart, days of the completion of labor.\u201d Hutton,\n Essays, 2:229\u2014\u201cBecause there is in God\u2019s mind a spring of eternal\n rest as well as of creative energy, we are enjoined to respect the\n law of rest as well as the law of labor.\u201d We may question, indeed,\n whether this doctrine of God\u2019s rest does not of itself refute the\n theory of eternal, continuous, and necessary creation.\n\n\n(_b_) Neither our Lord nor his apostles abrogated the Sabbath of the\ndecalogue. The new dispensation does away with the Mosaic prescriptions as\nto the method of keeping the Sabbath, but at the same time declares its\nobservance to be of divine origin and to be a necessity of human nature.\n\n\n Not everything in the Mosaic law is abrogated in Christ. Worship\n and reverence, regard for life and purity and property, are\n binding still. Christ did not nail to his cross every commandment\n of the decalogue. Jesus does not defend himself from the charge of\n Sabbath-breaking by saying that the Sabbath is abrogated, but by\n asserting the true idea of the Sabbath as fulfilling a fundamental\n human need. _Mark 2:27_\u2014\u201c_The Sabbath was made_ [by God] _for man,\n and not man for the Sabbath._\u201d The Puritan restrictions are not\n essential to the Sabbath, nor do they correspond even with the\n methods of later Old Testament observance. The Jewish Sabbath was\n more like the New England Thanksgiving than like the New England\n Fast-day. _Nehemiah 8:12, 18_\u2014\u201c_And all the people went their way\n to eat, and to drink, and to send portions, and to make great\n mirth.... And they kept the feast seven days; and on the eighth\n day was a solemn assembly, according unto the ordinance_\u201d\u2014seems to\n include the Sabbath day as a day of gladness.\n\n Origen, in Homily 23 on _Numbers_ (Migne, II:358): \u201cLeaving\n therefore the Jewish observances of the Sabbath, let us see what\n ought to be for a Christian the observance of the Sabbath. On the\n Sabbath day nothing of all the actions of the world ought to be\n done.\u201d Christ walks through the cornfield, heals a paralytic, and\n dines with a Pharisee, all on the Sabbath day. John Milton, in his\n Christian Doctrine, is an extreme anti-sabbatarian, maintaining\n that the decalogue was abolished with the Mosaic law. He thinks it\n uncertain whether \u201cthe Lord\u2019s day\u201d was weekly or annual. The\n observance of the Sabbath, to his mind, is a matter not of\n authority, but of convenience. Archbishop Paley: \u201cIn my opinion\n St. Paul considered the Sabbath a sort of Jewish ritual, and not\n obligatory on Christians. A cessation on that day from labor\n beyond the time of attending public worship is not intimated in\n any part of the New Testament. The notion that Jesus and his\n apostles meant to retain the Jewish Sabbath, only shifting the day\n from the seventh to the first, prevails without sufficient\n reason.\u201d\n\n According to Guizot, Calvin was so pleased with a play to be acted\n in Geneva on Sunday, that he not only attended but deferred his\n sermon so that his congregation might attend. When John Knox\n visited Calvin, he found him playing a game of bowls on Sunday.\n Martin Luther said: \u201cKeep the day holy for its use\u2019s sake, both to\n body and soul. But if anywhere the day is made holy for the mere\n day\u2019s sake, if any one set up its observance on a Jewish\n foundation, then I order you to work on it, to ride on it, to\n dance on it, to do anything that shall reprove this encroachment\n on the Christian spirit and liberty.\u201d But the most liberal and\n even radical writers of our time recognize the economic and\n patriotic uses of the Sabbath. R. W. Emerson said that its\n observance is \u201cthe core of our civilization.\u201d Charles Sumner: \u201cIf\n we would perpetuate our Republic, we must sanctify it as well as\n fortify it, and make it at once a temple and a citadel.\u201d Oliver\n Wendell Holmes: \u201cHe who ordained the Sabbath loved the poor.\u201d In\n Pennsylvania they bring up from the mines every Sunday the mules\n that have been working the whole week in darkness,\u2014otherwise they\n would become blind. So men\u2019s spiritual sight will fail them if\n they do not weekly come up into God\u2019s light.\n\n\n(_c_) The Sabbath law binds us to set apart a seventh portion of our time\nfor rest and worship. It does not enjoin the simultaneous observance by\nall the world of a fixed portion of absolute time, nor is such observance\npossible. Christ\u2019s example and apostolic sanction have transferred the\nSabbath from the seventh day to the first, for the reason that this last\nis the day of Christ\u2019s resurrection, and so the day when God\u2019s spiritual\ncreation became in Christ complete.\n\n\n No exact portion of absolute time can be simultaneously observed\n by men in different longitudes. The day in Berlin begins six hours\n before the day in New York, so that a whole quarter of what is\n Sunday in Berlin is still Saturday in New York. Crossing the 180th\n degree of longitude from West to East we gain a day, and a\n seventh-day Sabbatarian who circumnavigated the globe might thus\n return to his starting point observing the same Sabbath with his\n fellow Christians. A. S. Carman, in the Examiner, Jan. 4, 1894,\n asserts that Heb. 4:5-9 alludes to the change of day from the\n seventh to the first, in the references to \u201c_a Sabbath rest_\u201d that\n \u201c_remaineth_,\u201d and to \u201c_another day_\u201d taking the place of the\n original promised day of rest. Teaching of the Twelve Apostles:\n \u201cOn the Lord\u2019s Day assemble ye together, and give thanks, and\n break bread.\u201d\n\n The change from the seventh day to the first seems to have been\n due to the resurrection of Christ upon \u201c_the first day of the\n week_\u201d (_Mat. 28:1_), to his meeting with the disciples upon that\n day and upon the succeeding Sunday (_John 20:26_), and to the\n pouring out of the Spirit upon the Pentecostal Sunday seven weeks\n after (_Acts 2:1_\u2014see Bap. Quar. Rev., 185:229-232). Thus by\n Christ\u2019s own example and by apostolic sanction the first day\n became \u201c_the Lord\u2019s day_\u201d (_Rev. 1:10_), on which believers met\n regularly each week with their Lord (_Acts 20:7_\u2014\u201c_the first day\n of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread_\u201d) and\n brought together their benevolent contributions (_1 Cor. 16:1,\n 2_\u2014\u201c_Now concerning the collection for the saints ... Upon the\n first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store, as\n he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come_\u201d).\n Eusebius, Com. on _Ps. 92_ (Migne, V:1191, C): \u201cWherefore those\n things [the Levitical regulations] having been already rejected,\n the Logos through the new Covenant transferred and changed the\n festival of the Sabbath to the rising of the sun ... the Lord\u2019s\n day ... holy and spiritual Sabbaths.\u201d\n\n Justin Martyr, First Apology: \u201cOn the day called Sunday all who\n live in city or country gather together in one place, and the\n memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are\n read.... Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common\n assembly, because it is the first day on which God made the world\n and Jesus our Savior on the same day rose from the dead. For he\n was crucified on the day before, that of Saturn (Saturday); and on\n the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun\n (Sunday), having appeared to his apostles and disciples he taught\n them these things which we have submitted to you for your\n consideration.\u201d This seems to intimate that Jesus between his\n resurrection and ascension gave command respecting the observance\n of the first day of the week. He was \u201c_received up_\u201d only after\n \u201c_he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit unto the\n apostles whom he had chosen_\u201d (_Acts 1:2_).\n\n The Christian Sabbath, then, is the day of Christ\u2019s resurrection.\n The Jewish Sabbath commemorated only the beginning of the world;\n the Christian Sabbath commemorates also the new creation of the\n world in Christ, in which God\u2019s work in humanity first becomes\n complete. C. H. M. on _Gen. 2_: \u201cIf I celebrate the seventh day it\n marks me as an earthly man, inasmuch as that day is clearly the\n rest of earth\u2014creation-rest; if I intelligently celebrate the\n first day of the week, I am marked as a heavenly man, believing in\n the new creation in Christ.\u201d (_Gal. 4:10, 11_\u2014\u201c_Ye observe days,\n and months, and seasons, and years. I am afraid of you, least by\n any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain_\u201d; _Col.\n 2:16,17_\u2014\u201c_Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or\n in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day: which\n are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ\u2019s._\u201d)\n See George S. Gray, Eight Studies on the Lord\u2019s Day; Hessey,\n Bampton Lectures on the Sunday; Gilfillan, The Sabbath; Wood,\n Sabbath Essays; Bacon, Sabbath Observance; Hadley, Essays\n Philological and Critical, 325-345; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 3:\n 321-348; Lotz, Qu\u00e6stiones de Historia Sabbati; Maurice, Sermons on\n the Sabbath; Prize Essays on the Sabbath; Crafts, The Sabbath for\n Man; A. E. Waffle, The Lord\u2019s Day; Alvah Hovey, Studies in Ethics\n and Religion, 271-320; Guirey, The Hallowed Day; Gamble, Sunday\n and the Sabbath; Driver, art.: Sabbath, in Hastings\u2019 Bible\n Dictionary; Broadus, Am. Com. on _Mat. 12:3_. For the seventh-day\n view, see T. B. Brown, The Sabbath; J. N. Andrews, History of the\n Sabbath. _Per contra_, see Prof. A. Rauschenbusch, Saturday or\n Sunday?\n\n\n\nSection II.\u2014Preservation.\n\n\nI. Definition of Preservation.\n\n\nPreservation is that continuous agency of God by which he maintains in\nexistence the things he has created, together with the properties and\npowers with which he has endowed them. As the doctrine of creation is our\nattempt to explain the existence of the universe, so the doctrine of\nPreservation is our attempt to explain its continuance.\n\nIn explanation we remark:\n\n(_a_) Preservation is not creation, for preservation presupposes creation.\nThat which is preserved must already exist, and must have come into\nexistence by the creative act of God.\n\n(_b_) Preservation is not a mere negation of action, or a refraining to\ndestroy, on the part of God. It is a positive agency by which, at every\nmoment, he sustains the persons and the forces of the universe.\n\n(_c_) Preservation implies a natural concurrence of God in all operations\nof matter and of mind. Though personal beings exist and God\u2019s will is not\nthe sole force, it is still true that, without his concurrence, no person\nor force can continue to exist or to act.\n\n\n Dorner, System of Doctrine, 2:40-42\u2014\u201cCreation and preservation\n cannot be the same thing, for then man would be only the product\n of natural forces supervised by God,\u2014whereas, man is above nature\n and is inexplicable from nature. Nature is not the whole of the\n universe, but only the preliminary basis of it.... The _rest_ of\n God is not cessation of activity, but is a new exercise of power.\u201d\n Nor is God \u201cthe soul of the universe.\u201d This phrase is pantheistic,\n and implies that God is the only agent.\n\n It is a wonder that physical life continues. The pumping of blood\n through the heart, whether we sleep or wake, requires an\n expenditure of energy far beyond our ordinary estimates. The\n muscle of the heart never rests except between the beats. All the\n blood in the body passes through the heart in each half-minute.\n The grip of the heart is greater than that of the fist. The two\n ventricles of the heart hold on the average ten ounces or\n five-eighths of a pound, and this amount is pumped out at each\n beat. At 72 per minute, this is 45 pounds per minute, 2,700 pounds\n per hour, and 64,800 pounds or 32 and four tenths tons per day.\n Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, 11:554\u2014\u201cThe heart does about one-fifth of\n the whole mechanical work of the body\u2014a work equivalent to raising\n its own weight over 13,000 feet an hour. It takes its rest only in\n short snatches, as it were, its action as a whole being\n continuous. It must necessarily be the earliest sufferer from any\n improvidence as regards nutrition, mental emotion being in this\n respect quite as potential a cause of constitutional bankruptcy as\n the most violent muscular exertion.\u201d\n\n Before the days of the guillotine in France, when the criminal to\n be executed sat in a chair and was decapitated by one blow of the\n sharp sword, an observer declared that the blood spouted up\n several feet into the air. Yet this great force is exerted by the\n heart so noiselessly that we are for the most part unconscious of\n it. The power at work is the power of God, and we call that\n exercise of power by the name of preservation. Crane, Religion of\n To-morrow, 130\u2014\u201cWe do not get bread because God instituted certain\n laws of growing wheat or of baking dough, he leaving these laws to\n run of themselves. But God, personally present in the wheat, makes\n it grow, and in the dough turns it into bread. He does not make\n gravitation or cohesion, but these are phases of his present\n action. Spirit is the reality, matter and law are the modes of its\n expression. So in redemption it is not by the working of some\n perfect plan that God saves. He is the immanent God, and all of\n his benefits are but phases of his person and immediate\n influence.\u201d\n\n\nII. Proof of the Doctrine of Preservation.\n\n\n1. From Scripture.\n\n\nIn a number of Scripture passages, preservation is expressly distinguished\nfrom creation. Though God rested from his work of creation and established\nan order of natural forces, a special and continuous divine activity is\ndeclared to be put forth in the upholding of the universe and its powers.\nThis divine activity, moreover, is declared to be the activity of Christ;\nas he is the mediating agent in creation, so he is the mediating agent in\npreservation.\n\n\n _Nehemiah 9:6_\u2014\u201c_Thou art Jehovah, even thou alone; thou hast made\n heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and\n all things that are thereon, the seas and all that is in them, and\n thou preservest them all_\u201d; _Job 7:20_\u2014\u201c_O thou watcher_ [marg.\n \u201cpreserver\u201d] _of men!_\u201d; _Ps. 36:6_\u2014\u201c_thou preservest man and\n beast_\u201d; _104:29, 30_\u2014\u201c_Thou takest away their breath, they die,\n And return to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are\n created, And thou renewest the face of the ground._\u201d See Perowne\n on _Ps. 104_\u2014\u201cA psalm to the God who is in and with nature for\n good.\u201d Humboldt, Cosmos, 2:413\u2014\u201cPsalm 104 presents an image of the\n whole Cosmos.\u201d _Acts 17:28_\u2014\u201c_in him we live, and move, and have\n our being_\u201d; _Col. 1:17_\u2014\u201c_in him all things consist_\u201d; _Heb. 1:2,\n 3_\u2014\u201c_upholding all things by the word of his power._\u201d _John\n 5:17_\u2014\u201c_My Father worketh even until now, and I work_\u201d\u2014refers most\n naturally to preservation, since creation is a work completed;\n compare _Gen. 2:2_\u2014\u201c_on the seventh day God finished his work\n which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his\n work which he had made._\u201d God is the upholder of physical life;\n see _Ps. 66:8, 9_\u2014\u201c_O bless our God ... who holdeth our soul in\n life._\u201d God is also the upholder of spiritual life; see _1 Tim.\n 6:13_\u2014\u201c_I charge thee in the sight of God who preserveth all\n things alive_\u201d (\u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1)\u2014the great Preserver enables\n us to persist in our Christian course. _Mat. 4:4_\u2014\u201c_Man shall not\n live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the\n mouth of God_\u201d\u2014though originally referring to physical nourishment\n is equally true of spiritual sustentation. In _Ps. 104:26_\u2014\u201c_There\n go the ships,_\u201d Dawson, Mod. Ideas of Evolution, thinks the\n reference is not to man\u2019s works but to God\u2019s, as the parallelism:\n \u201cThere is leviathan\u201d would indicate, and that by \u201cships\u201d are meant\n \u201cfloaters\u201d like the nautilus, which is a \u201clittle ship.\u201d The 104th\n Psalm is a long hymn to the preserving power of God, who keeps\n alive all the creatures of the deep, both small and great.\n\n\n2. From Reason.\n\n\nWe may argue the preserving agency of God from the following\nconsiderations:\n\n(_a_) Matter and mind are not self-existent. Since they have not the cause\nof their being in themselves, their continuance as well as their origin\nmust be due to a superior power.\n\n\n Dorner, Glaubenslehre: \u201cWere the world self-existent, it would be\n God, not world, and no religion would be possible.... The world\n has receptivity for new creations; but these, once introduced, are\n subject, like the rest, to the law of preservation\u201d\u2014_i. e._, are\n dependent for their continued existence upon God.\n\n\n(_b_) Force implies a will of which it is the direct or indirect\nexpression. We know of force only through the exercise of our own wills.\nSince will is the only cause of which we have direct knowledge, second\ncauses in nature may be regarded as only secondary, regular, and automatic\nworkings of the great first Cause.\n\n\n For modern theories identifying force with divine will, see\n Herschel, Popular Lectures on Scientific Subjects, 460; Murphy,\n Scientific Bases, 13-15, 29-36, 42-52; Duke of Argyll, Reign of\n Law, 121-127; Wallace, Natural Selection, 363-371; Bowen,\n Metaphysics and Ethics, 146-162; Martineau, Essays, 1:63, 265, and\n Study, 1:244\u2014\u201cSecond causes in nature bear the same relation to\n the First Cause as the automatic movement of the muscles in\n walking bears to the first decision of the will that initiated the\n walk.\u201d It is often objected that we cannot thus identify force\n with will, because in many cases the effort of our will is\n fruitless for the reason that nervous and muscular force is\n lacking. But this proves only that force cannot be identified with\n human will, not that it cannot be identified with the divine will.\n To the divine will no force is lacking; in God will and force are\n one.\n\n We therefore adopt the view of Maine de Biran, that causation\n pertains only to spirit. Porter, Human Intellect, 582-588, objects\n to this view as follows: \u201cThis implies, first, that the conception\n of a material cause is self-contradictory. But the mind recognizes\n in itself spiritual energies that are not voluntary; because we\n derive our notion of cause from will, it does not follow that the\n causal relation always involves will; it would follow that the\n universe, so far as it is not intelligent, is impossible. It\n implies, secondly, that there is but one agent in the universe,\n and that the phenomena of matter and mind are but manifestations\n of one single force\u2014the Creator\u2019s.\u201d We reply to this reasoning by\n asserting that no dead thing can act, and that what we call\n involuntary spiritual energies are really unconscious or\n unremembered activities of the will.\n\n From our present point of view we would also criticize Hodge,\n Systematic Theology, 1:596\u2014\u201cBecause we get our idea of force from\n mind, it does not follow that mind is the only force. That mind is\n a cause is no proof that electricity may not be a cause. If matter\n is force and nothing but force, then matter is nothing, and the\n external world is simply God. In spite of such argument, men will\n believe that the external world is a reality\u2014that matter is, and\n that it is the cause of the effects we attribute to its agency.\u201d\n New Englander, Sept. 1883:552\u2014\u201cMan in early time used second\n causes, _i. e._, machines, very little to accomplish his purposes.\n His usual mode of action was by the direct use of his hands, or\n his voice, and he naturally ascribed to the gods the same method\n as his own. His own use of second causes has led man to higher\n conceptions of the divine action.\u201d Dorner: \u201cIf the world had no\n independence, it would not reflect God, nor would creation mean\n anything.\u201d But this independence is not absolute. Even man lives,\n moves and has his being in God (_Acts 17:28_), and whatever has\n come into being, whether material or spiritual, has life only in\n Christ (_John 1:3, 4_, marginal reading).\n\n Preservation is God\u2019s continuous willing. Bowne, Introd. to Psych.\n Theory, 305, speaks of \u201ca kind of wholesale willing.\u201d Augustine:\n \u201cDei voluntas est rerum natura.\u201d Principal Fairbairn: \u201cNature is\n spirit.\u201d Tennyson, The Ancient Sage: \u201cForce is from the heights.\u201d\n Lord Gifford, quoted in Max M\u00fcller, Anthropological Religion,\n 392\u2014\u201cThe human soul is neither self-derived nor self-subsisting.\n It would vanish if it had not a substance, and its substance is\n God.\u201d Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 284, 285\u2014\u201cMatter is simply spirit\n in its lowest form of manifestation. The absolute Cause must be\n that deeper Self which we find at the heart of our own\n self-consciousness. By self-differentiation God creates both\n matter and mind.\u201d\n\n\n(_c_) God\u2019s sovereignty requires a belief in his special preserving\nagency; since this sovereignty would not be absolute, if anything occurred\nor existed independent of his will.\n\n\n James Martineau, Seat of Authority, 29, 30\u2014\u201cAll cosmic force is\n will.... This identification of nature with God\u2019s will _would_ be\n pantheistic only _if_ we turned the proposition round and\n identified God with _no more_ than the life of the universe. But\n we do not deny transcendency. Natural forces are God\u2019s will, but\n God\u2019s will _is_ more than they. He is not the equivalent of the\n All, but its directing Mind. God is not the rage of the wild\n beast, nor the sin of man. There are things and beings objective\n to him.... He puts his power into that which is _other than\n himself_, and he parts with _other use of it_ by pre\u00ebngagement to\n an end. Yet he is the continuous source and supply of power to the\n system.\u201d\n\n Natural forces are generic volitions of God. But human wills, with\n their power of alternative, are the product of God\u2019s\n self-limitation, even more than nature is, for human wills do not\n always obey the divine will,\u2014they may even oppose it. Nothing\n finite is only finite. In it is the Infinite, not only as\n immanent, but also as transcendent, and in the case of sin, as\n opposing the sinner and as punishing him. This continuous willing\n of God has its analogy in our own subconscious willing. J. M.\n Whiton, in Am. Jour. Theol., Apl. 1901:320\u2014\u201cOur own will, when we\n walk, does not put forth a separate volition for every step, but\n depends on the automatic action of the lower nerve-centres, which\n it both sets in motion and keeps to their work. So the divine Will\n does not work in innumerable separate acts of volition.\u201d A. R.\n Wallace: \u201cThe whole universe is not merely dependent on, but\n actually _is_, the will of higher intelligences or of one supreme\n intelligence.... Man\u2019s free will is only a larger artery for the\n controlling current of the universal Will, whose time-long\n evolutionary flow constitutes the self-revelation of the Infinite\n One.\u201d This latter statement of Wallace merges the finite will far\n too completely in the will of God. It is true of nature and of all\n holy beings, but it is untrue of the wicked. These are indeed\n upheld by God in their being, but opposed by God in their conduct.\n Preservation leaves room for human freedom, responsibility, sin,\n and guilt.\n\n All natural forces and all personal beings therefore give\n testimony to the will of God which originated them and which\n continually sustains them. The physical universe, indeed, is in no\n sense independent of God, for its forces are only the constant\n willing of God, and its laws are only the habits of God. Only in\n the free will of intelligent beings has God disjoined from himself\n any portion of force and made it capable of contradicting his holy\n will. But even in free agents God does not cease to uphold. The\n being that sins can maintain its existence only through the\n preserving agency of God. The doctrine of preservation therefore\n holds a middle ground between two extremes. It holds that finite\n personal beings have a real existence and a relative independence.\n On the other hand it holds that these persons retain their being\n and their powers only as they are upheld by God.\n\n God is the soul, but not the sum, of things. Christianity holds to\n God\u2019s transcendence as well as to God\u2019s immanence. Immanence alone\n is God imprisoned, as transcendence alone is God banished. Gore,\n Incarnation, 136 _sq._\u2014\u201cChristian theology is the harmony of\n pantheism and deism.\u201d It maintains transcendence, and so has all\n the good of pantheism without its limitations. It maintains\n immanence, and so has all the good of deism without its inability\n to show how God could be blessed without creation. Diman, Theistic\n Argument, 367\u2014\u201cThe dynamical theory of nature as a plastic\n organism, pervaded by a system of forces uniting at last in one\n supreme Force, is altogether more in harmony with the spirit and\n teaching of the Gospel than the mechanical conceptions which\n prevailed a century ago, which insisted on viewing nature as an\n intricate machine, fashioned by a great Artificer who stood wholly\n apart from it.\u201d On the persistency of force, _super cuncta_,\n _subter cuncta_, see Bib. Sac., Jan. 1881:1-24; Cocker, Theistic\n Conception of the World, 172-243, esp. 236. The doctrine of\n preservation therefore holds to a God both in nature and beyond\n nature. According as the one or the other of these elements is\n exclusively regarded, we have the error of Deism, or the error of\n Continuous Creation\u2014theories which we now proceed to consider.\n\n\nIII. Theories which virtually deny the doctrine of Preservation.\n\n\n1. Deism.\n\n\nThis view represents the universe as a self-sustained mechanism, from\nwhich God withdrew as soon as he had created it, and which he left to a\nprocess of self-development. It was held in the seventeenth and eighteenth\ncenturies by the English Herbert, Collins, Tindal, and Bolingbroke.\n\n\n Lord Herbert of Cherbury was one of the first who formed deism\n into a system. His book _De Veritate_ was published in 1624. He\n argues against the probability of God\u2019s revealing his will to only\n a portion of the earth. This he calls \u201cparticular religion.\u201d Yet\n he sought, and according to his own account he received, a\n revelation from heaven to encourage the publication of his work in\n disproof of revelation. He \u201casked for a sign,\u201d and was answered by\n a \u201cloud though gentle noise from the heavens.\u201d He had the vanity\n to think his book of such importance to the cause of truth as to\n extort a declaration of the divine will, when the interests of\n half mankind could not secure any revelation at all; what God\n would not do for a nation, he would do for an individual. See\n Leslie and Leland, Method with the Deists. Deism is the\n exaggeration of the truth of God\u2019s transcendence. See Christlieb,\n Modern Doubt and Christian Belief, 190-209. Melanchthon\n illustrates by the shipbuilder: \u201cUt faber discedit a navi\n exstructa et relinquit eam nautis.\u201d God is the maker, not the\n keeper, of the watch. In Sartor Resartus, Carlyle makes\n Teufelsdr\u00f6ckh speak of \u201cAn absentee God, sitting idle ever since\n the first Sabbath at the outside of the universe, and seeing it\n go.\u201d Blunt, Dict. Doct. and Hist. Theology, art.: Deism.\n\n \u201cDeism emphasized the inviolability of natural law, and held to a\n mechanical view of the world\u201d (Ten Broeke). Its God is a sort of\n Hindu Brahma, \u201cas idle as a painted ship upon a painted\n ocean\u201d\u2014mere being, without content or movement. Bruce,\n Apologetics, 115-131\u2014\u201cGod made the world so good at the first that\n the best he can do is to let it alone. Prayer is inadmissible.\n Deism implies a Pelagian view of human nature. Death redeems us by\n separating us from the body. There is natural immortality, but no\n resurrection. Lord Herbert of Cherbury, the brother of the poet\n George Herbert of Bemerton, represents the rise of Deism; Lord\n Bolingbroke its decline. Blount assailed the divine Person of the\n founder of the faith; Collins its foundation in prophecy; Woolston\n its miraculous attestation; Toland its canonical literature.\n Tindal took more general ground, and sought to show that a special\n revelation was unnecessary, impossible, unverifiable, the religion\n of nature being sufficient and superior to all religions of\n positive institution.\u201d\n\n\nWe object to this view that:\n\n(_a_) It rests upon a false analogy.\u2014Man is able to construct a\nself-moving watch only because he employs pre\u00ebxisting forces, such as\ngravity, elasticity, cohesion. But in a theory which likens the universe\nto a machine, these forces are the very things to be accounted for.\n\n\n Deism regards the universe as a \u201cperpetual motion.\u201d Modern views\n of the dissipation of energy have served to discredit it. Will is\n the only explanation of the forces in nature. But according to\n deism, God builds a house, shuts himself out, locks the door, and\n then ties his own hands in order to make sure of never using the\n key. John Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 114-138\u2014\u201cA made\n mind, a spiritual nature created by an external omnipotence, is an\n impossible and self-contradictory notion.... The human contriver\n or artist deals with materials prepared to his hand. Deism reduces\n God to a finite anthropomorphic personality, as pantheism annuls\n the finite world or absorbs it in the Infinite.\u201d Hence Spinoza,\n the pantheist, was the great antagonist of 16th century deism. See\n Woods, Works, 2:40.\n\n\n(_b_) It is a system of anthropomorphism, while it professes to exclude\nanthropomorphism.\u2014Because the upholding of all things would involve a\nmultiplicity of minute cares if man were the agent, it conceives of the\nupholding of the universe as involving such burdens in the case of God.\nThus it saves the dignity of God by virtually denying his omnipresence,\nomniscience, and omnipotence.\n\n\n The infinity of God turns into sources of delight all that would\n seem care to man. To God\u2019s inexhaustible fulness of life there are\n no burdens involved in the upholding of the universe he has\n created. Since God, moreover, is a perpetual observer, we may\n alter the poet\u2019s verse and say: \u201cThere\u2019s not a flower that\u2019s born\n to blush unseen And waste its sweetness on the desert air.\u201d God\n does not expose his children as soon as they are born. They are\n not only his offspring; they also live, move and have their being\n in him, and are partakers of his divine nature. Gordon, Christ of\n To-day, 200\u2014\u201cThe worst person in all history is something to God,\n if he be nothing to the world.\u201d See Chalmers, Astronomical\n Discourses, in Works, 7:68. Kurtz, The Bible and Astronomy, in\n Introd. to History of Old Covenant, lxxxii-xcviii.\n\n\n(_c_) It cannot be maintained without denying all providential\ninterference, in the history of creation and the subsequent history of the\nworld.\u2014But the introduction of life, the creation of man, incarnation,\nregeneration, the communion of intelligent creatures with a present God,\nand interpositions of God in secular history, are matters of fact.\n\n\n Deism therefore continually tends to atheism. Upton, Hibbert\n Lectures, 287\u2014\u201cThe defect of deism is that, on the human side, it\n treats all men as isolated individuals, forgetful of the immanent\n divine nature which interrelates them and in a measure unifies\n them; and that, on the divine side, it separates men from God and\n makes the relation between them a purely external one.\u201d Ruskin:\n \u201cThe divine mind is as visible in its full energy of operation on\n every lowly bank and mouldering stone as in the lifting of the\n pillars of heaven and settling the foundations of the earth; and\n to the rightly perceiving mind there is the same majesty, the same\n power, the same unity, and the same perfection manifested in the\n casting of the clay as in the scattering of the cloud, in the\n mouldering of dust as in the kindling of the day-star.\u201d See\n Pearson, Infidelity, 87; Hanne, Idee der absoluten Pers\u00f6nlichkeit,\n 76.\n\n\n2. Continuous Creation.\n\n\nThis view regards the universe as from moment to moment the result of a\nnew creation. It was held by the New England theologians Edwards, Hopkins,\nand Emmons, and more recently in Germany by Rothe.\n\n\n Edwards, Works, 2:486-490, quotes and defends Dr. Taylor\u2019s\n utterance: \u201cGod is the original of all being, and the only cause\n of all natural effects.\u201d Edwards himself says: \u201cGod\u2019s upholding\n created substance, or causing its existence in each successive\n moment, is altogether equivalent to an immediate production out of\n nothing at each moment.\u201d He argues that the past existence of a\n thing cannot be the cause of its present existence, because a\n thing cannot act at a time and place where it is not. \u201cThis is\n equivalent to saying that God cannot produce an effect which shall\n last for one moment beyond the direct exercise of his creative\n power. What man can do, God, it seems, cannot\u201d (A. S. Carman).\n Hopkins, Works, 1:164-167\u2014Preservation \u201cis really continued\n creation.\u201d Emmons, Works, 4:363-389, esp. 381\u2014\u201cSince all men are\n dependent agents, all their motions, exercises, or actions must\n originate in a divine efficiency.\u201d 2:683\u2014\u201cThere is but one true\n and satisfactory answer to the question which has been agitated\n for centuries: \u2018Whence came evil?\u2019 and that is: It came from the\n first great Cause of all things.... It is as consistent with the\n moral rectitude of the Deity to produce sinful as holy exercises\n in the minds of men. He puts forth a positive influence to make\n moral agents act, in every instance of their conduct, as he\n pleases.\u201d God therefore creates all the volitions of the soul, as\n he effects by his almighty power all the changes of the material\n world. Rothe also held this view. To his mind external expression\n is necessary to God. His maxim was: \u201cKein Gott ohne Welt\u201d\u2014\u201cThere\n can be no God without an accompanying world.\u201d See Rothe, Dogmatik,\n 1:126-160, esp. 150, and Theol. Ethik, 1:186-190; also in Bib.\n Sac., Jan. 1875:144. See also Lotze, Philos. of Religion, 81-94.\n\n The element of truth in Continuous Creation is its assumption that\n all force is will. Its error is in maintaining that all force is\n _divine_ will, and divine will in _direct_ exercise. But the human\n will is a force as well as the divine will, and the forces of\n nature are secondary and automatic, not primary and immediate,\n workings of God. These remarks may enable us to estimate the grain\n of truth in the following utterances which need important\n qualification and limitation. Bowne, Philosophy of Theism, 202,\n likens the universe to the musical note, which exists only on\n condition of being incessantly reproduced. Herbert Spencer says\n that \u201cideas are like the successive chords and cadences brought\n out from a piano, which successively die away as others are\n produced.\u201d Maudsley, Physiology of Mind, quotes this passage, but\n asks quite pertinently: \u201cWhat about the performer, in the case of\n the piano and in the case of the brain, respectively? Where in the\n brain is the equivalent of the harmonic conceptions in the\n performer\u2019s mind?\u201d Professor Fitzgerald: \u201cAll nature is living\n thought\u2014the language of One in whom we live and move and have our\n being.\u201d Dr. Oliver Lodge, to the British Association in 1891: \u201cThe\n barrier between matter and mind may melt away, as so many others\n have done.\u201d\n\n\nTo this we object, upon the following grounds:\n\n(_a_) It contradicts the testimony of consciousness that regular and\nexecutive activity is not the mere repetition of an initial decision, but\nis an exercise of the will entirely different in kind.\n\n\n Ladd, in his Philosophy of Mind, 144, indicates the error in\n Continuous Creation as follows: \u201cThe whole world of things is\n momently quenched and then replaced by a similar world of actually\n new realities.\u201d The words of the poet would then be literally\n true: \u201cEvery fresh and new creation, A divine improvisation, From\n the heart of God proceeds.\u201d Ovid, Metaph., 1:16\u2014\u201cInstabilis\n tellus, innabilis unda.\u201d Seth, Hegelianism and Personality, 60,\n says that, to Fichte, \u201cthe world was thus perpetually created anew\n in each finite spirit,\u2014revelation to intelligence being the only\n admissible meaning of that much abused term, creation.\u201d A. L.\n Moore, Science and the Faith, 184, 185\u2014\u201cA theory of occasional\n intervention implies, as its correlate, a theory of ordinary\n absence.... For Christians the facts of nature are the acts of\n God. Religion relates these facts to God as their author; science\n relates them to one another as parts of a visible order. Religion\n does not tell of this interrelation; science cannot tell of their\n relation to God.\u201d\n\n Continuous creation is an erroneous theory because it applies to\n human wills a principle which is true only of irrational nature\n and which is only partially true of that. I know that I am not God\n acting. My will is proof that not all force is divine will. Even\n on the monistic view, moreover, we may speak of second causes in\n nature, since God\u2019s regular and habitual action is a second and\n subsequent thing, while his act of initiation and organization is\n the first. Neither the universe nor any part of it is to be\n identified with God, any more than my thoughts and acts are to be\n identified with me. Martineau, in Nineteenth Century, April,\n 1895:559\u2014\u201cWhat is _nature_, but the promise of God\u2019s pledged and\n habitual causality? And what is _spirit_, but the province of his\n free causality responding to needs and affections of his free\n children?... God is not a retired architect who may now and then\n be called in for repairs. Nature is not self-active, and God\u2019s\n agency is not intrusive.\u201d William Watson, Poems, 88\u2014\u201cIf nature be\n a phantasm, as thou say\u2019st, A splendid fiction and prodigious\n dream, To reach the real and true I\u2019ll make no haste, More than\n content with worlds that only seem.\u201d\n\n\n(_b_) It exaggerates God\u2019s power only by sacrificing his truth, love, and\nholiness;\u2014for if finite personalities are not what they seem\u2014namely,\nobjective existences\u2014God\u2019s veracity is impugned; if the human soul has no\nreal freedom and life, God\u2019s love has made no self-communication to\ncreatures; if God\u2019s will is the only force in the universe, God\u2019s holiness\ncan no longer be asserted, for the divine will must in that case be\nregarded as the author of human sin.\n\n\n Upon this view personal identity is inexplicable. Edwards bases\n identity upon the arbitrary decree of God. God can therefore, by\n so decreeing, make Adam\u2019s posterity one with their first father\n and responsible for his sin. Edwards\u2019s theory of continuous\n creation, indeed, was devised as an explanation of the problem of\n original sin. The divinely appointed union of acts and exercises\n with Adam was held sufficient, without union of substance, or\n natural generation from him, to explain our being born corrupt and\n guilty. This view would have been impossible, if Edwards had not\n been an idealist, making far too much of acts and exercises and\n far too little of substance.\n\n It is difficult to explain the origin of Jonathan Edwards\u2019s\n idealism. It has sometimes been attributed to the reading of\n Berkeley. Dr. Samuel Johnson, afterwards President of King\u2019s\n College in New York City, a personal friend of Bishop Berkeley and\n an ardent follower of his teaching, was a tutor in Yale College\n while Edwards was a student. But Edwards was in Weathersfield\n while Johnson remained in New Haven, and was among those\n disaffected towards Johnson as a tutor. Yet Edwards, Original Sin,\n 479, seems to allude to the Berkeleyan philosophy when he says:\n \u201cThe course of nature is demonstrated by recent improvements in\n philosophy to be indeed ... nothing but the established order and\n operation of the Author of nature\u201d (see Allen, Jonathan Edwards,\n 16, 308, 309). President McCracken, in Philos. Rev., Jan.\n 1892:26-42, holds that Arthur Collier\u2019s Clavis Universalis is the\n source of Edwards\u2019s idealism. It is more probable that his\n idealism was the result of his own independent thinking,\n occasioned perhaps by mere hints from Locke, Newton, Cudworth, and\n Norris, with whose writings he certainly was acquainted. See E. C.\n Smyth, in Am. Jour. Theol., Oct. 1897:956; Prof. Gardiner, in\n Philos. Rev., Nov. 1900:573-596.\n\n How thorough-going this idealism of Edwards was may be learned\n from Noah Porter\u2019s Discourse on Bishop George Berkeley, 71, and\n quotations from Edwards, in Journ. Spec. Philos., Oct.\n 1883:401-420\u2014\u201cNothing else has a proper being but spirits, and\n bodies are but the shadow of being.... Seeing the brain exists\n only mentally, I therefore acknowledge that I speak improperly\n when I say that the soul is in the brain only, as to its\n operations. For, to speak yet more strictly and abstractedly, \u2019tis\n nothing but the connection of the soul with these and those modes\n of its own ideas, or those mental acts of the Deity, seeing the\n brain exists only in idea.... That which truly is the substance of\n all bodies is the infinitely exact and precise and perfectly\n stable idea in God\u2019s mind, together with his stable will that the\n same shall be gradually communicated to us and to other minds\n according to certain fixed and established methods and laws; or,\n in somewhat different language, the infinitely exact and precise\n divine idea, together with an answerable, perfectly exact,\n precise, and stable will, with respect to correspondent\n communications to created minds and effects on those minds.\u201d It is\n easy to see how, from this view of Edwards, the \u201cExercise-system\u201d\n of Hopkins and Emmons naturally developed itself. On Edwards\u2019s\n Idealism, see Frazer\u2019s Berkeley (Blackwood\u2019s Philos. Classics),\n 139, 140. On personal identity, see Bp. Butler, Works (Bohn\u2019s\n ed.), 327-334.\n\n\n(_c_) As deism tends to atheism, so the doctrine of continuous creation\ntends to pantheism.\u2014Arguing that, because we get our notion of force from\nthe action of our own wills, therefore all force must be will, and divine\nwill, it is compelled to merge the human will in this all-comprehending\nwill of God. Mind and matter alike become phenomena of one force, which\nhas the attributes of both; and, with the distinct existence and\npersonality of the human soul, we lose the distinct existence and\npersonality of God, as well as the freedom and accountability of man.\n\n\n Lotze tries to escape from _material_ causes and yet hold to\n _second_ causes, by intimating that these second causes may be\n spirits. But though we can see how there can be a sort of spirit\n in the brute and in the vegetable, it is hard to see how what we\n call insensate matter can have spirit in it. It must be a very\n peculiar sort of spirit\u2014a deaf and dumb spirit, if any\u2014and such a\n one does not help our thinking. On this theory the body of a dog\n would need to be much more highly endowed than its soul. James\n Seth, in Philos. Rev., Jan. 1894:73\u2014\u201cThis principle of unity is a\n veritable lion\u2019s den,\u2014all the footprints are in one direction.\n Either it is a bare unity\u2014the One annuls the many; or it is simply\n the All,\u2014the ununified totality of existence.\u201d Dorner well remarks\n that \u201cPreservation is empowering of the creature and maintenance\n of its activity, not new bringing it into being.\u201d On the whole\n subject, see Julius M\u00fcller, Doctrine of Sin, 1:220-225; Philippi,\n Glaubenslehre, 2:258-272; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 50; Hodge, Syst.\n Theol., 1:577-581, 595; Dabney, Theology, 338, 339.\n\n\nIV. Remarks upon the Divine Concurrence.\n\n\n(_a_) The divine efficiency interpenetrates that of man without destroying\nor absorbing it. The influx of God\u2019s sustaining energy is such that men\nretain their natural faculties and powers. God does not work all, but all\nin all.\n\n\n Preservation, then, is midway between the two errors of denying\n the first cause (deism or atheism) and denying the second causes\n (continuous creation or pantheism). _1 Cor. 12:6_\u2014\u201c_there are\n diversities of workings, but the same God, who worketh all things\n in all_\u201d; _cf._ _Eph. 1:23_\u2014the church, \u201c_which is his body, the\n fulness of him that filleth all in all_.\u201d God\u2019s action is no\n _actio in distans_, or action where he is not. It is rather action\n in and through free agents, in the case of intelligent and moral\n beings, while it is his own continuous willing in the case of\n nature. Men are second causes in a sense in which nature is not.\n God works through these human second causes, but he does not\n supersede them. We cannot see the line between the two\u2014the action\n of the first cause and the action of second causes; yet both are\n real, and each is distinct from the other, though the method of\n God\u2019s concurrence is inscrutable. As the pen and the hand together\n produce the writing, so God\u2019s working causes natural powers to\n work with him. The natural growth indicated by the words \u201c_wherein\n is the seed thereof_\u201d (_Gen. 1:11_) has its counterpart in the\n spiritual growth described in the words \u201c_his seed abideth in\n him_\u201d (_1 John 3:9_). Paul considers himself a reproductive agency\n in the hands of God: he begets children in the gospel (_1 Cor.\n 4:15_); yet the New Testament speaks of this begetting as the work\n of God (_1 Pet. 1:3_). We are bidden to work out our own salvation\n with fear and trembling, upon the very ground that it is God who\n works in us both to will and to work (_Phil. 2:12, 13_).\n\n\n(_b_) Though God preserves mind and body in their working, we are ever to\nremember that God concurs with the evil acts of his creatures only as they\nare natural acts, and not as they are evil.\n\n\n In holy action God gives the natural powers, and by his word and\n Spirit influences the soul to use these powers aright. But in evil\n action God gives only the natural powers; the evil direction of\n these powers is caused only by man. _Jer. 44:4_\u2014\u201c_Oh, do not this\n abominable thing that I hate_\u201d; _Hab. 1:13_\u2014\u201c_Thou that art of\n purer eyes than to behold evil, and that canst not look on\n perverseness, wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal\n treacherously, and holdest thy peace when the wicked swalloweth up\n the man that is more righteous than he?_\u201d _James 1:13, 14_\u2014\u201c_Let\n no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot\n be tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man: but each man\n is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed._\u201d\n Aaron excused himself for making an Egyptian idol by saying that\n the fire did it; he asked the people for gold; \u201c_so they gave it\n me; and I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf_\u201d\n (_Ex. 32:24_). Aaron leaves out one important point\u2014his own\n personal agency in it all. In like manner we lay the blame of our\n sins upon nature and upon God. Pym said of Strafford that God had\n given him great talents, of which the devil had given the\n application. But it is more true to say of the wicked man that he\n himself gives the application of his God-given powers. We are\n electric cars for which God furnishes the motive-power, but to\n which we the conductors give the direction. We are organs; the\n wind or breath of the organ is God\u2019s; but the fingering of the\n keys is ours. Since the maker of the organ is also present at\n every moment as its preserver, the shameful abuse of his\n instrument and the dreadful music that is played are a continual\n grief and suffering to his soul. Since it is Christ who upholds\n all things by the word of his power, preservation involves the\n suffering of Christ, and this suffering is his atonement, of which\n the culmination and demonstration are seen in the cross of Calvary\n (_Heb. 1:3_). On the importance of the idea of preservation in\n Christian doctrine, see Calvin, Institutes, 1:182 (chapter 16).\n\n\n\nSection III.\u2014Providence.\n\n\nI. Definition of Providence.\n\n\nProvidence is that continuous agency of God by which he makes all the\nevents of the physical and moral universe fulfill the original design with\nwhich he created it.\n\nAs Creation explains the existence of the universe, and as Preservation\nexplains its continuance, so Providence explains its evolution and\nprogress.\n\nIn explanation notice:\n\n(_a_) Providence is not to be taken merely in its etymological sense of\n_fore_seeing. It is _for_seeing also, or a positive agency in connection\nwith all the events of history.\n\n(_b_) Providence is to be distinguished from preservation. While\npreservation is a maintenance of the existence and powers of created\nthings, providence is an actual care and control of them.\n\n(_c_) Since the original plan of God is all-comprehending, the providence\nwhich executes the plan is all-comprehending also, embracing within its\nscope things small and great, and exercising care over individuals as well\nas over classes.\n\n(_d_) In respect to the good acts of men, providence embraces all those\nnatural influences of birth and surroundings which prepare men for the\noperation of God\u2019s word and Spirit, and which constitute motives to\nobedience.\n\n(_e_) In respect to the evil acts of men, providence is never the\nefficient cause of sin, but is by turns preventive, permissive, directive,\nand determinative.\n\n(_f_) Since Christ is the only revealer of God, and he is the medium of\nevery divine activity, providence is to be regarded as the work of Christ;\nsee 1 Cor. 8:6\u2014\u201cone Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things\u201d;\n_cf._ John 5:17\u2014\u201cMy Father worketh even until now, and I work.\u201d\n\n\n The Germans have the word _F\u00fcrsehung_, forseeing, looking out for,\n as well as the word _Vorsehung_, foreseeing, seeing beforehand.\n Our word \u201cprovidence\u201d embraces the meanings of both these words.\n On the general subject of providence, see Philippi, Glaubenslehre,\n 2:272-284; Calvin, Institutes, 1:182-219; Dick, Theology,\n 1:416-446; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 1:581-616; Bib. Sac., 12:179;\n 21:584; 26:315; 30:593; N. W. Taylor, Moral Government, 2:294-326.\n\n Providence is God\u2019s attention concentrated everywhere. His care is\n microscopic as well as telescopic. Robert Browning, Pippa Passes,\n _ad finem_: \u201cAll service is the same with God\u2014With God, whose\n puppets, best and worst, Are we: there is no last nor first.\u201d\n Canon Farrar: \u201cIn one chapter of the Koran is the story how\n Gabriel, as he waited by the gates of gold, was sent by God to\n earth to do two things. One was to prevent king Solomon from the\n sin of forgetting the hour of prayer in exultation over his royal\n steeds; the other to help a little yellow ant on the slope of\n Ararat, which had grown weary in getting food for its nest, and\n which would otherwise perish in the rain. To Gabriel the one\n behest seemed just as kingly as the other, since God had ordered\n it. \u2018Silently he left The Presence, and prevented the king\u2019s sin,\n And holp the little ant at entering in.\u2019 \u2018Nothing is too high or\n low, Too mean or mighty, if God wills it so.\u2019 \u201d Yet a preacher\n began his sermon on Mat. 10:30\u2014\u201cThe very hairs of your head are\n are all numbered\u201d\u2014by saying: \u201cWhy, some of you, my hearers, do not\n believe that even your heads are all numbered!\u201d\n\n A modern prophet of unbelief in God\u2019s providence is William\n Watson. In his poem entitled The Unknown God, we read: \u201cWhen\n overarched by gorgeous night, I wave my trivial self away; When\n all I was to all men\u2019s sight Shares the erasure of the day: Then\n do I cast my cumbering load, Then do I gain a sense of God.\u201d Then\n he likens the God of the Old Testament to Odin and Zeus, and\n continues: \u201cO streaming worlds, O crowded sky, O life, and mine\n own soul\u2019s abyss, Myself am scarce so small that I Should bow to\n Deity like this! This my Begetter? This was what Man in his\n violent youth begot. The God I know of I shall ne\u2019er Know, though\n he dwells exceeding nigh. Raise thou the stone and find me there.\n Cleave thou the wood and there am I. Yea, in my flesh his Spirit\n doth flow, Too near, too far, for me to know. Whate\u2019er my deeds, I\n am not sure That I can pleasure him or vex: I, that must use a\n speech so poor It narrows the Supreme with sex. Notes he the good\n or ill in man? To hope he cares is all I can. I hope with fear.\n For did I trust This vision granted me at birth, The sire of\n heaven would seem less just Than many a faulty son of earth. And\n so he seems indeed! But then, I trust it not, this bounded ken.\n And dreaming much, I never dare To dream that in my prisoned soul\n The flutter of a trembling prayer Can move the Mind that is the\n Whole. Though kneeling nations watch and yearn, Does the primeval\n Purpose turn? Best by remembering God, say some. We keep our high\n imperial lot. Fortune, I fear, hath oftenest come When we\n forgot\u2014when we forgot! A lovelier faith their happier crown, But\n history laughs and weeps it down: Know they not well how seven\n times seven, Wronging our mighty arms with rust, We dared not do\n the work of heaven, Lest heaven should hurl us in the dust? The\n work of heaven! \u2019Tis waiting still The sanction of the heavenly\n will. Unmeet to be profaned by praise Is he whose coils the world\n enfold; The God on whom I ever gaze, The God I never once behold:\n Above the cloud, above the clod, The unknown God, the unknown\n God.\u201d\n\n In pleasing contrast to William Watson\u2019s Unknown God, is the God\n of Rudyard Kipling\u2019s Recessional: \u201cGod of our fathers, known of\n old\u2014Lord of our far-flung battle-line\u2014Beneath whose awful hand we\n hold Dominion over palm and pine\u2014Lord God of hosts, be with us\n yet, Lest we forget\u2014lest we forget! The tumult and the shouting\n dies\u2014The captains and the kings depart\u2014Still stands thine ancient\n Sacrifice, An humble and a contrite heart. Lord God of hosts, be\n with us yet. Lest we forget\u2014lest we forget! Far-called our navies\n melt away\u2014On dune and headland sinks the fire\u2014So, all our pomp of\n yesterday Is one with Nineveh and Tyre! Judge of the nations,\n spare us yet, Lest we forget\u2014lest we forget! If, drunk with sight\n of power, we loose Wild tongues that have not thee in awe\u2014Such\n boasting as the Gentiles use, Or lesser breeds without the\n Law\u2014Lord God of hosts, be with us yet, Lest we forget\u2014lest we\n forget! For heathen heart that puts her trust In reeking tube and\n iron shard\u2014All valiant dust that builds on dust, And guarding\n calls not thee to guard\u2014For frantic boast and foolish word, Thy\n mercy on thy people, Lord!\u201d\n\n These problems of God\u2019s providential dealings are intelligible\n only when we consider that Christ is the revealer of God, and that\n his suffering for sin opens to us the heart of God. All history is\n the progressive manifestation of Christ\u2019s holiness and love, and\n in the cross we have the key that unlocks the secret of the\n universe. With the cross in view, we can believe that Love rules\n over all, and that \u201c_all things work together for good to them\n that love God._\u201d (_Rom. 8:28_).\n\n\nII. Proof of the Doctrine of Providence.\n\n\n1. Scriptural Proof.\n\n\nThe Scripture witnesses to\n\nA. A general providential government and control (_a_) over the universe\nat large; (_b_) over the physical world; (_c_) over the brute creation;\n(_d_) over the affairs of nations; (_e_) over man\u2019s birth and lot in life;\n(_f_) over the outward successes and failures of men\u2019s lives; (_g_) over\nthings seemingly accidental or insignificant; (_h_) in the protection of\nthe righteous; (_i_) in the supply of the wants of God\u2019s people; (_j_) in\nthe arrangement of answers to prayer; (_k_) in the exposure and punishment\nof the wicked.\n\n\n (_a_) _Ps. 103:19_\u2014\u201c_his kingdom ruleth over all_\u201d; _Dan.\n 4:35_\u2014\u201c_doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and\n among the inhabitants of the earth_\u201d; _Eph. 1:11_\u2014\u201c_worketh all\n things after the counsel of his will._\u201d\n\n (_b_) _Job 37:5, 10_\u2014\u201c_God thundereth ... By the breath of God ice\n is given_\u201d; _Ps. 104:14_\u2014\u201c_causeth the grass to grow for the\n cattle_\u201d; _135:6, 7_\u2014\u201c_Whatsoever Jehovah pleased, that hath he\n done, In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps ...\n vapors ... lightnings ... wind_\u201d; _Mat. 5:45_\u2014\u201c_maketh his sun to\n rise ... sendeth rain_\u201d; _Ps. 104:16_\u2014\u201c_The trees of Jehovah are\n filled_\u201d\u2014are planted and tended by God as carefully as those which\n come under human cultivation; _cf._ _Mat. 6:30_\u2014\u201c_if God so clothe\n the grass of the field._\u201d\n\n (_c_) _Ps. 104:21, 28_\u2014\u201c_young lions roar ... seek their food from\n God ... that thou givest them they gather_\u201d; _Mat. 6:26_\u2014\u201c_birds\n of the heaven ... your heavenly Father feedeth them_\u201d;\n _10:29_\u2014\u201c_two sparrows ... not one of them shall fall on the\n ground without your Father._\u201d\n\n (_d_) _Job 12:23_\u2014\u201c_He increaseth the nations, and he destroyeth\n them: He enlargeth the nations, and he leadeth them captive_\u201d;\n _Ps. 22:28_\u2014\u201c_the kingdom is Jehovah\u2019s; And he is the ruler over\n the nations_\u201d; _66:7_\u2014\u201c_He ruleth by his might for ever; His eyes\n observe the nations_\u201d; _Acts 17:26_\u2014\u201c_made of one every nation of\n men to dwell on all the face of the earth, having determined their\n appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation_\u201d (instance\n Palestine, Greece, England).\n\n (_e_) _1 Sam. 16:1_\u2014\u201c_fill thy horn with oil, and go: I will send\n thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite; for I have provided me a king\n among his sons_\u201d; _Ps. 139:16_\u2014\u201c_Thine eyes did see mine unformed\n substance, And in thy book were all my members written_\u201d; _Is.\n 45:5_\u2014\u201c_I will gird thee, though thou hast not known me_\u201d; _Jer.\n 1:5_\u2014\u201c_Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee ...\n sanctified thee ... appointed thee_\u201d; _Gal. 1:15, 16_\u2014\u201c_God, who\n separated me, even from my mother\u2019s womb, and called me through\n his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among\n the Gentiles._\u201d\n\n (_f_) _Ps. 75:6, 7_\u2014\u201c_neither from the east, nor from the west,\n Nor yet from the south cometh lifting up. But God is the judge, He\n putteth down one, and lifteth up another_\u201d; _Luke 1:52_\u2014\u201c_He hath\n put down princes from their thrones, And hath exalted them of low\n degree._\u201d\n\n (_g_) _Prov. 16:33_\u2014\u201c_The lot is cast into the lap; But the whole\n disposing thereof is of Jehovah_\u201d; _Mat. 10:30_\u2014\u201c_the very hairs\n of your head are all numbered._\u201d\n\n (_h_) _Ps. 4:8_\u2014\u201c_In peace will I both lay me down and sleep; For\n thou, Jehovah, alone makest me dwell in safety_\u201d; _5:12_\u2014\u201c_thou\n wilt compass him with favor as with a shield_\u201d; _63:8_\u2014\u201c_Thy right\n hand upholdeth me_\u201d; _121:3_\u2014\u201c_He that keepeth thee will not\n slumber_\u201d; _Rom. 8:28_\u2014\u201c_to them that love God all things work\n together for good._\u201d\n\n (_i_) _Gen. 22:8, 14_\u2014\u201c_God will provide himself the lamb ...\n Jehovah-jireh_\u201d (marg.: that is, \u201cJehovah will see,\u201d or\n \u201cprovide\u201d); _Deut. 8:3_\u2014\u201c_man doth not live by bread only, but by\n every thing that proceedeth out of the mouth of Jehovah doth man\n live_\u201d; _Phil. 4:19_\u2014\u201c_my God shall supply every need of yours._\u201d\n\n (_j_) _Ps. 68:10_\u2014\u201c_Thou, O God, didst prepare of thy goodness for\n the poor_\u201d; _Is. 64:4_\u2014\u201c_neither hath the eye seen a God besides\n thee, who worketh for him that waiteth for him_\u201d; _Mat.\n 6:8_\u2014\u201c_your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye\n ask him_\u201d; _32, 33_\u2014\u201c_all these things shall be added unto you._\u201d\n\n (_k_) _Ps. 7:12, 13_\u2014\u201c_If a man turn not, he will whet his sword;\n He hath bent his bow and made it ready; He hath also prepared for\n him the instruments of death; He maketh his arrows fiery shafts_\u201d;\n _11:6_\u2014\u201c_Upon the wicked he will rain snares; Fire and brimstone\n and burning wind shall be the portion of their cup._\u201d\n\n\nThe statements of Scripture with regard to God\u2019s providence are strikingly\nconfirmed by recent studies in physiography. In the early stages of human\ndevelopment man was almost wholly subject to nature, and environment was a\ndetermining factor in his progress. This is the element of truth in\nBuckle\u2019s view. But Buckle ignored the fact that, as civilization advanced,\nideas, at least at times, played a greater part than environment.\nThermopyl\u00e6 cannot be explained by climate. In the later stages of human\ndevelopment, nature is largely subject to man, and environment counts for\ncomparatively little. \u201cThere shall be no Alps!\u201d says Napoleon. Charles\nKingsley: \u201cThe spirit of ancient tragedy was man conquered by\ncircumstance; the spirit of modern tragedy is man conquering\ncircumstance.\u201d Yet many national characteristics can be attributed to\nphysical surroundings, and so far as this is the case they are due to the\nordering of God\u2019s providence. Man\u2019s need of fresh water leads him to\nrivers,\u2014hence the original location of London. Commerce requires\nseaports,\u2014hence New York. The need of defense leads man to bluffs and\nhills,\u2014hence Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, Edinburgh. These places of defense\nbecame also places of worship and of appeal to God.\n\nGoldwin Smith, in his Lectures and Essays, maintains that national\ncharacteristics are not congenital, but are the result of environment. The\ngreatness of Rome and the greatness of England have been due to position.\nThe Romans owed their successes to being at first less warlike than their\nneighbors. They were traders in the centre of the Italian seacoast, and\nhad to depend on discipline to make headway against marauders on the\nsurrounding hills. Only when drawn into foreign conquest did the\nascendency of the military spirit become complete, and then the military\nspirit brought despotism as its natural penalty. Brought into contact with\nvaried races, Rome was led to the founding of colonies. She adopted and\nassimilated the nations which she conquered, and in governing them learned\norganization and law. _Parcere subjectis_ was her rule, as well as\n_debellare superbos_. In a similiar manner Goldwin Smith maintains that\nthe greatness of England is due to position. Britain being an island, only\na bold and enterprising race could settle it. Maritime migration\nstrengthened freedom. Insular position gave freedom from invasion.\nIsolation however gave rise to arrogance and self-assertion. The island\nbecame a natural centre of commerce. There is a steadiness of political\nprogress which would have been impossible upon the continent. Yet\nconsolidation was tardy, owing to the fact that Great Britain consists of\n_several_ islands. Scotland was always liberal, and Ireland foredoomed to\nsubjection.\n\nIsaac Taylor, Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, has a valuable chapter on Palestine\nas the providential theatre of divine revelation. A little land, yet a\nsample-land of all lands, and a thoroughfare between the greatest lands of\nantiquity, it was fitted by God to receive and to communicate his truth.\nGeorge Adam Smith\u2019s Historical Geography of the Holy Land is a repertory\nof information on this subject. Stanley, Life and Letters, 1:269-271,\ntreats of Greek landscape and history. Shaler, Interpretation of Nature,\nsees such difference between Greek curiosity and search for causes on the\none hand, and Roman indifference to scientific explanation of facts on the\nother, that he cannot think of the Greeks and the Romans as cognate\npeoples. He believes that Italy was first peopled by Etrurians, a Semitic\nrace from Africa, and that from them the Romans descended. The Romans had\nas little of the spirit of the naturalist as had the Hebrews. The Jews and\nthe Romans originated and propagated Christianity, but they had no\ninterest in science.\n\nOn God\u2019s pre-arrangement of the physical conditions of national life,\nstriking suggestions may be found in Shaler, Nature and Man in America.\nInstance the settlement of Massachusetts Bay between 1629 and 1639, the\nonly decade in which such men as John Winthrop could be found and the only\none in which they actually emigrated from England. After 1639 there was\ntoo much to do at home, and with Charles II the spirit which animated the\nPilgrims no longer existed in England. The colonists builded better than\nthey knew, for though they sought a place to worship God themselves, they\nhad no idea of giving this same religious liberty to others. R. E.\nThompson, The Hand of God in American History, holds that the American\nRepublic would long since have broken in pieces by its own weight and\nbulk, if the invention of steam-boat in 1807, railroad locomotive in 1829,\ntelegraph in 1837, and telephone in 1877, had not bound the remote parts\nof the country together. A woman invented the reaper by combining the\naction of a row of scissors in cutting. This was as early as 1835. Only in\n1855 the competition on the Emperor\u2019s farm at Compi\u00e8gne gave supremacy to\nthe reaper. Without it farming would have been impossible during our civil\nwar, when our men were in the field and women and boys had to gather in\nthe crops.\n\nB. A government and control extending to the free actions of men\u2014(_a_) to\nmen\u2019s free acts in general; (_b_) to the sinful acts of men also.\n\n\n (a) _Ex. 12:36_\u2014\u201c_Jehovah gave the people favor in the sight of\n the Egyptians, so that they let them have what they asked. And\n they despoiled the Egyptians_\u201d; _1 Sam. 24:18_\u2014\u201c_Jehovah had\n delivered me up into thy hand_\u201d (Saul to David); _Ps. 33:14,\n 15_\u2014\u201c_He looketh forth Upon all the inhabitants of the earth, He\n that fashioneth the hearts of them all_\u201d (_i. e._, equally, one as\n well as another); _Prov. 16:1_\u2014\u201c_The plans of the heart belong to\n man; But the answer of the tongue is from Jehovah_\u201d;\n _19:21_\u2014\u201c_There are many devices in a man\u2019s heart; But the counsel\n of Jehovah, __ that shall stand_\u201d; _20:24_\u2014\u201c_A man\u2019s goings are of\n Jehovah; How then can man understand his way?_\u201d _21:1_\u2014\u201c_The\n king\u2019s heart is in the hand of Jehovah as the watercourses: He\n turneth it whithersoever he will_\u201d (_i. e._, as easily as the\n rivulets of the eastern fields are turned by the slightest motion\n of the hand or the foot of the husbandman); _Jer. 10:23_\u2014\u201c_O\n Jehovah, I know that the way of man is not in himself; it is not\n in man that walketh to direct his steps_\u201d; _Phil. 2:13_\u2014\u201c_it is\n God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good\n pleasure_\u201d; _Eph. 2:10_\u2014\u201c_we are his workmanship, created in\n Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we\n should walk in them_\u201d; _James 4:13-15_\u2014\u201c_If the Lord will, we\n shall both live, and do this or that._\u201d\n\n (_b_) _2 Sam. 16:10_\u2014\u201c_because Jehovah hath said unto him_\n [Shimei]: _Curse David_\u201d; _24:1_\u2014\u201c_the anger of Jehovah was\n kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying,\n Go, number Israel and Judah_\u201d; _Rom. 11:32_\u2014\u201c_God hath shut up all\n unto disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all_\u201d; _2 Thess.\n 2:11, 12_\u2014\u201c_God sendeth them a working of error, that they should\n believe a lie: that they all might be judged who believed not the\n truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness._\u201d\n\n Henry Ward Beecher: \u201cThere seems to be no order in the movements\n of the bees of a hive, but the honey-comb shows that there was a\n plan in them all.\u201d John Hunter compared his own brain to a hive in\n which there was a great deal of buzzing and apparent disorder,\n while yet a real order underlay it all. \u201cAs bees gather their\n stores of sweets against a time of need, but are colonized by\n man\u2019s superior intelligence for his own purposes, so men plan and\n work yet are overruled by infinite Wisdom for his own glory.\u201d Dr.\n Deems: \u201cThe world is wide In Time and Tide, And God is guide: Then\n do not hurry. That man is blest Who does his best And leaves the\n rest: Then do not worry.\u201d See Bruce, Providential Order, 183\n _sq._; Providence in the Individual Life, 231 _sq._\n\n\nGod\u2019s providence with respect to men\u2019s evil acts is described in Scripture\nas of four sorts:\n\n(_a_) Preventive,\u2014God by his providence prevents sin which would otherwise\nbe committed. That he thus prevents sin is to be regarded as matter, not\nof obligation, but of grace.\n\n\n _Gen. 20:6_\u2014Of Abimelech: \u201c_I also withheld thee from sinning\n against me_\u201d; _31:24_\u2014\u201c_And God came to Laban the Syrian in a\n dream of the night, and said unto him, Take heed to thyself that\n thou speak not to Jacob either good or bad_\u201d; _Psalm 19:13_\u2014\u201c_Keep\n back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; Let them not have\n dominion over me_\u201d; _Hosea 2:6_\u2014\u201c_Behold, I will hedge up thy way\n with thorns, and I will build a wall against her, that she shall\n not find her paths_\u201d\u2014here the \u201c_thorns_\u201d and the \u201c_wall_\u201d may\n represent the restraints and sufferings by which God mercifully\n checks the fatal pursuit of sin (see Annotated Par. Bible _in\n loco_). Parents, government, church, traditions, customs, laws,\n age, disease, death, are all of them preventive influences. Man\n sometimes finds himself on the brink of a precipice of sin, and\n strong temptation hurries him on to make the fatal leap. Suddenly\n every nerve relaxes, all desire for the evil thing is gone, and he\n recoils from the fearful brink over which he was just now going to\n plunge. God has interfered by the voice of conscience and the\n Spirit. This too is a part of his preventive providence. Men at\n sixty years of age are eight times less likely to commit crime\n than at the age of twenty-five. Passion has subsided; fear of\n punishment has increased. The manager of a great department store,\n when asked what could prevent its absorbing all the trade of the\n city, replied: \u201cDeath!\u201d Death certainly limits aggregations of\n property, and so constitutes a means of God\u2019s preventive\n providence. In the life of John G. Paton, the rain sent by God\n prevented the natives from murdering him and taking his goods.\n\n\n(_b_) Permissive,\u2014God permits men to cherish and to manifest the evil\ndispositions of their hearts. God\u2019s permissive providence is simply the\nnegative act of withholding impediments from the path of the sinner,\ninstead of preventing his sin by the exercise of divine power. It implies\nno ignorance, passivity, or indulgence, but consists with hatred of the\nsin and determination to punish it.\n\n\n _2 Chron. 32:31_\u2014\u201c_God left him_ [Hezekiah], _to try him, that he\n might know all that was in his heart_\u201d; _cf._ _Deut. 8:2_\u2014\u201c_that\n he might humble thee, to prove thee, to know what was in thine\n heart._\u201d _Ps. 17:13, 14_\u2014\u201c_Deliver my soul from the wicked, who is\n thy sword, from men who are thy hand, O Jehovah_\u201d; _Ps. 81:12,\n 13_\u2014\u201c_So I let them go after the stubbornness of their heart, That\n they might walk in their own counsels. Oh that my people would\n hearken unto me!_\u201d _Is. 53:4, 10_\u2014\u201c_Surely he hath borne our\n griefs.... Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him._\u201d _Hosea\n 4:17_\u2014\u201c_Ephraim __ Ephraim is joined to idols; let him alone_\u201d;\n _Acts 14:16_\u2014\u201c_who in the generations gone by suffered all the\n nations to walk in their own ways_\u201d; _Rom. 1:24, 28_\u2014\u201c_God gave\n them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness... God gave\n them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not\n fitting_\u201d; _3:25_\u2014\u201c_to show his righteousness, because of the\n passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of\n God._\u201d To this head of permissive providence is possibly to be\n referred _1 Sam. 18:10_\u2014\u201c_an evil spirit from God came mightily\n upon Saul._\u201d As the Hebrew writers saw in second causes the\n operation of the great first Cause, and said: \u201c_The God of glory\n thundereth_\u201d (_Ps. 29:3_), so, because even the acts of the wicked\n entered into God\u2019s plan, the Hebrew writers sometimes represented\n God as doing what he merely permitted finite spirits to do. In _2\n Sam. 24:1_, God moves David to number Israel, but in _1 Chron.\n 21:1_ the same thing is referred to Satan. God\u2019s providence in\n these cases, however, may be directive as well as permissive.\n\n Tennyson, The Higher Pantheism: \u201cGod is law, say the wise; O Soul,\n and let us rejoice, For if he thunder by law the thunder is yet\n his voice.\u201d Fisher, Nature and Method of Revelation, 56\u2014\u201cThe clear\n separation of God\u2019s efficiency from God\u2019s permissive act was\n reserved to a later day. All emphasis was in the Old Testament\n laid upon the sovereign power of God.\u201d Coleridge, in his\n Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit, letter II, speaks of \u201cthe\n habit, universal with the Hebrew doctors, of referring all\n excellent or extraordinary things to the great first Cause,\n without mention of the proximate and instrumental causes\u2014a\n striking illustration of which may be found by comparing the\n narratives of the same events in the Psalms and in the historical\n books.... The distinction between the providential and the\n miraculous did not enter into their forms of thinking\u2014at any rate,\n not into their mode of conveying their thoughts.\u201d The woman who\n had been slandered rebelled when told that God had permitted it\n for her good; she maintained that Satan had inspired her accuser;\n she needed to learn that God had permitted the work of Satan.\n\n\n(_c_) Directive,\u2014God directs the evil acts of men to ends unforeseen and\nunintended by the agents. When evil is in the heart and will certainly\ncome out, God orders its flow in one direction rather than in another, so\nthat its course can be best controlled and least harm may result. This is\nsometimes called overruling providence.\n\n\n _Gen. 50:20_\u2014\u201c_as for you, ye meant evil against me; but God meant\n it for good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much\n people alive_\u201d; _Ps. 76:10_\u2014\u201c_the wrath of man shall praise thee:\n The residue of wrath shalt thou gird upon thee_\u201d\u2014put on as an\n ornament\u2014clothe thyself with it for thine own glory; _Is.\n 10:5_\u2014\u201c_Ho Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in whose\n hand is mine indignation_\u201d; _John 13:27_\u2014\u201c_What thou doest, do\n quickly_\u201d\u2014do in a particular way what is actually being done\n (Westcott, Bib. Com., _in loco_); _Acts 4:27, 28_\u2014\u201c_against thy\n holy Servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius\n Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, were gathered\n together, to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel fore-ordained\n to come to pass._\u201d\n\n To this head of directive providence should probably be referred\n the passages with regard to Pharaoh in _Ex. 4:21_\u2014\u201c_I will harden\n his heart, and he will not let the people go_\u201d; _7:13_\u2014\u201c_and\n Pharaoh\u2019s heart was hardened_\u201d; _8:15_\u2014\u201c_he hardened his\n heart_\u201d\u2014_i. e._, Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Here the\n controlling agency of God did not interfere with the liberty of\n Pharaoh or oblige him to sin; but in judgment for his previous\n cruelty and impiety God withdrew the external restraints which had\n hitherto kept his sin within bounds, and placed him in\n circumstances which would have influenced to right action a\n well-disposed mind, but which God foresaw would lead a disposition\n like Pharaoh\u2019s to the peculiar course of wickedness which he\n actually pursued.\n\n God hardened Pharaoh\u2019s heart, then, first, by permitting him to\n harden his own heart, God being the author of his sin only in the\n sense that he is the author of a free being who is himself the\n direct author of his sin; secondly, by giving to him the means of\n enlightenment, Pharaoh\u2019s very opportunities being perverted by him\n into occasions of more virulent wickedness, and good resisted\n being thus made to result in greater evil; thirdly, by judicially\n forsaking Pharaoh, when it became manifest that he would not do\n God\u2019s will, and thus making it morally certain, though not\n necessary, that he would do evil; and fourthly, by so directing\n Pharaoh\u2019s surroundings that his sin would manifest itself in one\n way rather than in another. Sin is like the lava of the volcano,\n which will certainly come out, but which God directs in its course\n down the mountain-side so that it will do least harm. The\n gravitation downward is due to man\u2019s evil will; the direction to\n this side or to that is due to God\u2019s providence. See _Rom. 9:17,\n 18_\u2014\u201c_For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show\n in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in\n all the earth. So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he\n will he hardeneth._\u201d Thus the very passions which excite men to\n rebel against God are made completely subservient to his purposes:\n see Annotated Paragraph Bible, on _Ps. 76:10_.\n\n God hardens Pharaoh\u2019s heart only after all the earlier plagues\n have been sent. Pharaoh had hardened his own heart before. God\n hardens no man\u2019s heart who has not first hardened it himself.\n Crane, Religion of To-morrow, 140\u2014\u201cJehovah is never said to harden\n the heart of a good man, or of one who is set to do righteousness.\n It is always those who are bent on evil whom God hardens. Pharaoh\n hardens his own heart before the Lord is said to harden it. Nature\n is God, and it is the nature of human beings to harden when they\n resist softening influences.\u201d The Watchman, Dec. 5, 1901:11\u2014\u201cGod\n decreed to Pharaoh what Pharaoh had chosen for himself.\n Persistence in certain inclinations and volitions awakens within\n the body and soul forces which are not under the control of the\n will, and which drive the man on in the way he has chosen. After a\n time nature hardens the hearts of men to do evil.\u201d\n\n\n(_d_) Determinative,\u2014God determines the bounds reached by the evil\npassions of his creatures, and the measure of their effects. Since moral\nevil is a germ capable of indefinite expansion, God\u2019s determining the\nmeasure of its growth does not alter its character or involve God\u2019s\ncomplicity with the perverse wills which cherish it.\n\n_Job 1:12_\u2014\u201c_And Jehovah said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in\nthy power; only upon himself put not forth thy hand_\u201d; _2:6_\u2014\u201c_Behold, he\nis in thy hand; only spare his life_\u201d; _Ps. 124:2_\u2014\u201c_If it had not been\nJehovah who was on our side, when men rose up against us; Then had they\nswallowed us up alive_\u201d; _1 Cor. 10:13_\u2014\u201c_will not suffer you to be\ntempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation make also the\nway of escape, that ye may be able to endure it_\u201d; _2 Thess. 2:7_\u2014\u201c_For\nthe mystery of lawlessness doth already work; only there is one that\nrestraineth now, until he be taken out of the way_\u201d; _Rev. 20:2, 3_\u2014\u201c_And\nhe laid hold on the dragon, the old serpent, which is the Devil and Satan,\nand bound him for a thousand years._\u201d\n\nPepper, Outlines of Syst. Theol., 76\u2014The union of God\u2019s will and man\u2019s\nwill is \u201csuch that, while in one view all can be ascribed to God, in\nanother all can be ascribed to the creature. But how God and the creature\nare united in operation is doubtless known and knowable only to God. A\nvery dim analogy is furnished in the union of the soul and body in men.\nThe hand retains its own physical laws, yet is obedient to the human will.\nThis theory recognizes the veracity of consciousness in its witness to\npersonal freedom, and yet the completeness of God\u2019s control of both the\nbad and the good. Free beings are ruled, but are ruled as free and in\ntheir freedom. The freedom is not sacrificed to the control. The two\nco\u00ebxist, each in its integrity. Any doctrine which does not allow this is\nfalse to Scripture and destructive of religion.\u201d\n\n\n2. Rational proof.\n\n\nA. Arguments _a priori_ from the divine attributes. (_a_) From the\nimmutability of God. This makes it certain that he will execute his\neternal plan of the universe and its history. But the execution of this\nplan involves not only creation and preservation, but also providence.\n(_b_) From the benevolence of God. This renders it certain that he will\ncare for the intelligent universe he has created. What it was worth his\nwhile to create, it is worth his while to care for. But this care is\nprovidence. (_c_) From the justice of God. As the source of moral law, God\nmust assure the vindication of law by administering justice in the\nuniverse and punishing the rebellious. But this administration of justice\nis providence.\n\n\n For heathen ideas of providence, see Cicero, De Natura Deorum,\n 11:30, where Balbus speaks of the existence of the gods as that,\n \u201cquo concesso, confitendum est eorum consilio mundum\n administrari.\u201d Epictetus, sec. 41\u2014\u201cThe principal and most\n important duty in religion is to possess your mind with just and\n becoming notions of the gods\u2014to believe that there are such\n supreme beings, and that they govern and dispose of all the\n affairs of the world with a just and good providence.\u201d Marcus\n Antoninus: \u201cIf there are no gods, or if they have no regard for\n human affairs, why should I desire to live in a world without gods\n and without a providence? But gods undoubtedly there are, and they\n regard human affairs.\u201d See also Bib. Sac., 16:374. As we shall\n see, however, many of the heathen writers believed in a general,\n rather than in a particular, providence.\n\n On the argument for providence derived from God\u2019s benevolence, see\n Appleton, Works, 1:146\u2014\u201cIs indolence more consistent with God\u2019s\n majesty than action would be? The happiness of creatures is a\n good. Does it honor God to say that he is indifferent to that\n which he knows to be good and valuable? Even if the world had come\n into existence without his agency, it would become God\u2019s moral\n character to pay some attention to creatures so numerous and so\n susceptible to pleasure and pain, especially when he might have so\n great and favorable an influence on their moral condition.\u201d _John\n 5:17_\u2014\u201c_My Father worketh even until now, and I work_\u201d\u2014is as\n applicable to providence as to preservation.\n\n The complexity of God\u2019s providential arrangements may be\n illustrated by Tyndall\u2019s explanation of the fact that heartsease\n does not grow in the neighborhood of English villages: 1. In\n English villages dogs run loose. 2. Where dogs run loose, cats\n must stay at home. 3. Where cats stay at home, field mice abound.\n 4. Where field mice abound, the nests of bumble-bees are\n destroyed. 5. Where bumble-bees\u2019 nests are destroyed, there is no\n fertilization of pollen. Therefore, where dogs go loose, no\n heartsease grows.\n\n\nB. Arguments _a posteriori_ from the facts of nature and of history. (_a_)\nThe outward lot of individuals and nations is not wholly in their own\nhands, but is in many acknowledged respects subject to the disposal of a\nhigher power. (_b_) The observed moral order of the world, although\nimperfect, cannot be accounted for without recognition of a divine\nprovidence. Vice is discouraged and virtue rewarded, in ways which are\nbeyond the power of mere nature. There must be a governing mind and will,\nand this mind and will must be the mind and will of God.\n\n\n The birthplace of individuals and of nations, the natural powers\n with which they are endowed, the opportunities and immunities they\n enjoy, are beyond their own control. A man\u2019s destiny for time and\n for eternity may be practically decided for him by his birth in a\n Christian home, rather than in a tenement-house at the Five\n Points, or in a kraal of the Hottentots. Progress largely depends\n upon \u201cvariety of environment\u201d (H. Spencer). But this variety of\n environment is in great part independent of our own efforts.\n\n \u201cThere\u2019s a Divinity that shapes our ends, Rough hew them how we\n will.\u201d Shakespeare here expounds human consciousness. \u201cMan\n proposes and God disposes\u201d has become a proverb. Experience\n teaches that success and failure are not wholly due to us. Men\n often labor and lose; they consult and nothing ensues; they\n \u201cembattle and are broken.\u201d Providence is not always on the side of\n the heaviest battalions. Not arms but ideas have decided the fate\n of the world\u2014as Xerxes found at Thermopyl\u00e6, and Napoleon at\n Waterloo. Great movements are generally begun without\n consciousness of their greatness. _Cf._ _Is. 42:16_\u2014\u201c_I will bring\n the blind by a way that they know not_\u201d; _1 Cor. 5:37, 38_\u2014\u201c_thou\n sowest ... a bare grain ... but God giveth it a body even as it\n pleased him._\u201d\n\n The deed returns to the doer, and character shapes destiny. This\n is true in the long run. Eternity will show the truth of the\n maxim. But here in time a sufficient number of apparent exceptions\n are permitted to render possible a moral probation. If evil were\n always immediately followed by penalty, righteousness would have a\n compelling power upon the will and the highest virtue would be\n impossible. Job\u2019s friends accuse Job of acting upon this\n principle. The Hebrew children deny its truth, when they say:\n \u201c_But if not_\u201d\u2014even if God does not deliver us\u2014\u201c_we will not serve\n thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up_\u201d\n (_Dan. 3:18._)\n\n Martineau, Seat of Authority, 298\u2014\u201cThrough some misdirection or\n infirmity, most of the larger agencies in history have failed to\n reach their own ideal, yet have accomplished revolutions greater\n and more beneficent; the conquests of Alexander, the empire of\n Rome, the Crusades, the ecclesiastical persecutions, the monastic\n asceticisms, the missionary zeal of Christendom, have all played a\n momentous part in the drama of the world, yet a part which is a\n surprise to each. All this shows the controlling presence of a\n Reason and a Will transcendent and divine.\u201d Kidd, Social\n Evolution, 99, declares that the progress of the race has taken\n place only under conditions which have had no sanction from the\n reason of the great proportion of the individuals who submit to\n them. He concludes that a rational religion is a scientific\n impossibility, and that the function of religion is to provide a\n super-rational sanction for social progress. We prefer to say that\n Providence pushes the race forward even against its will.\n\n James Russell Lowell, Letters, 2:51, suggests that God\u2019s calm\n control of the forces of the universe, both physical and mental,\n should give us confidence when evil seems impending: \u201cHow many\n times have I seen the fire-engines of church and state clanging\n and lumbering along to put out\u2014a false alarm! And when the heavens\n are cloudy, what a glare can be cast by a burning shanty!\u201d See\n Sermon on Providence in Political Revolutions, in Farrar\u2019s Science\n and Theology, 228. On the moral order of the world,\n notwithstanding its imperfections, see Butler, Analogy, Bohn\u2019s\n ed., 98; King, in Baptist Review, 1884:202-222.\n\n\nIII. Theories opposing the Doctrine of Providence.\n\n\n1. Fatalism.\n\n\nFatalism maintains the certainty, but denies the freedom, of human\nself-determination,\u2014thus substituting fate for providence.\n\nTo this view we object that (_a_) it contradicts consciousness, which\ntestifies that we are free; (_b_) it exalts the divine power at the\nexpense of God\u2019s truth, wisdom, holiness, love; (_c_) it destroys all\nevidence of the personality and freedom of God; (_d_) it practically makes\nnecessity the only God, and leaves the imperatives of our moral nature\nwithout present validity or future vindication.\n\n\n The Mohammedans have frequently been called fatalists, and the\n practical effect of the teachings of the Koran upon the masses is\n to make them so. The ordinary Mohammedan will have no physician or\n medicine, because everything happens as God has before appointed.\n Smith, however, in his Mohammed and Mohammedanism, denies that\n fatalism is essential to the system. _Islam_ = \u201csubmission,\u201d and\n the participle _Moslem_ = \u201csubmitted,\u201d _i. e._, to God. Turkish\n proverb: \u201cA man cannot escape what is written on his forehead.\u201d\n The Mohammedan thinks of God\u2019s dominant attribute as being\n greatness rather than righteousness, power rather than purity. God\n is the personification of arbitrary will, not the God and Father\n of our Lord Jesus Christ. But there is in the system an absence of\n sacerdotalism, a jealousy for the honor of God, a brotherhood of\n believers, a reverence for what is considered the word of God, and\n a bold and habitual devotion of its adherents to their faith.\n\n Stanley, Life and Letters, 1:489, refers to the Mussulman\n tradition existing in Egypt that the fate of Islam requires that\n it should at last be superseded by Christianity. F. W. Sanders\n denies that the Koran is peculiarly _sensual_. \u201cThe Christian and\n Jewish religions,\u201d he says, \u201chave their paradise also. The Koran\n makes this the reward, but not the ideal, of conduct; \u2018Grace from\n thy Lord\u2014that is the grand bliss.\u2019 The emphasis of the Koran is\n upon right living. The Koran does not teach the propagation of\n religion by _force_. It declares that there shall be no compulsion\n in religion. The practice of converting by the sword is to be\n distinguished from the teaching of Mohammed, just as the\n Inquisition and the slave-trade in Christendom do not prove that\n Jesus taught them. The Koran did not institute _polygamy_. It\n found unlimited polygamy, divorce, and infanticide. The last it\n prohibited; the two former it restricted and ameliorated, just as\n Moses found polygamy, but brought it within bounds. The Koran is\n not hostile to _secular learning_. Learning flourished under the\n Bagdad and Spanish Caliphates. When Moslems oppose learning, they\n do so without authority from the Koran. The Roman Catholic church\n has opposed schools, but we do not attribute this to the gospel.\u201d\n See Zwemer, Moslem Doctrine of God.\n\n Calvinists can assert freedom, since man\u2019s will finds its highest\n freedom only in submission to God. Islam also cultivates\n submission, but it is the submission not of love but of fear. The\n essential difference between Mohammedanism and Christianity is\n found in the revelation which the latter gives of the love of God\n in Christ\u2014a revelation which secures from free moral agents the\n submission of love; see page 186. On fatalism, see McCosh,\n Intuitions, 266; Kant, Metaphysic of Ethics, 52-74, 98-108; Mill,\n Autobiography, 168-170, and System of Logic, 521-526; Hamilton,\n Metaphysics, 692; Stewart, Active and Moral Powers of Man, ed.\n Walker, 268-324.\n\n\n2. Casualism.\n\n\nCasualism transfers the freedom of mind to nature, as fatalism transfers\nthe fixity of nature to mind. It thus exchanges providence for chance.\nUpon this view we remark:\n\n(_a_) If chance be only another name for human ignorance, a name for the\nfact that there are trivial occurrences in life which have no meaning or\nrelation to us,\u2014we may acknowledge this, and still hold that providence\narranges every so-called chance, for purposes beyond our knowledge.\nChance, in this sense, is providential coincidence which we cannot\nunderstand, and do not need to trouble ourselves about.\n\n\n Not all chances are of equal importance. The casual meeting of a\n stranger in the street need not bring God\u2019s providence before me,\n although I know that God arranges it. Yet I can conceive of that\n meeting as leading to religious conversation and to the stranger\u2019s\n conversion. When we are prepared for them, we shall see many\n opportunities which are now as unmeaning to us as the gold in the\n river-beds was to the early Indians in California. I should be an\n ingrate, if I escaped a lightning-stroke, and did not thank God;\n yet Dr. Arnold\u2019s saying that every school boy should put on his\n hat for God\u2019s glory, and with a high moral purpose, seems morbid.\n There is a certain room for the play of arbitrariness. We must not\n afflict ourselves or the church of God by requiring a Pharisaic\n punctiliousness in minuti\u00e6. Life is too short to debate the\n question which shoe we shall put on first. \u201cLove God and do what\n you will,\u201d said Augustine; that is, Love God, and act out that\n love in a simple and natural way. Be free in your service, yet be\n always on the watch for indications of God\u2019s will.\n\n\n(_b_) If chance be taken in the sense of utter absence of all causal\nconnections in the phenomena of matter and mind,\u2014we oppose to this notion\nthe fact that the causal judgment is formed in accordance with a\nfundamental and necessary law of human thought, and that no science or\nknowledge is possible without the assumption of its validity.\n\n\n In _Luke 10:31_, our Savior says: \u201c_By chance a certain priest was\n going down that way_.\u201d Janet: \u201cChance is not a cause, but a\n coincidence of causes.\u201d Bowne, Theory of Thought and Knowledge,\n 197\u2014\u201cBy chance is not meant lack of causation, but the coincidence\n in an event of mutually independent series of causation. Thus the\n unpurposed meeting of two persons is spoken of as a chance one,\n when the movement of neither implies that of the other. Here the\n antithesis of chance is purpose.\u201d\n\n\n(_c_) If chance be used in the sense of undesigning cause,\u2014it is evidently\ninsufficient to explain the regular and uniform sequences of nature, or\nthe moral progress of the human race. These things argue a superintending\nand designing mind\u2014in other words, a providence. Since reason demands not\nonly a cause, but a sufficient cause, for the order of the physical and\nmoral world, casualism must be ruled out.\n\n\n The observer at the signal station was asked what was the climate\n of Rochester. \u201cClimate?\u201d he replied; \u201cRochester has no\n climate,\u2014only weather!\u201d So Chauncey Wright spoke of the ups and\n downs of human affairs as simply \u201ccosmical weather.\u201d But our\n intuition of design compels us to see mind and purpose in\n individual and national history, as well as in the physical\n universe. The same argument which proves the existence of God\n proves also the existence of a providence. See Farrar, Life of\n Christ, 1:155, note.\n\n\n3. Theory of a merely general providence.\n\n\nMany who acknowledge God\u2019s control over the movements of planets and the\ndestinies of nations deny any divine arrangement of particular events.\nMost of the arguments against deism are equally valid against the theory\nof a merely general providence. This view is indeed only a form of deism,\nwhich holds that God has not wholly withdrawn himself from the universe,\nbut that his activity within it is limited to the maintenance of general\nlaws.\n\n\n This appears to have been the view of most of the heathen\n philosophers. Cicero: \u201cMagna dii curant; parva negligunt.\u201d \u201cEven\n in kingdoms among men,\u201d he says, \u201ckings do not trouble themselves\n with insignificant affairs.\u201d Fullerton, Conceptions of the\n Infinite, 9\u2014\u201cPlutarch thought there could not be an infinity of\n worlds,\u2014Providence could not possibly take charge of so many.\n \u2018Troublesome and boundless infinity\u2019 could be grasped by no\n consciousness.\u201d The ancient Cretans made an image of Jove without\n ears, for they said: \u201cIt is a shame to believe that God would hear\n the talk of men.\u201d So Jerome, the church Father, thought it absurd\n that God should know just how many gnats and cockroaches there\n were in the world. David Harum is wiser when he expresses the\n belief that there is nothing wholly bad or useless in the world:\n \u201cA reasonable amount of fleas is good for a dog,\u2014they keep him\n from broodin\u2019 on bein\u2019 a dog.\u201d This has been paraphrased: \u201cA\n reasonable number of beaux are good for a girl,\u2014they keep her from\n brooding over her being a girl.\u201d\n\n\nIn addition to the arguments above alluded to, we may urge against this\ntheory that:\n\n(_a_) General control over the course of nature and of history is\nimpossible without control over the smallest particulars which affect the\ncourse of nature and of history. Incidents so slight as well-nigh to\nescape observation at the time of their occurrence are frequently found to\ndetermine the whole future of a human life, and through that life the\nfortunes of a whole empire and of a whole age.\n\n\n \u201cNothing great has great beginnings.\u201d \u201cTake care of the pence, and\n the pounds will take care of themselves.\u201d \u201cCare for the chain is\n care for the links of the chain.\u201d Instances in point are the\n sleeplessness of King Ahasuerus (_Esther 6:1_), and the seeming\n chance that led to the reading of the record of Mordecai\u2019s service\n and to the salvation of the Jews in Persia; the spider\u2019s web spun\n across the entrance to the cave in which Mohammed had taken\n refuge, which so deceived his pursuers that they passed on In a\n bootless chase, leaving to the world the religion and the empire\n of the Moslems; the preaching of Peter the Hermit, which\n occasioned the first Crusade; the chance shot of an archer, which\n pierced the right eye of Harold, the last of the purely English\n kings, gained the battle of Hastings for William the Conqueror,\n and secured the throne of England for the Normans; the flight of\n pigeons to the south-west, which changed the course of Columbus,\n hitherto directed towards Virginia, to the West Indies, and so\n prevented the dominion of Spain over North America; the storm that\n dispersed the Spanish Armada and saved England from the Papacy,\n and the storm that dispersed the French fleet gathered for the\n conquest of New England\u2014the latter on a day of fasting and prayer\n appointed by the Puritans to avert the calamity; the settling of\n New England by the Puritans, rather than by French Jesuits; the\n order of Council restraining Cromwell and his friends from sailing\n to America; Major Andr\u00e9\u2019s lack of self-possession in presence of\n his captors, which led him to ask an improper question instead of\n showing his passport, and which saved the American cause; the\n unusually early commencement of cold weather, which frustrated the\n plans of Napoleon and destroyed his army in Russia; the fatal shot\n at Fort Sumter, which precipitated the war of secession and\n resulted in the abolition of American slavery. Nature is linked to\n history; the breeze warps the course of the bullet; the worm\n perforates the plank of the ship. God must care for the least, or\n he cannot care for the greatest.\n\n \u201cLarge doors swing on small hinges.\u201d The barking of a dog\n determined F. W. Robertson to be a preacher rather than a soldier.\n Robert Browning, Mr. Sludge the Medium: \u201cWe find great things are\n made of little things, And little things go lessening till at last\n Comes God behind them.\u201d E. G. Robinson: \u201cWe cannot suppose only a\n general outline to have been in the mind of God, while the\n filling-up is left to be done in some other way. The general\n includes the special.\u201d Dr. Lloyd, one of the Oxford Professors,\n said to Pusey, \u201cI wish you would learn something about those\n German critics.\u201d \u201cIn the obedient spirit of those times,\u201d writes\n Pusey, \u201cI set myself at once to learn German, and I went to\n G\u00f6ttingen, to study at once the language and the theology. My life\n turned on that hint of Dr. Lloyd\u2019s.\u201d\n\n Goldwin Smith: \u201cHad a bullet entered the brain of Cromwell or of\n William III in his first battle, or had Gustavus not fallen at\n L\u00fctzen, the course of history apparently would have been changed.\n The course even of science would have been changed, if there had\n not been a Newton and a Darwin.\u201d The annexation of Corsica to\n France gave to France a Napoleon, and to Europe a conqueror.\n Martineau, Seat of Authority, 101\u2014\u201cHad the monastery at Erfurt\n deputed another than young Luther on its errand to paganized Rome,\n or had Leo X sent a less scandalous agent than Tetzel on his\n business to Germany, the seeds of the Reformation might have\n fallen by the wayside where they had no deepness of earth, and the\n Western revolt of the human mind might have taken another date and\n another form.\u201d See Appleton, Works, 1:149 _sq._; Lecky, England in\n the Eighteenth Century, chap. I.\n\n\n(_b_) The love of God which prompts a general care for the universe must\nalso prompt a particular care for the smallest events which affect the\nhappiness of his creatures. It belongs to love to regard nothing as\ntrifling or beneath its notice which has to do with the interests of the\nobject of its affection. Infinite love may therefore be expected to\nprovide for all, even the minutest things in the creation. Without belief\nin this particular care, men cannot long believe in God\u2019s general care.\nFaith in a particular providence is indispensable to the very existence of\npractical religion; for men will not worship or recognize a God who has no\ndirect relation to them.\n\n\n Man\u2019s care for his own body involves care for the least important\n members of it. A lover\u2019s devotion is known by his interest in the\n minutest concerns of his beloved. So all our affairs are matters\n of interest to God. Pope\u2019s Essay on Man: \u201cAll nature is but art\n unknown to thee; All chance, direction which thou canst not see;\n All discord, harmony not understood; All partial evil, universal\n good.\u201d If harvests may be labored for and lost without any agency\n of God; if rain or sun may act like fate, sweeping away the\n results of years, and God have no hand in it all; if wind and\n storm may wreck the ship and drown our dearest friends, and God\n not care for us or for our loss, then all possibility of general\n trust in God will disappear also.\n\n God\u2019s care is shown in the least things as well as in the\n greatest. In Gethsemane Christ says: \u201c_Let these go their way:\n that the word might be fulfilled which he spake, Of those whom\n thou hast given me I lost not one_\u201d (_John 18:8, 9_). It is the\n same spirit as that of his intercessory prayer: \u201c_I guarded them,\n and not one of them perished, but the son of perdition_\u201d (_John\n 17:12_). Christ gives himself as a prisoner that his disciples may\n go free, even as he redeems us from the curse of the law by being\n made a curse for us (_Gal. 3:13_). The dewdrop is moulded by the\n same law that rounds the planets into spheres. Gen. Grant said he\n had never but once sought a place for himself, and in that place\n he was a comparative failure; he had been an instrument in God\u2019s\n hand for the accomplishing of God\u2019s purposes, apart from any plan\n or thought or hope of his own.\n\n Of his journey through the dark continent in search of David\n Livingston, Henry M. Stanley wrote in Scribner\u2019s Monthly for June,\n 1890: \u201cConstrained at the darkest hour humbly to confess that\n without God\u2019s help I was helpless, I vowed a vow in the forest\n solitudes that I would confess his aid before men. Silence as of\n death was around me; it was midnight; I was weakened by illness,\n prostrated with fatigue, and wan with anxiety for my white and\n black companions, whose fate was a mystery. In this physical and\n mental distress I besought God to give me back my people. Nine\n hours later we were exulting with a rapturous joy. In full view of\n all was the crimson flag with the crescent, and beneath its waving\n folds was the long-lost rear column.... My own designs were\n frustrated constantly by unhappy circumstances. I endeavored to\n steer my course as direct as possible, but there was an\n unaccountable influence at the helm.... I have been conscious that\n the issues of every effort were in other hands.... Divinity seems\n to have hedged us while we journeyed, impelling us whither it\n would, effecting its own will, but constantly guiding and\n protecting us.\u201d He refuses to believe that it is all the result of\n \u201cluck\u201d, and he closes with a doxology which we should expect from\n Livingston but not from him: \u201cThanks be to God, forever and ever!\u201d\n\n\n(_c_) In times of personal danger, and in remarkable conjunctures of\npublic affairs, men instinctively attribute to God a control of the events\nwhich take place around them. The prayers which such startling emergencies\nforce from men\u2019s lips are proof that God is present and active in human\naffairs. This testimony of our mental constitution must be regarded as\nvirtually the testimony of him who framed this constitution.\n\n\n No advance of science can rid us of this conviction, since it\n comes from a deeper source than mere reasoning. The intuition of\n design is awakened by the connection of events in our daily life,\n as much as by the useful adaptations which we see in nature. _Ps.\n 107:23-28_\u2014\u201c_They that go down to the sea in ships ... mount up to\n the heavens, they go down again to the depths ... And are at their\n wits\u2019 end. Then they cry unto Jehovah in their trouble._\u201d A narrow\n escape from death shows us a present God and Deliverer. Instance\n the general feeling throughout the land, expressed by the press as\n well as by the pulpit, at the breaking out of our rebellion and at\n the President\u2019s subsequent Proclamation of Emancipation.\n\n \u201cEst deus in nobis; agitante calescimus illo.\u201d For contrast\n between Nansen\u2019s ignoring of God in his polar journey and Dr.\n Jacob Chamberlain\u2019s calling upon God in his strait in India, see\n Missionary Review, May, 1898. Sunday School Times, March 4,\n 1893\u2014\u201cBenjamin Franklin became a deist at the age of fifteen.\n Before the Revolutionary War he was merely a shrewd and pushing\n business man. He had public spirit, and he made one happy\n discovery in science. But \u2018Poor Richard\u2019s\u2019 sayings express his\n mind at that time. The perils and anxieties of the great war gave\n him a deeper insight. He and others entered upon it \u2018with a rope\n around their necks.\u2019 As he told the Constitutional Convention of\n 1787, when he proposed that its daily sessions be opened with\n prayer, the experiences of that war showed him that \u2018God verily\n rules in the affairs of men.\u2019 And when the designs for an American\n coinage were under discussion, Franklin proposed to stamp on them,\n not \u2018A Penny Saved is a Penny Earned,\u2019 or any other piece of\n worldly prudence, but \u2018The Fear of the Lord is the Beginning of\n Wisdom.\u2019 \u201d\n\n\n(_d_) Christian experience confirms the declarations of Scripture that\nparticular events are brought about by God with special reference to the\ngood or ill of the individual. Such events occur at times in such direct\nconnection with the Christian\u2019s prayers that no doubt remains with regard\nto the providential arrangement of them. The possibility of such divine\nagency in natural events cannot be questioned by one who, like the\nChristian, has had experience of the greater wonders of regeneration and\ndaily intercourse with God, and who believes in the reality of creation,\nincarnation, and miracles.\n\n\n Providence prepares the way for men\u2019s conversion, sometimes by\n their own partial reformation, sometimes by the sudden death of\n others near them. Instance Luther and Judson. The Christian learns\n that the same Providence that led him before his conversion is\n busy after his conversion in directing his steps and in supplying\n his wants. Daniel Defoe: \u201cI have been fed more by miracle than\n Elijah when the angels were his purveyors.\u201d In _Psalm 32_, David\n celebrates not only God\u2019s pardoning mercy but his subsequent\n providential leading: \u201c_I will counsel thee with mine eye upon\n thee_\u201d (_verse 8_). It may be objected that we often mistake the\n meaning of events. We answer that, as in nature, so in providence,\n we are compelled to believe, not that we _know_ the design, but\n that there _is_ a design. Instance Shelley\u2019s drowning, and Jacob\n Knapp\u2019s prayer that his opponent might be stricken dumb. Lyman\n Beecher\u2019s attributing the burning of the Unitarian church to God\u2019s\n judgment upon false doctrine was invalidated a little later by the\n burning of his own church.\n\n _Job 23:10_\u2014\u201c_He knoweth the way that is mine,_\u201d or \u201c_the way that\n is with me,_\u201d _i. e._, my inmost way, life, character; \u201c_When he\n hath tried me, I shall come forth as gold._\u201d _1 Cor. 19:4_\u2014\u201c_and\n the rock was Christ_\u201d\u2014Christ was the ever present source of their\n refreshment and life, both physical and spiritual. God\u2019s\n providence is all exercised through Christ. _2 Cor. 2:14_\u2014\u201c_But\n thanks be unto God, who always leadeth us in triumph in Christ_\u201d;\n not, as in A. V., \u201c_causeth us to triumph_.\u201d Paul glories, not in\n conquering, but in being conquered. Let Christ triumph, not Paul.\n \u201cGreat King of grace, my heart subdue; I would be led in triumph\n too. A willing captive to my Lord, To own the conquests of his\n word.\u201d Therefore Paul can call himself \u201c_the prisoner of Christ\n Jesus_\u201d (_Eph. 3:1_). It was Christ who had shut him up two years\n in C\u00e6sarea, and then two succeeding years in Rome.\n\n\nIV. Relations of the Doctrine of Providence.\n\n\n1. To miracles and works of grace.\n\n\nParticular providence is the agency of God in what seem to us the minor\naffairs of nature and human life. Special providence is only an instance\nof God\u2019s particular providence which has special relation to us or makes\npeculiar impression upon us. It is special, not as respects the means\nwhich God makes use of, but as respects the effect produced upon us. In\nspecial providence we have only a more impressive manifestation of God\u2019s\nuniversal control.\n\nMiracles and works of grace like regeneration are not to be regarded as\nbelonging to a different order of things from God\u2019s special providences.\nThey too, like special providences, may have their natural connections and\nantecedents, although they more readily suggest their divine authorship.\nNature and God are not mutually exclusive,\u2014nature is rather God\u2019s method\nof working. Since nature is only the manifestation of God, special\nprovidence, miracle, and regeneration are simply different degrees of\nextraordinary nature. Certain of the wonders of Scripture, such as the\ndestruction of Sennacherib\u2019s army and the dividing of the Red Sea, the\nplagues of Egypt, the flight of quails, and the draught of fishes, can be\ncounted as exaggerations of natural forces, while at the same time they\nare operations of the wonder-working God.\n\n\n The falling of snow from a roof is an example of ordinary (or\n particular) providence. But if a man is killed by it, it becomes a\n special providence to him and to others who are thereby taught the\n insecurity of life. So the providing of coal for fuel in the\n geologic ages may be regarded by different persons in the light\n either of a general or of a special providence. In all the\n operations of nature and all the events of life God\u2019s providence\n is exhibited. That providence becomes special, when it manifestly\n suggests some care of God for us or some duty of ours to God.\n Savage, Life beyond Death, 285\u2014\u201cMary A. Livermore\u2019s life was saved\n during her travels in the West by her hearing and instantly\n obeying what seemed to her a voice. She did not know where it came\n from; but she leaped, as the voice ordered, from one side of a car\n to the other, and instantly the side where she had been sitting\n was crushed in and utterly demolished.\u201d In a similar way, the life\n of Dr. Oncken was saved in the railroad disaster at Norwalk.\n\n Trench gives the name of \u201cprovidential miracles\u201d to those\n Scripture wonders which may be explained as wrought through the\n agency of natural laws (see Trench, Miracles, 19). Mozley also\n (Miracles, 117-120) calls these wonders miracles, because of the\n predictive word of God which accompanied them. He says that the\n difference in effect between miracles and special providences is\n that the latter give _some_ warrant, while the former give _full_\n warrant, for believing that they are wrought by God. He calls\n special providences \u201cinvisible miracles.\u201d Bp. of Southampton,\n Place of Miracles, 12, 13\u2014\u201cThe art of Bezaleel in constructing the\n tabernacle, and the plans of generals like Moses and Joshua,\n Gideon, Barak, and David, are in the Old Testament ascribed to the\n direct inspiration of God. A less religious writer would have\n ascribed them to the instinct of military skill. No miracle is\n necessarily involved, when, in devising the system of ceremonial\n law it is said: _\u2018__Jehovah spake unto Moses__\u2019__ (Num. 5:1)_. God\n is everywhere present in the history of Israel, but miracles are\n strikingly rare.\u201d We prefer to say that the line between the\n natural and the supernatural, between special providence and\n miracle, is an arbitrary one, and that the same event may often be\n regarded either as special providence or as miracle, according as\n we look at it from the point of view of its relation to other\n events or from the point of view of its relation to God.\n\n E. G. Robinson: \u201cIf Vesuvius should send up ashes and lava, and a\n strong wind should scatter them, it could be said to rain fire and\n brimstone, as at Sodom and Gomorrha.\u201d There is abundant evident of\n volcanic action at the Dead Sea. See article on the Physical\n Preparation for Israel in Palestine, by G. Frederick Wright, in\n Bib. Sac., April, 1901:364. The three great miracles\u2014the\n destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha, the parting of the waters of\n the Jordan, the falling down of the walls of Jericho\u2014are described\n as effect of volcanic eruption, elevation of the bed of the river\n by a landslide, and earthquake-shock overthrowing the walls. Salt\n slime thrown up may have enveloped Lot\u2019s wife and turned her into\n \u201c_a mound of salt_\u201d (_Gen. 19:26_). In like manner, some of Jesus\u2019\n works of healing, as for instance those wrought upon paralytics\n and epileptics, may be susceptible of natural explanation, while\n yet they show that Christ is absolute Lord of nature. For the\n naturalistic view, see Tyndall on Miracles and Special\n Providences, in Fragments of Science, 45, 418. _Per contra_, see\n Farrar, on Divine Providence and General Laws, in Science and\n Theology, 54-80; Row, Bampton Lect. on Christian Evidences,\n 109-115; Godet, Defence of Christian Faith, Chap. 2; Bowne, The\n Immanence of God, 56-65.\n\n\n2. To prayer and its answer.\n\n\nWhat has been said with regard to God\u2019s connection with nature suggests\nthe question, how God can answer prayer consistently with the fixity of\nnatural law.\n\n\n Tyndall (see reference above), while repelling the charge of\n denying that God can answer prayer at all, yet does deny that he\n can answer it without a miracle. He says expressly \u201cthat without a\n disturbance of natural law quite as serious as the stoppage of an\n eclipse, or the rolling of the St. Lawrence up the falls of\n Niagara, no act of humiliation, individual or national, could call\n one shower from heaven or deflect toward us a single beam of the\n sun.\u201d In reply we would remark:\n\n\nA. Negatively, that the true solution is not to be reached:\n\n(_a_) By making the sole effect of prayer to be its reflex influence upon\nthe petitioner.\u2014Prayer presupposes a God who hears and answers. It will\nnot be offered, unless it is believed to accomplish objective as well as\nsubjective results.\n\n\n According to the first view mentioned above, prayer is a mere\n spiritual gymnastics\u2014an effort to lift ourselves from the ground\n by tugging at our own boot-straps. David Hume said well, after\n hearing a sermon by Dr. Leechman: \u201cWe can make use of no\n expression or even thought in prayers and entreaties which does\n not imply that these prayers have an influence.\u201d See Tyndall on\n Prayer and Natural Law, in Fragments of Science, 35. Will men pray\n to a God who is both deaf and dumb? Will the sailor on the\n bowsprit whistle to the wind for the sake of improving his voice?\n Horace Bushnell called this perversion of prayer a \u201cmere dumb-bell\n exercise.\u201d Baron Munchausen pulled himself out of the bog in China\n by tugging away at his own pigtail.\n\n Hyde, God\u2019s Education of Man, 154, 155\u2014\u201cPrayer is not the reflex\n action of my will upon itself, but rather the communion of two\n wills, in which the finite comes into connection with the\n Infinite, and, like the trolley, appropriates its purpose and\n power.\u201d Harnack, Wesen des Christenthums, 42, apparently follows\n Schleiermacher in unduly limiting prayer to general petitions\n which receive only a subjective answer. He tells us that \u201cJesus\n taught his disciples the Lord\u2019s Prayer in response to a request\n for directions how to pray. Yet we look in vain therein for\n requests for special gifts of grace, or for particular good\n things, even though they are spiritual. The name, the will, the\n kingdom of God\u2014these are the things which are the objects of\n petition.\u201d Harnack forgets that the same Christ said also: \u201c_All\n things whatsoever ye pray and ask for, believe that ye receive\n them, and ye shall have them_\u201d (_Mark 11:24_).\n\n\n(_b_) Nor by holding that God answers prayer simply by spiritual means,\nsuch as the action of the Holy Spirit upon the spirit of man.\u2014The realm of\nspirit is no less subject to law than the realm of matter. Scripture and\nexperience, moreover, alike testify that in answer to prayer events take\nplace in the outward world which would not have taken place if prayer had\nnot gone before.\n\n\n According to this second theory, God feeds the starving Elijah,\n not by a distinct message from heaven but by giving a\n compassionate disposition to the widow of Zarephath so that she is\n moved to help the prophet. _1 K. 17:9_\u2014\u201c_behold, I have commanded\n a widow there to sustain thee._\u201d But God could also feed Elijah by\n the ravens and the angel (_1 K. 17:4; 19:15_), and the pouring\n rain that followed Elijah\u2019s prayer (_1 K. 18:42-45_) cannot be\n explained as a subjective spiritual phenomenon. Diman, Theistic\n Argument, 268\u2014\u201cOur charts map out not only the solid shore but the\n windings of the ocean currents, and we look into the morning\n papers to ascertain the gathering of storms on the slopes of the\n Rocky Mountains.\u201d But law rules in the realm of spirit as well as\n in the realm of nature. See Baden Powell, in Essays and Reviews,\n 106-162; Knight, Studies in Philosophy and Literature, 340-404;\n George I. Chace, discourse before the Porter Rhet. Soc. of\n Andover, August, 1854. Governor Rice in Washington is moved to\n send money to a starving family in New York, and to secure\n employment for them. Though he has had no information with regard\n to their need, they have knelt in prayer for help just before the\n coming of the aid.\n\n\n(_c_) Nor by maintaining that God suspends or breaks in upon the order of\nnature, in answering every prayer that is offered.\u2014This view does not take\naccount of natural laws as having objective existence, and as revealing\nthe order of God\u2019s being. Omnipotence might thus suspend natural law, but\nwisdom, so far as we can see, would not.\n\n\n This third theory might well be held by those who see in nature no\n force but the all-working will of God. But the properties and\n powers of matter are revelations of the divine will, and the human\n will has only a relative independence in the universe. To desire\n that God would answer all our prayers is to desire omnipotence\n without omniscience. All true prayer is therefore an expression of\n the one petition: \u201c_Thy will be done_\u201d (_Mat. 6:10_). E. G.\n Robinson: \u201cIt takes much common sense to pray, and many prayers\n are destitute of this quality. Man needs to pray audibly even in\n his private prayers, to get the full benefit of them. One of the\n chief benefits of the English liturgy is that the individual\n minister is lost sight of. Protestantism makes you work; in\n Romanism the church will do it all for you.\u201d\n\n\n(_d_) Nor by considering prayer as a physical force, linked in each case\nto its answer, as physical cause is linked to physical effect.\u2014Prayer is\nnot a force acting directly upon nature; else there would be no discretion\nas to its answer. It can accomplish results in nature, only as it\ninfluences God.\n\n\n We educate our children in two ways: first, by training them to do\n for themselves what they can do; and, secondly, by encouraging\n them to seek our help in matters beyond their power. So God\n educates us, first, by impersonal law, and, secondly, by personal\n dependence. He teaches us both to work and to ask. Notice the\n \u201cperfect unwisdom of modern scientists who place themselves under\n the training of impersonal law, to the exclusion of that higher\n and better training which is under personality\u201d (Hopkins, Sermon\n on Prayer-gauge, 16).\n\n\nIt seems more in accordance with both Scripture and reason to say that:\n\nB. God may answer prayer, even when that answer involves changes in the\nsequences of nature,\u2014\n\n(_a_) By new combinations of natural forces, in regions withdrawn from our\nobservation, so that effects are produced which these same forces left to\nthemselves would never have accomplished. As man combines the laws of\nchemical attraction and of combustion, to fire the gunpowder and split the\nrock asunder, so God may combine the laws of nature to bring about answers\nto prayer. In all this there may be no suspension or violation of law, but\na use of law unknown to us.\n\n\n Hopkins, Sermon on the Prayer-gauge: \u201cNature is uniform in her\n processes but not in her results. Do you say that water cannot run\n uphill? Yes, it can and does. Whenever man constructs a milldam\n the water runs up the environing hills till it reaches the top of\n the milldam. Man can make a spark of electricity do his bidding;\n why cannot God use a bolt of electricity? Laws are not our\n masters, but our servants. They do our bidding all the better\n because they are uniform. And our servants are not God\u2019s masters.\u201d\n Kendall Brooks: \u201cThe master of a musical instrument can vary\n without limit the combination of sounds and the melodies which\n these combinations can produce. The laws of the instrument are not\n changed, but in their unchanging steadfastness produce an infinite\n variety of tunes. It is necessary that they should be unchanging\n in order to secure a desired result. So nature, which exercises\n the infinite skill of the divine Master, is governed by unvarying\n laws; but he, by these laws, produces an infinite variety of\n results.\u201d\n\n Hodge, Popular Lectures, 45, 99\u2014\u201cThe system of natural laws is far\n more flexible in God\u2019s hands than it is in ours. We act on second\n causes externally; God acts on them internally. We act upon them\n at only a few isolated points; God acts upon every point of the\n system at the same time. The whole of nature may be as plastic to\n his will as the air in the organs of the great singer who\n articulates it into a fit expression of every thought and passion\n of his soaring soul.\u201d Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 155\u2014\u201cIf all the\n chemical elements of our solar system pre\u00ebxisted in the fiery\n cosmic mist, there must have been a time when quite suddenly the\n attractions between these elements overcame the degree of caloric\n force which held them apart, and the rush of elements into\n chemical union must have been consummated with inconceivable\n rapidity. Uniformitarianism is not universal.\u201d\n\n Shaler, Interpretation of Nature, chap. 2\u2014\u201cBy a little increase of\n centrifugal force the elliptical orbit is changed into a parabola,\n and the planet becomes a comet. By a little reduction in\n temperature water becomes solid and loses many of its powers. So\n unexpected results are brought about and surprises as\n revolutionary as if a Supreme Power immediately intervened.\u201d\n William James, Address before Soc. for Psych. Research:\n \u201cThought-transference may involve a critical point, as the\n physicists call it, which is passed only when certain psychic\n conditions are realized, and otherwise not reached at all\u2014just as\n a big conflagration will break out at a certain temperature, below\n which no conflagration whatever, whether big or little, can\n occur.\u201d Tennyson, Life, 1:324\u2014\u201cPrayer is like opening a sluice\n between the great ocean and our little channels, when the great\n sea gathers itself together and flows in at full tide.\u201d\n\n\nSince prayer is nothing more nor less than appeal to a personal and\npresent God, whose granting or withholding of the requested blessing is\nbelieved to be determined by the prayer itself, we must conclude that\nprayer moves God, or, in other words, induces the putting forth on his\npart of an imperative volition.\n\n\n The view that in answering prayer God combines natural forces is\n elaborated by Chalmers, Works, 2:314, and 7:234. See Diman,\n Theistic Argument, 111\u2014\u201cWhen laws are conceived of, not as single,\n but as combined, instead of being immutable in their operation,\n they are the agencies of ceaseless change. Phenomena are governed,\n not by invariable forces, but by _endlessly varying combinations\n of invariable forces_.\u201d Diman seems to have followed Argyll, Reign\n of Law, 100.\n\n Janet, Final Causes, 219\u2014\u201cI kindle a fire in my grate. I only\n intervene to produce and combine together the different agents\n whose natural action behooves to produce the effect I have need\n of; but the first step once taken, all the phenomena constituting\n combustion engender each other, conformably to their laws, without\n a new intervention of the agent; so that an observer who should\n study the series of these phenomena, without perceiving the first\n hand that had prepared all, could not seize that hand in any\n especial act, and yet there is a preconceived plan and\n combination.\u201d\n\n Hopkins, Sermon on Prayer-gauge: Man, by sprinkling plaster on his\n field, may cause the corn to grow more luxuriantly; by kindling\n great fires and by firing cannon, he may cause rain; and God can\n surely, in answer to prayer, do as much as man can. Lewes says\n that the fundamental character of all theological philosophy is\n conceiving of phenomena as subject to supernatural volition, and\n consequently as eminently and irregularly variable. This notion,\n he says, is refuted, first, by exact and rational prevision of\n phenomena, and, secondly, by the possibility of our modifying\n these phenomena so as to promote our own advantage. But we ask in\n reply: If we can modify them, cannot God? But, lest this should\n seem to imply mutability in God or inconsistency in nature, we\n remark, in addition, that:\n\n\n(_b_) God may have so pre\u00e4rranged the laws of the material universe and\nthe events of history that, while the answer to prayer is an expression of\nhis will, it is granted through the working of natural agencies, and in\nperfect accordance with the general principle that results, both temporal\nand spiritual, are to be attained by intelligent creatures through the use\nof the appropriate and appointed means.\n\n\n J. P. Cooke, Credentials of Science, 194\u2014\u201cThe Jacquard loom of\n itself would weave a perfectly uniform plain fabric; the\n perforated cards determine a selection of the threads, and through\n a combination of these variable conditions, so complex that the\n observer cannot follow their intricate workings, the predesigned\n pattern appears.\u201d E. G. Robinson: \u201cThe most formidable objection\n to this theory is the apparent countenance it lends to the\n doctrine of necessitarianism. But if it presupposes that free\n actions have been taken into account, it cannot easily be shown to\n be false.\u201d The bishop who was asked by his curate to sanction\n prayers for rain was unduly sceptical when he replied: \u201cFirst\n consult the barometer.\u201d Phillips Brooks: \u201cPrayer is not the\n conquering of God\u2019s reluctance, but the taking hold of God\u2019s\n willingness.\u201d\n\n The Pilgrims at Plymouth, somewhere about 1628, prayed for rain.\n They met at 9 A. M., and continued in prayer for eight or nine\n hours. While they were assembled clouds gathered, and the next\n morning began rains which, with some intervals, lasted fourteen\n days. John Easter was many years ago an evangelist in Virginia. A\n large out-door meeting was being held. Many thousands had\n assembled, when heavy storm clouds began to gather. There was no\n shelter to which the multitudes could retreat. The rain had\n already reached the adjoining fields when John Easter cried:\n \u201cBrethren, be still, while I call upon God to stay the storm till\n the gospel is preached to this multitude!\u201d Then he knelt and\n prayed that the audience might be spared the rain, and that after\n they had gone to their homes there might be refreshing showers.\n Behold, the clouds parted as they came near, and passed to either\n side of the crowd and then closed again, leaving the place dry\n where the audience had assembled, and the next day the postponed\n showers came down upon the ground that had been the day before\n omitted.\n\n\nSince God is immanent in nature, an answer to prayer, coming about through\nthe intervention of natural law, may be as real a revelation of God\u2019s\npersonal care as if the laws of nature were suspended, and God interposed\nby an exercise of his creative power. Prayer and its answer, though having\nGod\u2019s immediate volition as their connecting bond, may yet be provided for\nin the original plan of the universe.\n\n\n The universe does not exist for itself, but for moral ends and\n moral beings, to reveal God and to furnish facilities of\n intercourse between God and intelligent creatures. Bishop\n Berkeley: \u201cThe universe is God\u2019s ceaseless conversation with his\n creatures.\u201d The universe certainly subserves moral ends\u2014the\n discouragement of vice and the reward of virtue; why not spiritual\n ends also? When we remember that there is no true prayer which God\n does not inspire; that every true prayer is part of the plan of\n the universe linked in with all the rest and provided for at the\n beginning; that God is in nature and in mind, supervising all\n their movements and making all fulfill his will and reveal his\n personal care; that God can adjust the forces of nature to each\n other far more skilfully than can man when man produces effects\n which nature of herself could never accomplish; that God is not\n confined to nature or her forces, but can work by his creative and\n omnipotent will where other means are not sufficient,\u2014we need have\n no fear, either that natural law will bar God\u2019s answers to prayer,\n or that these answers will cause a shock or jar in the system of\n the universe.\n\n Matheson, Messages of the Old Religions, 321, 322\u2014\u201cHebrew poetry\n never deals with outward nature for its own sake. The eye never\n rests on beauty for itself alone. The heavens are the work of\n God\u2019s hands, the earth is God\u2019s footstool, the winds are God\u2019s\n ministers, the stars are God\u2019s host, the thunder is God\u2019s voice.\n What we call Nature the Jew called God.\u201d Miss Heloise E. Hersey:\n \u201cPlato in the Ph\u00e6drus sets forth in a splendid myth the means by\n which the gods refresh themselves. Once a year, in a mighty host,\n they drive their chariots up the steep to the topmost vault of\n heaven. Thence they may behold all the wonders and the secrets of\n the universe; and, quickened by the sight of the great plain of\n truth, they return home replenished and made glad by the celestial\n vision.\u201d Abp. Trench, Poems, 134\u2014\u201cLord, what a change within us\n one short hour Spent in thy presence will prevail to make\u2014What\n heavy burdens from our bosoms take, What parched grounds refresh\n as with a shower! We kneel, and all around us seems to lower; We\n rise, and all, the distant and the near, Stands forth in sunny\n outline, brave and clear; We kneel how weak, we rise how full of\n power! Why, therefore, should we do ourselves this wrong, Or\n others\u2014that we are not always strong; That we are ever overborne\n with care; That we should ever weak or heartless be, Anxious or\n troubled, when with us is prayer, And joy and strength and courage\n are with thee?\u201d See Calderwood, Science and Religion, 299-309;\n McCosh, Divine Government, 215; Liddon, Elements of Religion,\n 178-203; Hamilton, Autology, 690-694. See also Jellett, Donnellan\n Lectures on the Efficacy of Prayer; Butterworth, Story of Notable\n Prayers; Patton, Prayer and its Answers; Monrad, World of Prayer;\n Prime, Power of Prayer; Phelps, The Still Hour; Haven, and\n Bickersteth, on Prayer; Prayer for Colleges; Cox, in Expositor,\n 1877: chap. 3; Faunce, Prayer as a Theory and a Fact; Trumbull,\n Prayer, Its Nature and Scope.\n\n\nC. If asked whether this relation between prayer and its providential\nanswer can be scientifically tested, we reply that it may be tested just\nas a father\u2019s love may be tested by a dutiful son.\n\n(_a_) There is a general proof of it in the past experience of the\nChristian and in the past history of the church.\n\n_Ps. 116:1-8_\u2014\u201c_I love Jehovah because he heareth my voice and my\nsupplications._\u201d Luther prays for the dying Melanchthon, and he recovers.\nGeorge M\u00fcller trusts to prayer, and builds his great orphan-houses. For a\nmultitude of instances, see Prime, Answers to Prayer. Charles H. Spurgeon:\n\u201cIf there is any fact that is proved, it is that God hears prayer. If\nthere is any scientific statement that is capable of mathematical proof,\nthis is.\u201d Mr. Spurgeon\u2019s language is rhetorical: he means simply that\nGod\u2019s answers to prayer remove all reasonable doubt. Adoniram Judson: \u201cI\nnever was deeply interested in any object, I never prayed sincerely and\nearnestly for anything, but it came; at some time\u2014no matter at how distant\na day\u2014somehow, in some shape, probably the last I should have devised\u2014it\ncame. And yet I have always had so little faith! May God forgive me, and\nwhile he condescends to use me as his instrument, wipe the sin of unbelief\nfrom my heart!\u201d\n\n(_b_) In condescension to human blindness, God may sometimes submit to a\nformal test of his faithfulness and power,\u2014as in the case of Elijah and\nthe priests of Baal.\n\n\n _Is. 7:10-13_\u2014Ahaz is rebuked for not asking a sign,\u2014in him it\n indicated unbelief. _1 K. 18:36-38_\u2014Elijah said, \u201c_let it be known\n this day that thou art God in Israel.... Then the fire of Jehovah\n fell, and consumed the burnt offering._\u201d Romaine speaks of \u201ca year\n famous for believing.\u201d _Mat 21:21, 22_\u2014\u201c_even if ye shall say unto\n this mountain, Be thou taken up and cast into the sea, it shall be\n done. And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer,\n believing, ye shall receive._\u201d \u201cImpossible?\u201d said Napoleon; \u201cthen\n it shall be done!\u201d Arthur Hallam, quoted in Tennyson\u2019s Life,\n 1:44\u2014\u201cWith respect to prayer, you ask how I am to distinguish the\n operations of God in me from the motions of my own heart. Why\n should you distinguish them, or how do you know that there is any\n distinction? Is God less God because he acts by general laws when\n he deals with the common elements of nature?\u201d \u201cWatch in prayer to\n see what cometh. Foolish boys that knock at a door in wantonness,\n will not stay till somebody open to them; but a man that hath\n business will knock, and knock again, till he gets his answer.\u201d\n\n Martineau, Seat of Authority, 102, 103\u2014\u201cGod is not beyond nature\n simply,\u2014he is within it. In nature and in mind we must find the\n action of his power. There is no need of his being a third factor\n over and above the life of nature and the life of man.\u201d Hartley\n Coleridge: \u201cBe not afraid to pray,\u2014to pray is right. Pray if thou\n canst with hope, but ever pray, Though hope be weak, or sick with\n long delay; Pray in the darkness, if there be no light. Far is the\n time, remote from human sight, When war and discord on the earth\n shall cease; Yet every prayer for universal peace Avails the\n blessed time to expedite. Whate\u2019er is good to wish, ask that of\n heaven, Though it be what thou canst not hope to see; Pray to be\n perfect, though the material leaven Forbid the spirit so on earth\n to be; But if for any wish thou dar\u2019st not pray, Then pray to God\n to cast that wish away.\u201d\n\n\n(_c_) When proof sufficient to convince the candid inquirer has been\nalready given, it may not consist with the divine majesty to abide a test\nimposed by mere curiosity or scepticism,\u2014as in the case of the Jews who\nsought a sign from heaven.\n\n\n _Mat. 12:39_\u2014\u201c_An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a\n sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah\n the prophet._\u201d Tyndall\u2019s prayer-gauge would ensure a conflict of\n prayers. Since our present life is a moral probation, delay in the\n answer to our prayers, and even the denial of specific things for\n which we pray, may be only signs of God\u2019s faithfulness and love.\n George M\u00fcller: \u201cI myself have been bringing certain requests\n before God now for seventeen years and six months, and never a day\n has passed without my praying concerning them all this time; yet\n the full answer has not come up to the present. But I look for it;\n I confidently expect it.\u201d Christ\u2019s prayer, \u201c_let this cup pass\n away from me_\u201d (_Mat. 26:39_), and Paul\u2019s prayer that the \u201c_thorn\n in the flesh_\u201d might depart from him (_2 Cor. 12:7, 8_), were not\n answered in the precise way requested. No more are our prayers\n always answered in the way we expect. Christ\u2019s prayer was not\n answered by the literal removing of the cup, because the drinking\n of the cup was really his glory; and Paul\u2019s prayer was not\n answered by the literal removal of the thorn, because the thorn\n was needful for his own perfecting. In the case of both Jesus and\n Paul, there were larger interests to be consulted than their own\n freedom from suffering.\n\n\n(_d_) Since God\u2019s will is the link between prayer and its answer, there\ncan be no such thing as a physical demonstration of its efficacy in any\nproposed case. Physical tests have no application to things into which\nfree will enters as a constitutive element. But there are moral tests, and\nmoral tests are as scientific as physical tests can be.\n\n\n Diman, Theistic Argument, 576, alludes to Goldwin Smith\u2019s denial\n that any scientific method can be applied to history because it\n would make man a necessary link in a chain of cause and effect and\n so would deny his free will. But Diman says this is no more\n impossible than the development of the individual according to a\n fixed law of growth, while yet free will is sedulously respected.\n Froude says history is not a science, because no science could\n foretell Mohammedanism or Buddhism; and Goldwin Smith says that\n \u201cprediction is the crown of all science.\u201d But, as Diman remarks:\n \u201cgeometry, geology, physiology, are sciences, yet they do not\n predict.\u201d Buckle brought history into contempt by asserting that\n it could be analyzed and referred solely to intellectual laws and\n forces. To all this we reply that there may be scientific tests\n which are not physical, or even intellectual, but only moral. Such\n a test God urges his people to use, in _Mal. 3:10_\u2014\u201c_Bring ye the\n whole tithe into the storehouse ... and prove me now herewith, if\n I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a\n blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it._\u201d All\n such prayer is a reflection of Christ\u2019s words\u2014some fragment of his\n teaching transformed into a supplication (_John 15:7_; see\n Westcott, Bib. Com., _in loco_); all such prayer is moreover the\n work of the Spirit of God (_Rom. 8:26, 27_). It is therefore sure\n of an answer.\n\n But the test of prayer proposed by Tyndall is not applicable to\n the thing to be tested by it. Hopkins, Prayer and the\n Prayer-gauge, 22 _sq._\u2014\u201cWe cannot measure wheat by the yard, or\n the weight of a discourse with a pair of scales.... God\u2019s wisdom\n might see that it was not best for the petitioners, nor for the\n objects of their petition, to grant their request. Christians\n therefore could not, without special divine authorization, rest\n their faith upon the results of such a test.... Why may we not ask\n for great changes in nature? For the same reason that a\n well-informed child does not ask for the moon as a plaything....\n There are two limitations upon prayer. First, except by special\n direction of God, we cannot ask for a miracle, for the same reason\n that a child could not ask his father to burn the house down.\n Nature is the house we live in. Secondly, we cannot ask for\n anything under the laws of nature which would contravene the\n object of those laws. Whatever we can do for ourselves under these\n laws, God expects us to do. If the child is cold, let him go near\n the fire,\u2014not beg his father to carry him.\u201d\n\n Herbert Spencer\u2019s Sociology is only social physics. He denies\n freedom, and declares anyone who will affix D. V. to the\n announcement of the Mildmay Conference to be incapable of\n understanding sociology. Prevision excludes divine or human will.\n But Mr. Spencer intimates that the evils of natural selection may\n be modified by artificial selection. What is this but the\n interference of will? And if man can interfere, cannot God do the\n same? Yet the wise child will not expect the father to give\n everything he asks for. Nor will the father who loves his child\n give him the razor to play with, or stuff him with unwholesome\n sweets, simply because the child asks these things. If the\n engineer of the ocean steamer should give me permission to press\n the lever that sets all the machinery in motion, I should decline\n to use my power and should prefer to leave such matters to him,\n unless he first suggested it and showed me how. So the Holy Spirit\n \u201c_helpeth our infirmity; for we know not how to pray as we ought;\n but the Spirit himself __ maketh intercession for us with\n groanings which cannot be uttered_\u201d (_Rom. 8:26_). And we ought\n not to talk of \u201csubmitting\u201d to perfect Wisdom, or of \u201cbeing\n resigned\u201d to perfect Love. Shakespeare, Antony and Cleopatra,\n 2:1\u2014\u201cWhat they [the gods] do delay, they do not deny.... We,\n ignorant of ourselves, Beg often our own harms, which the wise\n powers Deny us for our good; so find we profit By losing of our\n prayers.\u201d See Thornton, Old-Fashioned Ethics, 286-297. _Per\n contra_, see Galton, Inquiries into Human Faculty, 277-294.\n\n\n3. To Christian activity.\n\n\nHere the truth lies between the two extremes of quietism and naturalism.\n\n(_a_) In opposition to the false abnegation of human reason and will which\nquietism demands, we hold that God guides us, not by continual miracle,\nbut by his natural providence and the energizing of our faculties by his\nSpirit, so that we rationally and freely do our own work, and work out our\nown salvation.\n\n\n Upham, Interior Life, 356, defines quietism as \u201ccessation of\n wandering thoughts and discursive imaginations, rest from\n irregular desires and affections, and perfect submission of the\n will.\u201d Its advocates, however, have often spoken of it as a giving\n up of our will and reason, and a swallowing up of these in the\n wisdom and will of God. This phraseology is misleading, and savors\n of a pantheistic merging of man in God. Dorner: \u201cQuietism makes\n God a monarch without living subjects.\u201d Certain English quietists,\n like the Mohammedans, will not employ physicians in sickness. They\n quote _2 Chron. 16:12, 13_\u2014Asa \u201c_sought not to Jehovah, but to the\n physicians. And Asa slept with his fathers_.\u201d They forget that the\n \u201c_physicians_\u201d alluded to in Chronicles were probably heathen\n necromancers. Cromwell to his Ironsides: \u201cTrust God, and keep your\n powder dry!\u201d\n\n Providence does not exclude, but rather implies the operation of\n natural law, by which we mean God\u2019s regular way of working. It\n leaves no excuse for the sarcasm of Robert Browning\u2019s Mr. Sludge\n the Medium, 223\u2014\u201cSaved your precious self from what befell The\n thirty-three whom Providence forgot.\u201d Schurman, Belief in God,\n 213\u2014\u201cThe temples were hung with the votive offerings of those only\n who had _escaped_ drowning.\u201d \u201cSo like Provvy!\u201d Bentham used to\n say, when anything particularly unseemly occurred in the way of\n natural catastrophe, God reveals himself in natural law.\n Physicians and medicine are his methods, as well as the\n impartation of faith and courage to the patient. The advocates of\n faith-cure should provide by faith that no believing Christian\n should die. With the apostolic miracles should go inspiration, as\n Edward Irving declared. \u201cEvery man is as lazy as circumstances\n will admit.\u201d We throw upon the shoulders of Providence the burdens\n which belong to us to bear. \u201c_Work out your own salvation with\n fear and trembling; for it is God who worketh in you both to will\n and to work, for his good pleasure_\u201d (_Phil. 2:12, 13_).\n\n Prayer without the use of means is an insult to God. \u201cIf God has\n decreed that you should live, what is the use of your eating or\n drinking?\u201d Can a drowning man refuse to swim, or even to lay hold\n of the rope that is thrown to him, and yet ask God to save him on\n account of his faith? \u201cTie your camel,\u201d said Mohammed, \u201cand commit\n it to God.\u201d Frederick Douglas used to say that when in slavery he\n often prayed for freedom, but his prayer was never answered till\n he prayed with his feet\u2014and ran away. Whitney, Integrity of\n Christian Science, 68\u2014\u201cThe existence of the dynamo at the\n power-house does not make unnecessary the trolley line, nor the\n secondary motor, nor the conductor\u2019s application of the power.\n True quietism is a resting in the Lord after we have done our\n part.\u201d _Ps. 37:7_\u2014\u201c_Rest in Jehovah, and wait patiently for him_\u201d;\n _Is. 57:2_\u2014\u201c_He entereth into peace; they rest in their beds, each\n one that walketh in his uprightness_\u201d. Ian Maclaren, Cure of\n Souls, 147\u2014\u201cReligion has three places of abode: in the reason,\n which is theology; in the conscience, which is ethics; and in the\n heart, which is quietism.\u201d On the self-guidance of Christ, see\n Adamson, The Mind in Christ, 202-232.\n\n George M\u00fcller, writing about ascertaining the will of God, says:\n \u201cI seek at the beginning to get my heart into such a state that it\n has no will of its own in regard to a given matter. Nine tenths of\n the difficulties are overcome when our hearts are ready to do the\n Lord\u2019s will, whatever it may be. Having done this, I do not leave\n the result to feeling or simple impression. If I do so, I make\n myself liable to a great delusion. I seek the will of the Spirit\n of God through, or in connection with, the Word of God. The Spirit\n and the Word must be combined. If I look to the Spirit alone,\n without the Word, I lay myself open to great delusions also. If\n the Holy Ghost guides us at all, he will do it according to the\n Scriptures, and never contrary to them. Next I take into account\n providential circumstances. These often plainly indicate God\u2019s\n will in connection with his Word and his Spirit. I ask God in\n prayer to reveal to me his will aright. Thus through prayer to\n God, the study of the Word, and reflection, I come to a deliberate\n judgment according to the best of my knowledge and ability, and,\n if my mind is thus at peace, I proceed accordingly.\u201d\n\n We must not confound rational piety with false enthusiasm. See\n Isaac Taylor, Natural History of Enthusiasm. \u201cNot quiescence, but\n acquiescence, is demanded of us.\u201d As God feeds \u201c_the birds of the\n heaven_\u201d (_Mat. 6:26_), not by dropping food from heaven into\n their mouths, but by stimulating them to seek food for themselves,\n so God provides for his rational creatures by giving them a\n sanctified common sense and by leading them to use it. In a true\n sense Christianity gives us more will than ever. The Holy Spirit\n emancipates the will, sets it upon proper objects, and fills it\n with new energy. We are therefore not to surrender ourselves\n passively to whatever professes to be a divine suggestion: _1 John\n 4:1_\u2014\u201c_believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether\n they are of God._\u201d The test is the revealed word of God: _Is.\n 8:20_\u2014\u201c_To the law and to the testimony! if they speak not\n according to this word, surely there is no morning for them._\u201d See\n remarks on false Mysticism, pages 32, 33.\n\n\n(_b_) In opposition to naturalism, we hold that God is continually near\nthe human spirit by his providential working, and that this providential\nworking is so adjusted to the Christian\u2019s nature and necessities as to\nfurnish instruction with regard to duty, discipline of religious\ncharacter, and needed help and comfort in trial.\n\nIn interpreting God\u2019s providences, as in interpreting Scripture, we are\ndependent upon the Holy Spirit. The work of the Spirit is, indeed, in\ngreat part an application of Scripture truth to present circumstances.\nWhile we never allow ourselves to act blindly and irrationally, but\naccustom ourselves to weigh evidence with regard to duty, we are to\nexpect, as the gift of the Spirit, an understanding of circumstances\u2014a\nfine sense of God\u2019s providential purposes with regard to us, which will\nmake our true course plain to ourselves, although we may not always be\nable to explain it to others.\n\n\n The Christian may have a continual divine guidance. Unlike the\n unfaithful and unbelieving, of whom it is said, in _Ps. 106:13_,\n \u201c_They waited not for his counsel,_\u201d the true believer has wisdom\n given him from above. _Ps. 32:8_\u2014\u201c_I will instruct thee and teach\n thee in the way which thou shalt go_\u201d; _Prov. 3:6_\u2014\u201c_In all thy\n ways acknowledge him, And he will direct thy paths_\u201d; _Phil.\n 1:9_\u2014\u201c_And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and\n more in knowledge and all discernment_\u201d (\u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 = spiritual\n discernment); _James 1:5_\u2014\u201c_if any of you lacketh wisdom, let him\n ask of God, who giveth_ (\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6) _to all liberally and\n upbraideth not_\u201d; _John 15:15_\u2014\u201c_No longer do I call you servants;\n for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called\n you friends_\u201d; _Col. 1:9, 10_\u2014\u201c_that ye may be filled with the\n knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding,\n to walk worthily of the Lord unto all pleasing._\u201d\n\n God\u2019s Spirit makes Providence as well as the Bible personal to us.\n From every page of nature, as well as of the Bible, the living God\n speaks to us. Tholuck: \u201cThe more we recognize in every daily\n occurrence God\u2019s secret inspiration, guiding and controlling us,\n the more will all which to others wears a common and every-day\n aspect prove to us a sign and a wondrous work.\u201d Hutton, Essays:\n \u201cAnimals that are blind slaves of impulse, driven about by forces\n from within, have so to say fewer valves in their moral\n constitution for the entrance of divine guidance. But minds alive\n to every word of God give constant opportunity for his\n interference with suggestions that may alter the course of their\n lives. The higher the mind, the more it glides into the region of\n providential control. God turns the good by the slightest breath\n of thought.\u201d So the Christian hymn, \u201cGuide me, O thou great\n Jehovah!\u201d likens God\u2019s leading of the believer to that of Israel\n by the pillar of fire and cloud; and Paul in his dungeon calls\n himself \u201c_the prisoner of Christ Jesus_\u201d (_Eph. 3:1_). Affliction\n is the discipline of God\u2019s providence. Greek proverb: \u201cHe who does\n not get thrashed, does not get educated.\u201d On God\u2019s Leadings, see\n A. H. Strong, Philosophy and Religion, 560-562.\n\n Abraham \u201c_went out, not knowing whither he went_\u201d (_Heb. 11:8_).\n Not till he reached Canaan did he know the place of his\n destination. Like a child he placed his hand in the hand of his\n unseen Father, to be led whither he himself knew not. We often\n have guidance without discernment of that guidance. _Is.\n 42:16_\u2014\u201c_I will bring the blind by a way that they know not; in\n paths that they know not will I lead them._\u201d So we act more wisely\n than we ourselves understand, and afterwards look back with\n astonishment to see what we have been able to accomplish. Emerson:\n \u201cHimself from God he could not free; He builded better than he\n knew.\u201d Disappointments? Ah, you make a mistake in the spelling;\n the D should be an H: His appointments. Melanchthon: \u201cQuem poet\u00e6\n fortunam, nos Deum appellamus.\u201d Chinese proverb: \u201cThe good God\n never smites with both hands.\u201d \u201cTact is a sort of psychical\n automatism\u201d (Ladd). There is a Christian tact which is rarely at\n fault, because its possessor is \u201c_led by the Spirit of God_\u201d\n (_Rom. 8:14_). Yet we must always make allowance, as Oliver\n Cromwell used to say, \u201cfor the possibility of being mistaken.\u201d\n\n When Luther\u2019s friends wrote despairingly of the negotiations at\n the Diet of Worms, he replied from Coburg that he had been looking\n up at the night sky, spangled and studded with stars, and had\n found no pillars to hold them up. And yet they did not fall. God\n needs no props for his stars and planets. He hangs them on\n nothing. So, in the working of God\u2019s providence, the unseen is\n prop enough for the seen. Henry Drummond, Life, 127\u2014\u201cTo find out\n God\u2019s will: 1. Pray. 2. Think. 3. Talk to wise people, but do not\n regard their decision as final. 4. Beware of the bias of your own\n will, but do not be too much afraid of it (God never unnecessarily\n thwarts a man\u2019s nature and likings, and it is a mistake to think\n that his will is always in the line of the disagreeable). 5.\n Meantime, do the next thing (for doing God\u2019s will in small things\n is the best preparation for knowing it in great things). 6. When\n decision and action are necessary, go ahead. 7. Never reconsider\n the decision when it is finally acted on; and 8. You will probably\n not find out until afterwards, perhaps long afterwards, that you\n have been led at all.\u201d\n\n Amiel lamented that everything was left to his own responsibility\n and declared: \u201cIt is this thought that disgusts me with the\n government of my own life. To win true peace, a man needs to feel\n himself directed, pardoned and sustained by a supreme Power, to\n feel himself in the right road, at the point where God would have\n him be,\u2014in harmony with God and the universe. This faith gives\n strength and calm. I have not got it. All that is seems to me\n arbitrary and fortuitous.\u201d How much better is Wordsworth\u2019s faith,\n Excursion, book 4:581\u2014\u201cOne adequate support For the calamities of\n mortal life Exists, one only: an assured belief That the\n procession of our fate, howe\u2019er Sad or disturbed, is ordered by a\n Being Of infinite benevolence and power, Whose everlasting\n purposes embrace All accidents, converting them to good.\u201d Mrs.\n Browning, De Profundis, stanza xxiii\u2014\u201cI praise thee while my days\n go on; I love thee while my days go on! Through dark and dearth,\n through fire and frost, With emptied arms and treasure lost, I\n thank thee while my days go on!\u201d\n\n\n4. To the evil acts of free agents.\n\n\n(_a_) Here we must distinguish between the natural agency and the moral\nagency of God, or between acts of permissive providence and acts of\nefficient causation. We are ever to remember that God neither works evil,\nnor causes his creatures to work evil. All sin is chargeable to the\nself-will and perversity of the creature; to declare God the author of it\nis the greatest of blasphemies.\n\n\n Bp. Wordsworth: \u201cGod _foresees_ evil deeds, but never _forces_\n them.\u201d \u201cGod does not cause sin, any more than the rider of a\n limping horse causes the limping.\u201d Nor can it be said that Satan\n is the author of man\u2019s sin. Man\u2019s powers are his own. Not Satan,\n but the man himself, gives the wrong application to these powers.\n Not the cause, but the occasion, of sin is in the tempter; the\n cause is in the evil will which yields to his persuasions.\n\n\n(_b_) But while man makes up his evil decision independently of God, God\ndoes, by his natural agency, order the method in which this inward evil\nshall express itself, by limiting it in time, place, and measure, or by\nguiding it to the end which his wisdom and love, and not man\u2019s intent, has\nset. In all this, however, God only allows sin to develop itself after its\nown nature, so that it may be known, abhorred, and if possible overcome\nand forsaken.\n\n\n Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 2:272-284\u2014\u201cJudas\u2019s treachery works the\n reconciliation of the world, and Israel\u2019s apostasy the salvation\n of the Gentiles.... God smooths the path of the sinner, and gives\n him chance for the outbreak of the evil, like a wise physician who\n draws to the surface of the body the disease that has been raging\n within, in order that it may be cured, if possible, by mild means,\n or, if not, may be removed by the knife.\u201d\n\n Christianity rises in spite of, nay, in consequence of opposition,\n like a kite against the wind. When Christ has used the sword with\n which he has girded himself, as he used Cyrus and the Assyrian, he\n breaks it and throws it away. He turns the world upside down that\n he may get it right side up. He makes use of every member of\n society, as the locomotive uses every cog. The sufferings of the\n martyrs add to the number of the church; the worship of relics\n stimulates the Crusades; the worship of the saints leads to\n miracle plays and to the modern drama; the worship of images helps\n modern art; monasticism, scholasticism, the Papacy, even sceptical\n and destructive criticism stir up defenders of the faith.\n Shakespeare, Richard III, 5:1\u2014\u201cThus doth he force the swords of\n wicked men To turn their own points on their masters\u2019 bosoms\u201d;\n Hamlet, 1:2\u2014\u201cFoul deeds will rise, though all the earth o\u2019erwhelm\n them, to men\u2019s eyes\u201d; Macbeth, 1:7\u2014\u201cEven handed justice Commends\n the ingredients of the poisoned chalice To our own lips.\u201d\n\n The Emperor of Germany went to Paris incognito and returned,\n thinking that no one had known of his absence. But at every step,\n going and coming, he was surrounded by detectives who saw that no\n harm came to him. The swallow drove again and again at the little\n struggling moth, but there was a plate glass window between them\n which neither one of them knew. Charles Darwin put his cheek\n against the plate glass of the cobra\u2019s cage, but could not keep\n himself from starting when the cobra struck. Tacitus, Annales,\n 14:5\u2014\u201cNoctem sideribus illustrem, quasi convinsendum ad scelus,\n dii pr\u00e6buere\u201d\u2014\u201ca night brilliant with stars, as if for the purpose\n of proving the crime, was granted by the gods.\u201d See F. A. Noble,\n Our Redemption, 59-76, on the self-registry and self-disclosure of\n sin, with quotation from Daniel Webster\u2019s speech in the case of\n Knapp at Salem: \u201cIt must be confessed. It will be confessed. There\n is no refuge from confession but suicide, and suicide is\n confession.\u201d\n\n\n(_c_) In cases of persistent iniquity, God\u2019s providence still compels the\nsinner to accomplish the design with which he and all things have been\ncreated, namely, the manifestation of God\u2019s holiness. Even though he\nstruggle against God\u2019s plan, yet he must by his very resistance serve it.\nHis sin is made its own detector, judge, and tormentor. His character and\ndoom are made a warning to others. Refusing to glorify God in his\nsalvation, he is made to glorify God in his destruction.\n\n\n _Is. 10:5, 7_\u2014\u201c_Ho Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, the staff in\n whose hand is mine indignation!... Howbeit, he meaneth not so._\u201d\n Charles Kingsley, Two Years Ago: \u201cHe [Treluddra] is one of those\n base natures, whom fact only lashes into greater fury,\u2014a Pharaoh,\n whose heart the Lord himself can only harden\u201d\u2014here we would add\n the qualification: \u201cconsistently with the limits which he has set\n to the operations of his grace.\u201d Pharaoh\u2019s ordering the\n destruction of the Israelitish children (_Ex. 1:16_) was made the\n means of putting Moses under royal protection, of training him for\n his future work, and finally of rescuing the whole nation whose\n sons Pharaoh sought to destroy. So God brings good out of evil;\n see Tyler, Theology of Greek Poets, 28-35. Emerson: \u201cMy will\n fulfilled shall be, For in daylight as in dark My thunderbolt has\n eyes to see His way home to the mark.\u201d See also Edwards, Works,\n 4:300-312.\n\n _Col. 2:15_\u2014\u201c_having stripped off from himself the principalities\n and the powers_\u201d\u2014the hosts of evil spirits that swarmed upon him\n in their final onset\u2014\u201c_he made a show of them openly, triumphing\n over them in it_,\u201d _i. e._, in the cross, thus turning their evil\n into a means of good. Royce, Spirit of Modern Philosophy,\n 443,\u2014\u201cLove, seeking for absolute evil, is like an electric light\n engaged in searching for a shadow,\u2014when Love gets there, the\n shadow has disappeared.\u201d But this means, not that all things _are_\n good, but that \u201c_all things work together __ for good_\u201d (_Rom.\n 8:28_)\u2014God overruling for good that which in itself is only evil.\n John Wesley: \u201cGod buries his workmen, but carries on his work.\u201d\n Sermon on \u201cThe Devil\u2019s Mistakes\u201d: Satan thought he could overcome\n Christ in the wilderness, in the garden, on the cross. He\n triumphed when he cast Paul into prison. But the cross was to\n Christ a lifting up, that should draw all men to him (_John\n 12:32_), and Paul\u2019s imprisonment furnished his epistles to the New\n Testament.\n\n \u201cIt is one of the wonders of divine love that even our blemishes\n and sins God will take when we truly repent of them and give them\n into his hands, and will in some way make them to be blessings. A\n friend once showed Ruskin a costly handkerchief on which a blot of\n ink had been made. \u2018Nothing can be done with that,\u2019 the friend\n said, thinking the handkerchief worthless and ruined now. Ruskin\n carried it away with him, and after a time sent it back to his\n friend. In a most skilful and artistic way, he had made a fine\n design in India ink, using the blot as its basis. Instead of being\n ruined, the handkerchief was made far more beautiful and valuable.\n So God takes the blots and stains upon our lives, the disfiguring\n blemishes, when we commit them to him, and by his marvellous grace\n changes them into marks of beauty. David\u2019s grievous sin was not\n only forgiven, but was made a transforming power in his life.\n Peter\u2019s pitiful fall became a step upward through his Lord\u2019s\n forgiveness and gentle dealing.\u201d So \u201cmen may rise on stepping\n stones Of their dead selves to higher things\u201d (Tennyson, In\n Memoriam, I).\n\n\n\nSection IV.\u2014Good And Evil Angels.\n\n\nAs ministers of divine providence there is a class of finite beings,\ngreater in intelligence and power than man in his present state, some of\nwhom positively serve God\u2019s purpose by holiness and voluntary execution of\nhis will, some negatively, by giving examples to the universe of defeated\nand punished rebellion, and by illustrating God\u2019s distinguishing grace in\nman\u2019s salvation.\n\nThe scholastic subtleties which encumbered this doctrine in the Middle\nAges, and the exaggerated representations of the power of evil spirits\nwhich then prevailed, have led, by a natural reaction, to an undue\ndepreciation of it in more recent times.\n\n\n For scholastic discussions, see Thomas Aquinas, Summa (ed. Migne),\n 1:833-993. The scholastics debated the questions, how many angels\n could stand at once on the point of a needle (relation of angels\n to space); whether an angel could be in two places at the same\n time; how great was the interval between the creation of angels\n and their fall; whether the sin of the first angel caused the sin\n of the rest; whether as many retained their integrity as fell;\n whether our atmosphere is the place of punishment for fallen\n angels; whether guardian-angels have charge of children from\n baptism, from birth, or while the infant is yet in the womb of the\n mother; even the excrements of angels were subjects of discussion,\n for if there was \u201c_angels\u2019 food_\u201d (_Ps. 78:25_), and if angels ate\n (_Gen. 18:8_), it was argued that we must take the logical\n consequences.\n\n Dante makes the creation of angels simultaneous with that of the\n universe at large. \u201cThe fall of the rebel angels he considers to\n have taken place within twenty seconds of their creation, and to\n have originated in the pride which made Lucifer unwilling to await\n the time prefixed by his Maker for enlightening him with perfect\n knowledge\u201d\u2014see Rossetti, Shadow of Dante, 14, 15. Milton, unlike\n Dante, puts the creation of angels ages before the creation of\n man. He tells us that Satan\u2019s first name in heaven is now lost.\n The sublime associations with which Milton surrounds the adversary\n diminish our abhorrence of the evil one. Satan has been called the\n hero of the Paradise Lost. Dante\u2019s representation is much more\n true to Scripture. But we must not go to the extreme of giving\n ludicrous designations to the devil. This indicates and causes\n scepticism as to his existence.\n\n In medi\u00e6val times men\u2019s minds were weighed down by the terror of\n the spirit of evil. It was thought possible to sell one\u2019s soul to\n Satan, and such compacts were written with blood. Goethe\n represents Mephistopheles as saying to Faust: \u201cI to thy service\n here agree to bind me, To run and never rest at call of thee; When\n _over yonder_ thou shalt find me, Then thou shalt do as much for\n me.\u201d The cathedrals cultivated and perpetuated this superstition,\n by the figures of malignant demons which grinned from the\n gargoyles of their roofs and the capitals of their columns, and\n popular preaching exalted Satan to the rank of a rival god\u2014a god\n more feared than was the true and living God. Satan was pictured\n as having horns and hoofs\u2014an image of the sensual and\n bestial\u2014which led Cuvier to remark that the adversary could not\n devour, because horns and hoofs indicated not a carnivorous but a\n ruminant quadruped.\n\n But there is certainly a possibility that the ascending scale of\n created intelligences does not reach its topmost point in man. As\n the distance between man and the lowest forms of life is filled in\n with numberless gradations of being, so it is possible that\n between man and God there exist creatures of higher than human\n intelligence. This possibility is turned to certainty by the\n express declarations of Scripture. The doctrine is interwoven with\n the later as well as with the earlier books of revelation.\n\n Quenstedt (Theol., 1:629) regards the existence of angels as\n antecedently probable, because there are no gaps in creation;\n nature does not proceed _per saltum_. As we have (1) beings purely\n corporeal, as stones; (2) beings partly corporeal and partly\n spiritual, as men: so we should expect in creation (3) beings\n wholly spiritual, as angels. Godet, in his Biblical Studies of the\n O. T., 1-29, suggests another series of gradations. As we have (1)\n vegetables\u2014species without individuality; (2)\n animals\u2014individuality in bondage to species; and (3) men\u2014species\n overpowered by individuality: so we may expect (4)\n angels\u2014individuality without species.\n\n If souls live after death, there is certainly a class of\n disembodied spirits. It is not impossible that God may have\n _created_ spirits without bodies. E. G. Robinson, Christian\n Theology, 110\u2014\u201cThe existence of lesser deities in all heathen\n mythologies, and the disposition of man everywhere to believe in\n beings superior to himself and inferior to the supreme God, is a\n presumptive argument in favor of their existence.\u201d Locke: \u201cThat\n there should be more species of intelligent creatures above us\n than there are of sensible and material below us, is probable to\n me from hence, that in all the visible and corporeal world we see\n no chasms and gaps.\u201d Foster, Christian Life and Theology, 193\u2014\u201cA\n man may certainly believe in the existence of angels upon the\n testimony of one who claims to have come from the heavenly world,\n if he can believe in the Ornithorhyncus upon the testimony of\n travelers.\u201d Tennyson, Two Voices: \u201cThis truth within thy mind\n rehearse, That in a boundless universe Is boundless better,\n boundless worse. Think you this world of hopes and fears Could\n find no statelier than his peers In yonder hundred million\n spheres?\u201d\n\n The doctrine of angels affords a barrier against the false\n conception of this world as including the whole spiritual\n universe. Earth is only part of a larger organism. As Christianity\n has united Jew and Gentile, so hereafter will it blend our own and\n other orders of creation: _Col. 2:10_\u2014\u201c_who is the head of all\n principality and power_\u201d\u2014Christ is the head of angels as well as\n of men; _Eph. 1:10_\u2014\u201c_to sum up all things in Christ, the things\n in the heavens, and the things upon the earth._\u201d On Christ and\n Angels, see Robertson Smith in The Expositor, second series, vols.\n 1, 2, 3. On the general subject of angels, see also Whately, Good\n and Evil Angels; Twesten, transl. in Bib. Sac., 1:768, and 2:108;\n Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 2:282-337, and 3:251-354; Birks,\n Difficulties of Belief, 78 sq.; Scott, Existence of Evil Spirits;\n Herzog, Encyclop\u00e4die, arts.: Engel, Teufel; Jewett,\n Diabolology,\u2014the Person and Kingdom of Satan; Alexander, Demonic\n Possession.\n\n\nI. Scripture Statements and Imitations.\n\n\n1. As to the nature and attributes of angels.\n\n\n(_a_) They are created beings.\n\n\n _Ps. 148:2-5_\u2014\u201c_Praise ye him, all his angels.... For he\n commanded, and they were created_\u201d; _Col. 1:16_\u2014\u201c_for in him were\n all things created ... whether thrones or dominions or\n principalities or powers_\u201d; _cf._ _1 Pet. 3:32_\u2014\u201c_angels and\n authorities and powers._\u201d God alone is uncreated and eternal. This\n is implied in _1 Tim. 6:16_\u2014\u201c_who only hath immortality._\u201d\n\n\n(_b_) They are incorporeal beings.\n\n\n In _Heb. 1:14_, where a single word is used to designate angels,\n they are described as \u201c_spirits_\u201d\u2014\u201c_are they not all ministering\n spirits?_\u201d Men, with their twofold nature, material as well as\n immaterial, could not well be designated as \u201c_spirits_.\u201d That\n their being characteristically \u201c_spirits_\u201d forbids us to regard\n angels as having a bodily organism, seems implied in _Eph.\n 6:12_\u2014\u201c_for our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but\n against ... the spiritual hosts_ [or \u201c_things_\u201d] _of wickedness in\n the heavenly places_\u201d; cf. _Eph. 1:3_; _2:6_. In _Gen. 6:2_,\n \u201c_sons of God_\u201d =, not angels, but descendants of Seth and\n worshipers of the true God (see Murphy, Com., _in loco_). In _Ps.\n 78:25_ (A. V.), \u201c_angels\u2019 food_\u201d = manna coming from heaven where\n angels dwell; better, however, read with Rev. Vers.: \u201c_bread of\n the mighty_\u201d\u2014probably meaning angels, though the word \u201c_mighty_\u201d\n is nowhere else applied to them; possibly = \u201cbread of princes or\n nobles,\u201d _i. e._, the finest, most delicate bread. _Mat\n 22:30_\u2014\u201c_neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as\n angels in heaven_\u201d\u2014and _Luke 20:36_\u2014\u201c_neither can they die any\n more: for they are equal unto the angels_\u201d\u2014imply only that angels\n are without distinctions of sex. Saints are to be like angels, not\n as being incorporeal, but as not having the same sexual relations\n which they have here.\n\n There are no \u201csouls of angels,\u201d as there are \u201c_souls of men_\u201d\n (_Rev. 18:13_), and we may infer that angels have no bodies for\n souls to inhabit; see under Essential Elements of Human Nature.\n Nevius, Demon-Possession, 258, attributes to evil spirits an\n instinct or longing for a body to possess, even though it be the\n body of an inferior animal: \u201cSo in Scripture we have spirits\n represented as wandering about to seek rest in bodies, and asking\n permission to enter into swine\u201d (_Mat. 12:43; 8:31_). Angels\n therefore, since they have no bodies, know nothing of growth, age,\n or death. Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, 133\u2014\u201cIt is precisely\n because the angels are only spirits, but not souls, that they\n cannot possess the same rich existence as man, whose soul is the\n point of union in which spirit and nature meet.\u201d\n\n\n(_c_) They are personal\u2014that is, intelligent and voluntary\u2014agents.\n\n\n _2 Sam. 14:20_\u2014\u201c_wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of\n God_\u201d; _Luke 4:34_\u2014\u201c_I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of\n God_\u201d; _2 Tim. 2:26_\u2014\u201c_snare of the devil ... taken captive by him\n unto his will_\u201d; _Rev. 22:9_\u2014\u201c_See thou do it not_\u201d = exercise of\n will; _Rev. 12:12_\u2014\u201c_The devil is gone down unto you, having great\n wrath_\u201d = set purpose of evil.\n\n\n(_d_) They are possessed of superhuman intelligence and power, yet an\nintelligence and power that has its fixed limits.\n\n\n _Mat. 24:36_\u2014\u201c_of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the\n angels of heaven_\u201d = their knowledge, though superhuman, is yet\n finite. _1 Pet. 1:12_\u2014\u201c_which things angels desire to look into_\u201d;\n _Ps. 103:20_\u2014\u201c_angels ... mighty in strength_\u201d; _2 Thess.\n 1:7_\u2014\u201c_the angels of his power_\u201d; _2 Pet. 2:11_\u2014\u201c_angels, though\n greater_ [than men] _in might and power_\u201d; _Rev. 20:2, 10_\u2014\u201c_laid\n hold on the dragon ... and bound him ... cast into the lake of\n fire._\u201d Compare _Ps. 72:18_\u2014\u201c_God ... Who only doeth wondrous\n things_\u201d = only God can perform miracles. Angels are imperfect\n compared with God (_Job 4:18; 15:15; 25:5_).\n\n Power, rather than beauty or intelligence, is their striking\n characteristic. They are \u201c_principalities and powers_\u201d (_Col.\n 1:16_). They terrify those who behold them (_Mat. 28:4_). The\n rolling away of the stone from the sepulchre took strength. A\n wheel of granite, eight feet in diameter and one foot thick,\n rolling in a groove, would weigh more than four tons. Mason, Faith\n of the Gospel, 86\u2014\u201cThe spiritual might and burning indignation in\n the face of Stephen reminded the guilty Sanhedrin of an angelic\n vision.\u201d Even in their tenderest ministrations they strengthen\n (_Luke 22:43_; _cf._ _Dan. 10:19_). In _1 Tim. 6:15_\u2014\u201c_King of\n kings and Lord of lords_\u201d\u2014the words \u201c_kings_\u201d and \u201c_lords_\u201d\n (\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd and \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03c5\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd) may refer to angels. In the case of\n evil spirits especially, power seems the chief thing in mind, _e.\n g._, \u201c_the prince of this world_,\u201d \u201c_the strong man armed_,\u201d \u201c_the\n power of darkness_,\u201d \u201c_rulers of the darkness of this world_,\u201d\n \u201c_the great dragon,_\u201d \u201c_all the power of the enemy_,\u201d \u201c_all these\n things will I give thee_,\u201d \u201c_deliver us from the evil one_.\u201d\n\n\n(_e_) They are an order of intelligences distinct from man and older than\nman.\n\n\n Angels are distinct from man. _1 Cor. 6:3_\u2014\u201c_we shall judge\n angels_\u201d; _Heb. 1:14_\u2014\u201c_Are they not all ministering spirits, sent\n forth to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit\n salvation?_\u201d They are not glorified human spirits; see _Heb.\n 2:16_\u2014\u201c_for verily not to angels doth he give help, but he giveth\n help to __ the seed of Abraham_\u201d; also _12:22, 23_, where \u201c_the\n innumerable hosts of angels_\u201d are distinguished from \u201c_the church\n of the firstborn_\u201d and \u201c_the spirits of just men made perfect_.\u201d\n In _Rev. 22:9_\u2014\u201c_I am a fellow-servant with\n thee_\u201d\u2014\u201c_fellow-servant_\u201d intimates likeness to men, not in\n nature, but in service and subordination to God, the proper object\n of worship. Sunday School Times, Mch. 15, 1902:146\u2014\u201cAngels are\n spoken of as greater in power and might than man, but that could\n be said of many a lower animal, or even of whirlwind and fire.\n Angels are never spoken of as a superior order of spiritual\n beings. We are to \u2018_judge angels_\u2019 (_1 Cor. 6:3_), and inferiors\n are not to judge superiors.\u201d\n\n Angels are an order of intelligences older than man. The Fathers\n made the creation of angels simultaneous with the original calling\n into being of the elements, perhaps basing their opinion on the\n apocryphal Ecclesiasticus, 18:1\u2014\u201che that liveth eternally created\n all things together.\u201d In _Job 38:7_, the Hebrews parallelism makes\n \u201c_morning stars_\u201d\u2014\u201c_sons of God,_\u201d so that angels are spoken of as\n present at certain stages of God\u2019s creative work. The mention of\n \u201c_the serpent_\u201d in _Gen. 3:1_ implies the fall of Satan before the\n fall of man. We may infer that the creation of angels took place\n before the creation of man\u2014the lower before the higher. In _Gen.\n 2:1_, \u201c_all the host of them,_\u201d which God had created, may be\n intended to include angels. Man was the crowning work of creation,\n created after angels were created. Mason, Faith of the Gospel,\n 81\u2014\u201cAngels were perhaps created before the material heavens and\n earth\u2014a spiritual substratum in which the material things were\n planted, a preparatory creation to receive what was to follow. In\n the vision of Jacob they ascend first and descend after; their\n natural place is in the world below.\u201d\n\n\nThe constant representation of angels as personal beings in Scripture\ncannot be explained as a personification of abstract good and evil, in\naccommodation to Jewish superstitions, without wresting many narrative\npassages from their obvious sense; implying on the part of Christ either\ndissimulation or ignorance as to an important point of doctrine; and\nsurrendering belief in the inspiration of the Old Testament from which\nthese Jewish views of angelic beings were derived.\n\n\n Jesus accommodated himself to the popular belief in respect at\n least to \u201c_Abraham\u2019s bosom_\u201d (_Luke 16:22_), and he confessed\n ignorance with regard to the time of the end (_Mark 13:32_); see\n Rush Rhees, Life of Jesus of Nazareth, 245-248. But in the former\n case his hearers probably understood him to speak figuratively and\n rhetorically, while in the latter case there was no teaching of\n the false but only limitation of knowledge with regard to the\n true. Our Lord did not hesitate to contradict Pharisaic belief in\n the efficacy of ceremonies, and Sadducean denial of resurrection\n and future life. The doctrine of angels had even stronger hold\n upon the popular mind than had these errors of the Pharisees and\n Sadducees. That Jesus did not correct or deny the general belief,\n but rather himself expressed and confirmed it, implies that the\n belief was rational and Scriptural. For one of the best statements\n of the argument for the existence of evil spirits, see Broadus,\n Com. on _Mat. 8:28_.\n\n _Eph. 3:10_\u2014\u201c_to the intent that now unto the principalities and\n the powers in the heavenly places might be made known through the\n church the manifold wisdom of God_\u201d\u2014excludes the hypothesis that\n angels are simply abstract conceptions of good or evil. We speak\n of \u201cmoon-struck\u201d people (lunatics), only when we know that nobody\n supposes us to believe in the power of the moon to cause madness.\n But Christ\u2019s contemporaries _did_ suppose him to believe in\n angelic spirits, good and evil. If this belief was an error, it\n was by no means a harmless one, and the benevolence as well as the\n veracity of Christ would have led him to correct it. So too, if\n Paul had known that there were no such beings as angels, he could\n not honestly have contented himself with forbidding the Colossians\n to worship them (_Col 2:18_) but would have denied their\n existence, as he denied the existence of heathen gods (_1 Cor.\n 8:4_).\n\n Theodore Parker said it was very evident that Jesus Christ\n believed in a personal devil. Harnack, Wesen des Christenthums,\n 35\u2014\u201cThere can be no doubt that Jesus shared with his\n contemporaries the representation of two kingdoms, the kingdom of\n God and the kingdom of the devil.\u201d Wendt, Teaching of Jesus,\n 1:164\u2014Jesus \u201cmakes it appear as if Satan was the immediate\n tempter. I am far from thinking that he does so in a merely\n figurative way. Beyond all doubt Jesus accepted the contemporary\n ideas as to the real existence of Satan, and accordingly, in the\n particular cases of disease referred to, he supposes a real\n Satanic temptation.\u201d Maurice, Theological Essays, 32, 34\u2014\u201cThe\n acknowledgment of an evil spirit is characteristic of\n Christianity.\u201d H. B. Smith, System, 261\u2014\u201cIt would appear that the\n power of Satan in the world reached its culminating point at the\n time of Christ, and has been less ever since.\u201d\n\n\nThe same remark applies to the view which regards Satan as but a\ncollective term for all evil beings, human or superhuman. The Scripture\nrepresentations of the progressive rage of the great adversary, from his\nfirst assault on human virtue in Genesis to his final overthrow in\nRevelation, join with the testimony of Christ just mentioned, to forbid\nany other conclusion than this, that there is a personal being of great\npower, who carries on organized opposition to the divine government.\n\n\n Crane, The Religion of To-morrow, 299 sq.\u2014\u201cWe well say \u2018personal\n devil,\u2019 for there is no devil but personality.\u201d We cannot deny the\n personality of Satan except upon principles which would compel us\n to deny the existence of good angels, the personality of the Holy\n Spirit, and the personality of God the Father,\u2014we may add, even\n the personality of the human soul. Says Nigel Penruddock in Lord\n Beaconsfield\u2019s \u201cEndymion\u201d: \u201cGive me a single argument against his\n [Satan\u2019s] personality, which is not applicable to the personality\n of the Deity.\u201d One of the most ingenious devices of Satan is that\n of persuading men that he has no existence. Next to this is the\n device of substituting for belief in a personal devil the belief\n in a merely impersonal spirit of evil. Such a substitution we find\n in Pfleiderer, Philosophy of Religion, 1:311\u2014\u201cThe idea of the\n devil was a welcome expedient for the need of advanced religious\n reflection, to put God out of relation to the evil and badness of\n the world.\u201d Pfleiderer tells us that the early optimism of the\n Hebrews, like that of the Greeks, gave place in later times to\n pessimism and despair. But the Hebrews still had hope of\n deliverance by the Messiah and an apocalyptic reign of good.\n\n For the view that Satan is merely a collective term for all evil\n beings, see Bushnell, Nature and the Supernatural, 131-137.\n Bushnell, holding moral evil to be a necessary \u201ccondition\n privative\u201d of all finite beings as such, believes that \u201cgood\n angels have all been passed through and helped up out of a fall,\n as the redeemed of mankind will be.\u201d \u201c_Elect angels_\u201d (_1 Tim.\n 5:21_) then would mean those saved _after_ falling, not those\n saved _from_ falling; and \u201c_Satan_\u201d would be, not the name of a\n particular person, but the all or total of all bad minds and\n powers. _Per contra_, see Smith\u2019s Bible Dictionary, arts.: Angels,\n Demons, Demoniacs, Satan; Trench, Studies in the Gospels, 16-26.\n For a comparison of Satan in the Book of Job, with Milton\u2019s Satan\n in \u201cParadise Lost,\u201d and Goethe\u2019s Mephistopheles in \u201cFaust,\u201d see\n Masson, The Three Devils. We may add to this list Dante\u2019s Satan\n (or Dis) in the \u201cDivine Comedy,\u201d Byron\u2019s Lucifer in \u201cCain,\u201d and\n Mrs. Browning\u2019s Lucifer in her \u201cDrama of Exile\u201d; see Gregory,\n Christian Ethics, 219.\n\n\n2. As to their number and organization.\n\n\n(_a_) They are of great multitude.\n\n\n _Deut. 33:2_\u2014\u201c_Jehovah ... came from the ten thousands of holy\n ones_\u201d; _Ps. 68:17_\u2014\u201c_The chariots of God are twenty thousand,\n even thousands upon thousands_\u201d; _Dan. 7:10_\u2014\u201c_thousands of\n thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand\n stood before him_\u201d; _Rev. 5:11_\u2014\u201c_I heard a voice of many angels\n ... and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand,\n and thousands of thousands._\u201d Anselm thought that the number of\n lost angels was filled up by the number of elect men. Savage, Life\n after Death, 61\u2014The Pharisees held very exaggerated notions of the\n number of angelic spirits. They \u201csaid that a man, if he threw a\n stone over his shoulder or cast away a broken piece of pottery,\n asked pardon of any spirit that he might possibly have hit in so\n doing.\u201d So in W. H. H. Murray\u2019s time it was said to be dangerous\n in the Adirondack to fire a gun,\u2014you might hit a man.\n\n\n(_b_) They constitute a company, as distinguished from a race.\n\n\n _Mat. 22:30_\u2014\u201c_they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but\n are as angels in heaven_\u201d; _Luke 20:36_\u2014\u201c_neither can they die any\n more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are sons of God._\u201d\n We are called \u201c_sons of men_,\u201d but angels are never called \u201c_sons\n of angels_,\u201d but only \u201c_sons of God_.\u201d They are not developed from\n one original stock, and no such common nature binds them together\n as binds together the race of man. They have no common character\n and history. Each was created separately, and each apostate angel\n fell by himself. Humanity fell all at once in its first father.\n Cut down a tree, and you cut down its branches. But angels were so\n many separate trees. Some lapsed into sin, but some remained holy.\n See Godet, Bib. Studies O. T., 1-29. This may be one reason why\n salvation was provided for fallen man, but not for fallen angels.\n Christ could join himself to humanity by taking the common nature\n of all. There was no common nature of angels which he could take.\n See _Heb. 2:16_\u2014\u201c_not to angels doth he give help._\u201d The angels\n are \u201c_sons of God_,\u201d as having no earthly parentage and no\n parentage at all except the divine. _Eph. 3:14, 15_\u2014\u201c_the Father,\n of whom every fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named,_\u201d\u2014not\n \u201c_every family_,\u201d as in R. V., for there are no families among the\n angels. The marginal rendering \u201c_fatherhood_\u201d is better than\n \u201c_family_,\u201d\u2014all the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03af are named from the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1. Dodge,\n Christian Theology, 172\u2014\u201cThe bond between angels is simply a\n mental and moral one. They can gain nothing by inheritance,\n nothing through domestic and family life, nothing through a\n society held together by a bond of blood.... Belonging to two\n worlds and not simply to one, the human soul has in it the springs\n of a deeper and wider experience than angels can have.... God\n comes nearer to man than to his angels.\u201d Newman Smyth, Through\n Science to Faith, 191\u2014\u201cIn the resurrection life of man, the\n species has died; man the individual lives on. Sex shall be no\n more needed for the sake of life; they shall no more marry, but\n men and women, the children of marriage, shall be as the angels.\n Through the death of the human species shall be gained, as the\n consummation of all, the immortality of the individuals.\u201d\n\n\n(_c_) They are of various ranks and endowments.\n\n\n _Col. 1:16_\u2014\u201c_thrones or dominions or principalities or powers_\u201d;\n _1 Thess. 4:16_\u2014\u201c_the voice of the archangel_\u201d; _Jude 9_\u2014\u201c_Michael\n the archangel._\u201d Michael (= who is like God?) is the only one\n expressly called an archangel in Scripture, although Gabriel (=\n God\u2019s hero) has been called an archangel by Milton. In Scripture,\n Michael seems the messenger of law and judgment; Gabriel, the\n messenger of mercy and promise. The fact that Scripture has but\n one archangel is proof that its doctrine of angels was not, as has\n sometimes been charged, derived from Babylonian and Persian\n sources; for there we find seven archangels instead of one. There,\n moreover, we find the evil spirit enthroned as a god, while in\n Scripture he is represented as a trembling slave.\n\n Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 1:51\u2014\u201cThe devout and trustful\n consciousness of the immediate nearness of God, which is expressed\n in so many beautiful utterances of the Psalmist, appears to be\n supplanted in later Judaism by a belief in angels, which is\n closely analogous to the superstitious belief in the saints on the\n part of the Romish church. It is very significant that the Jews in\n the time of Jesus could no longer conceive of the promulgation of\n the law on Sinai, which was to them the foundation of their whole\n religion, as an immediate revelation of Jehovah to Moses, except\n as instituted through the mediation of angels (_Acts 7:38, 53_;\n _Gal. 3:19_; _Heb. 2:2_; Josephus, Ant. 15:5, 3).\u201d\n\n\n(_d_) They have an organization.\n\n\n _1 Sam. 1:11_\u2014\u201c_Jehovah of hosts_\u201d; _1 K. 22:19_\u2014\u201c_Jehovah sitting\n on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his\n right hand and on his left_\u201d; _Mat. 26:53_\u2014\u201c_twelve legions of\n angels_\u201d\u2014suggests the organization of the Roman army;\n _25:41_\u2014\u201c_the devil and his angels_\u201d; _Eph. 2:2_\u2014\u201c_the prince of\n the powers in the air_\u201d; _Rev. 2:13_\u2014\u201c_Satan\u2019s throne_\u201d (not\n \u201c_seat_\u201d); _16:10_\u2014\u201c_throne of the beast_\u201d\u2014\u201ca hellish parody of\n the heavenly kingdom\u201d (Trench). The phrase \u201c_host of heaven_,\u201d in\n _Deut. 4:19_; _17:3_; _Acts 7:42_, probably = the stars; but in\n _Gen. 32:2_, \u201c_God\u2019s host_\u201d = angels, for when Jacob saw the\n angels he said \u201c_this is God\u2019s host_.\u201d In general the phrases\n \u201c_God of hosts_\u201d, \u201c_Lord of hosts_\u201d seem to mean \u201cGod of angels\u201d,\n \u201cLord of angels\u201d: compare _2 Chron. 18:18_; _Luke 2:13_; _Rev.\n 19:14_\u2014\u201c_the armies which are in heaven._\u201d Yet in _Neh. 9:6_ and\n _Ps. 33:6_ the word \u201c_host_\u201d seems to include both angels and\n stars.\n\n Satan is \u201cthe ape of God.\u201d He has a throne. He is \u201c_the prince of\n the world_\u201d (_John 14:30; 16:11_), \u201c_the prince of the powers of\n the air_\u201d (_Eph. 2:2_). There is a cosmos and order of evil, as\n well as a cosmos and order of good, though Christ is stronger than\n the strong man armed (_Luke 11:21_) and rules even over Satan. On\n Satan in the Old Testament, see art. by T. W. Chambers, in Presb.\n and Ref. Rev., Jan. 1892:22-34. The first mention of Satan is in\n the account of the Fall in _Gen. 3:1-15_; the second in _Lev.\n 16:8_, where one of the two goats on the day of atonement is said\n to be \u201c_for Azazel_,\u201d or Satan; the third where Satan moved David\n to number Israel (_1 Chron. 21:1_); the fourth in the book of _Job\n 1:6-12_; the fifth in _Zech. 3:1-3_, where Satan stands as the\n adversary of Joshua the high priest, but Jehovah addresses Satan\n and rebukes him. Cheyne, Com. on Isaiah, vol. 1, p. 11, thinks\n that the stars were first called the hosts of God, with the notion\n that they were animated creatures. In later times the belief in\n angels threw into the background the belief in the stars as\n animated beings; the angels however were connected very closely\n with the stars. Marlowe, in his Tamburlaine, says: \u201cThe moon, the\n planets, and the meteors light, These angels in their crystal\n armor fight A doubtful battle.\u201d\n\n\nWith regard to the \u201ccherubim\u201d of Genesis, Exodus, and Ezekiel,\u2014with which\nthe \u201cseraphim\u201d of Isaiah and the \u201cliving creatures\u201d of the book of\nRevelation are to be identified,\u2014the most probable interpretation is that\nwhich regards them, not as actual beings of higher rank than man, but as\nsymbolic appearances, intended to represent redeemed humanity, endowed\nwith all the creature perfections lost by the Fall, and made to be the\ndwelling-place of God.\n\n\n Some have held that the cherubim are symbols of the divine\n attributes, or of God\u2019s government over nature; see Smith\u2019s Bib.\n Dict., art.: Cherub; Alford, Com. on _Rev. 4:6-8_, and Hulsean\n Lectures, 1841: vol. 1, Lect. 2; Ebrard, Dogmatik, 1:278. But\n whatever of truth belongs to this view may be included in the\n doctrine stated above. The cherubim are indeed symbols of nature\n pervaded by the divine energy and subordinated to the divine\n purposes, but they are symbols of nature only because they are\n symbols of man in his twofold capacity of _image of God_ and\n _priest of nature_. Man, as having a body, is a part of nature; as\n having a soul, he emerges from nature and gives to nature a voice.\n Through man, nature, otherwise blind and dead, is able to\n appreciate and to express the Creator\u2019s glory.\n\n The doctrine of the cherubim embraces the following points: 1. The\n cherubim are not personal beings, but are artificial, temporary,\n symbolic figures. 2. While they are not themselves personal\n existences, they are symbols of personal existence\u2014symbols not of\n divine or angelic perfections but of human nature (_Ex.\n 1:5_\u2014\u201c_they had the likeness of a man_\u201d; _Rev. 5:9_\u2014A. V.\u2014\u201c_thou\n hast redeemed us to God by thy blood_\u201d\u2014so read \u05d0, B, and\n Tregelles; the Eng. and Am. Rev. Vers., however, follow A and\n Tischendorf, and omit the word \u201c_us_\u201d). 3. They are emblems of\n human nature, not in its present stage of development, but\n possessed of all its original perfections; for this reason the\n most perfect animal forms\u2014the kinglike courage of the lion, the\n patient service of the ox, the soaring insight of the eagle\u2014are\n combined with that of man (_Ez. 1_ and _10_; _Rev. 4:6-8_). 4.\n These cherubic forms represent, not merely material or earthly\n perfections, but human nature spiritualized and sanctified. They\n are \u201c_living creatures_\u201d and their life is a holy life of\n obedience to the divine will (_Ez. 1:12_\u2014\u201c_whither the spirit was\n to go, they went_\u201d). 5. They symbolize a human nature exalted to\n be the dwelling-place of God. Hence the inner curtains of the\n tabernacle were inwoven with cherubic figures, and God\u2019s glory was\n manifested on the mercy-seat between the cherubim (_Ex. 37:6-9_).\n While the flaming sword at the gates of Eden was the symbol of\n justice, the cherubim were symbols of mercy\u2014keeping the \u201c_way of\n the tree of life_\u201d for man, until by sacrifice and renewal\n Paradise should be regained (_Gen. 3:24_).\n\n In corroboration of this general view, note that angels and\n cherubim never go together; and that in the closing visions of the\n book of Revelation these symbolic forms are seen no longer. When\n redeemed humanity has entered heaven, the figures which typified\n that humanity, having served their purpose, finally disappear. For\n fuller elaboration, see A. H. Strong, The Nature and Purpose of\n the Cherubim, in Philosophy and Religion, 391-399; Fairbairn,\n Typology, 1:185-208; Elliott, Hor\u00e6 Apocalyptic\u00e6, 1:87; Bib. Sac.,\n 1876:32-51; Bib. Com., 1:49-52\u2014\u201cThe winged lions, eagles, and\n bulls, that guard the entrances of the palace of Nineveh, are\n worshipers rather than divinities.\u201d It has lately been shown that\n the winged bull of Assyria was called \u201cKerub\u201d almost as far back\n as the time of Moses. The word appears in its Hebrew form 500\n years before the Jews had any contact with the Persian dominion.\n The Jews did not derive it from any Aryan race. It belonged to\n their own language.\n\n The variable form of the cherubim seems to prove that they are\n symbolic appearances rather than real beings. A parallel may be\n found in classical literature. In Horace, Carmina, 3:11, 15,\n Cerberus has three heads; in 2:13, 34, he has a hundred. Br\u00e9al,\n Semantics suggests that the three heads may be dog-heads, while\n the hundred heads may be snake-heads. But Cerberus is also\n represented in Greece as having only one head. Cerberus must\n therefore be a symbol rather than an actually existing creature.\n H. W. Congdon of Wyoming, N. Y., held, however, that the cherubim\n are symbols of God\u2019s life in the universe as a whole. _Ez.\n 28:14-19_\u2014\u201c_the anointed cherub that covereth_\u201d\u2014the power of the\n King of Tyre was so all-pervading throughout his dominion, his\n sovereignty so absolute, and his decrees so instantly obeyed, that\n his rule resembled the divine government over the world. Mr.\n Congdon regarded the cherubim as a proof of monism. See\n Margoliouth, The Lord\u2019s Prayer, 159-180. On animal characteristics\n in man, see Hopkins, Scriptural Idea of Man, 105.\n\n\n3. As to their moral character.\n\n\n(_a_) They were all created holy.\n\n\n _Gen. 1:31_\u2014\u201c_God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it\n was very good_\u201d; _Jude 6_\u2014\u201c_angels that kept not their own\n beginning_\u201d\u2014\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd seems here to mean their beginning in holy\n character, rather than their original lordship and dominion.\n\n\n(_b_) They had a probation.\n\n\n This we infer from _1 Tim. 5:21_\u2014\u201c_the elect angels_\u201d; _cf._ _1\n Pet. 1:1, 2_\u2014\u201c_elect ... unto obedience._\u201d If certain angels, like\n certain men, are \u201c_elect ... unto obedience_,\u201d it would seem to\n follow that there was a period of probation, during which their\n obedience or disobedience determined their future destiny; see\n Ellicott on _1 Tim. 5:21_. Mason, Faith of the Gospel,\n 106-108\u2014\u201c_Gen. 3:14_\u2014\u2018_Because thou hast done this, cursed art\n thou_\u2019\u2014in the sentence on the serpent, seems to imply that Satan\u2019s\n day of grace was ended when he seduced man. Thenceforth he was\n driven to live on dust, to triumph only in sin, to pick up a\n living out of man, to possess man\u2019s body or soul, to tempt from\n the good.\u201d\n\n\n(_c_) Some preserved their integrity.\n\n\n _Ps. 89:7_\u2014\u201c_the council of the holy ones_\u201d\u2014a designation of\n angels; _Mark 8:38_\u2014\u201c_the holy angels._\u201d Shakespeare, Macbeth,\n 4:3\u2014\u201cAngels are bright still, though the brightest fell.\u201d\n\n\n(_d_) Some fell from their state of innocence.\n\n\n _John 8:44_\u2014\u201c_He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth\n not in the truth, because there is no truth in him_\u201d; _2 Pet.\n 2:4_\u2014\u201c_angels when they sinned_\u201d; _Jude 6_\u2014\u201c_angels who kept not\n their own beginning, but left their proper habitation._\u201d\n Shakespeare, Henry VIII, 3:2\u2014\u201cCromwell, I charge thee, fling away\n ambition; By that sin fell the angels; how can man then, The image\n of his Maker, hope to win by it?... How wretched Is that poor man\n that hangs on princes\u2019 favors!... When he falls, he falls like\n Lucifer, Never to hope again.\u201d\n\n\n(_e_) The good are confirmed in good.\n\n\n _Mat. 6:10_\u2014\u201c_Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth_\u201d;\n _18:10_\u2014\u201c_in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my\n Father who is in heaven_\u201d; _2 Cor. 11:14_\u2014\u201c_an angel of light._\u201d\n\n\n(_f_) The evil are confirmed in evil.\n\n\n _Mat. 13:19_\u2014\u201c_the evil one_\u201d; _1 John 5:18, 19_\u2014\u201c_the evil one\n toucheth him not ... the whole world lieth in the evil one_\u201d;\n _cf._ _John 8:44_\u2014\u201c_Ye are of your father the devil ... When he\n speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the\n father thereof_\u201d; _Mat. 6:13_\u2014\u201c_deliver us from the evil one._\u201d\n\n From these Scriptural statements we infer that all free creatures\n pass through a period of probation; that probation does not\n necessarily involve a fall; that there is possible a sinless\n development of moral beings. Other Scriptures seem to intimate\n that the revelation of God in Christ is an object of interest and\n wonder to other orders of intelligence than our own; that they are\n drawn in Christ more closely to God and to us; in short, that they\n are confirmed in their integrity by the cross. See _1 Pet.\n 1:12_\u2014\u201c_which things angels desire to look into_\u201d; _Eph.\n 3:10_\u2014\u201c_that now unto the principalities and the powers in the\n heavenly places might be made known through the church the\n manifold wisdom of God_\u201d; _Col. 1:20_\u2014\u201c_through him to reconcile\n all things unto himself ... whether things upon the earth, or\n things in the heavens_\u201d; _Eph. 1:10_\u2014\u201c_to sum up all things in\n Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the\n earth_\u201d\u2014\u201cthe unification of the whole universe in Christ as the\n divine centre.... The great system is a harp all whose strings are\n in tune but one, and that one jarring string makes discord\n throughout the whole. The whole universe shall feel the influence,\n and shall be reduced to harmony, when that one string, the world\n in which we live, shall be put in tune by the hand of love and\n mercy\u201d\u2014freely quoted from Leitch, God\u2019s Glory in the Heavens,\n 327-330.\n\n It is not impossible that God is using this earth as a\n breeding-ground from which to populate the universe. Mark Hopkins,\n Life, 317\u2014\u201cWhile there shall be gathered at last and preserved, as\n Paul says, a holy church, and every man shall be perfect and the\n church shall be spotless.... there will be other forms of\n perfection in other departments of the universe. And when the\n great day of restitution shall come and God shall vindicate his\n government, there may be seen to be coming in from other\n departments of the universe a long procession of angelic forms,\n great white legions from Sirius, from Arcturus and the chambers of\n the South, gathering around the throne of God and that centre\n around which the universe revolves.\u201d\n\n\n4. As to their employments.\n\n\nA. The employments of good angels.\n\n\n(_a_) They stand in the presence of God and worship him.\n\n\n _Ps. 29:1, 2_\u2014\u201c_Ascribe unto Jehovah, O ye sons of the mighty,\n Ascribe unto Jehovah glory and strength. Ascribe unto Jehovah the\n glory due unto his name. Worship Jehovah in holy array_\u201d\u2014Perowne:\n \u201cHeaven being thought of as one great temple, and all the\n worshipers therein as clothed in priestly vestments.\u201d _Ps.\n 89:7_\u2014\u201c_a God very terrible in the council of the holy ones,_\u201d _i.\n e._, angels\u2014Perowne: \u201cAngels are called an assembly or\n congregation, as the church above, which like the church below\n worships and praises God.\u201d _Mat. 18:10_\u2014\u201c_in heaven their angels\n do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven._\u201d In\n apparent allusion to this text, Dante represents the saints as\n dwelling in the presence of God yet at the same time rendering\n humble service to their fellow men here upon the earth. Just in\n proportion to their nearness to God and the light they receive\n from him, is the influence they are able to exert over others.\n\n\n(_b_) They rejoice in God\u2019s works.\n\n\n _Job 38:7_\u2014\u201c_all the sons of God shouted for joy_\u201d; _Luke\n 15:10_\u2014\u201c_there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over\n one sinner that repenteth_\u201d; _cf._ _2 Tim. 2:25_\u2014\u201c_if peradventure\n God may give them repentance._\u201d Dante represents the angels that\n are nearest to God, the infinite source of life, as ever advancing\n toward the spring-time of youth, so that the oldest angels are the\n youngest.\n\n\n(_c_) They execute God\u2019s will,\u2014by working in nature;\n\n\n _Ps. 103:20_\u2014\u201c_Ye his angels ... that fulfil his word, Hearkening\n unto the voice of his word_\u201d; _104:4_ marg.\u2014\u201c_Who maketh his\n angels winds_; _His ministers a flaming fire_,\u201d _i. e._,\n lightnings. See Alford on _Heb. 1:7_\u2014\u201cThe order of the Hebrew\n words here [in _Ps. 104:4_] is not the same as in the former\n verses (see especially _v. 3_), where we have: \u2018_Who maketh the\n clouds his chariot_.\u2019 For this transposition, those who insist\n that the passage means \u2018he maketh winds his messengers\u2019 can give\n no reason.\u201d\n\n Farrar on _Heb. 1:7_\u2014\u201c_He maketh his angels winds_\u201d; \u201cThe Rabbis\n often refer to the fact that God makes his angels assume any form\n he pleases, whether man (_Gen. 18:2_) or woman (_Zech 5:9_\u2014\u2018_two\n women, and the wind was in their wings_\u2019), or wind or flame (_Ex.\n 3:2_\u2014\u2018_angel ... in a flame of fire_\u2019; _2 K. 6:17_). But that\n untenable and fleeting form of existence which is the glory of the\n angels would be an inferiority in the Son. He could not be\n clothed, as they are at God\u2019s will, in the fleeting robes of\n material phenomena.\u201d John Henry Newman, in his Apologia, sees an\n angel in every flower. Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 82\u2014\u201cOrigen\n thought not a blade of grass nor a fly was without its angel.\n _Rev. 14:18_\u2014an angel \u2018_that hath power over fire_\u2019; _John\n 5:4_\u2014intermittent spring under charge of an angel; _Mat.\n 28:2_\u2014descent of an angel caused earthquake on the morning of\n Christ\u2019s resurrection; _Luke 13:11_\u2014control of diseases is\n ascribed to angels.\u201d\n\n\n(_d_) by guiding the affairs of nations;\n\n\n _Dan. 10:12, 13, 21_\u2014\u201c_I come for thy words\u2019 sake. But the prince\n of the kingdom of Persia withstood me ... Michael, one of the\n chief princes, came to help me ... Michael your prince_\u201d;\n _11:1_\u2014\u201c_And as for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I\n stood up to confirm and strengthen him_\u201d; _12:1_\u2014\u201c_at that time\n shall Michael stand up, the great prince who standeth for the\n children of thy people._\u201d Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 87, suggests\n the question whether \u201cthe spirit of the age\u201d or \u201cthe national\n character\u201d in any particular case may not be due to the unseen\n \u201cprincipalities\u201d under which men live. Paul certainly recognizes,\n in _Eph. 2:2_, \u201c_the prince of the powers of the air, ... the\n spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience._\u201d May not\n good angels be entrusted with influence over nations\u2019 affairs to\n counteract the evil and help the good?\n\n\n(_e_) by watching over the interests of particular churches;\n\n\n _1 Cor. 11:10_\u2014\u201c_for this cause ought the women to have a sign of\n authority_ [_i. e._, a veil] _on her head, because of the\n angels_\u201d\u2014who watch over the church and have care for its order.\n Matheson, Spiritual Development of St. Paul, 242\u2014\u201cMan\u2019s covering\n is woman\u2019s power. Ministration _is_ her power and it allies her\n with a greater than man\u2014the angel. Christianity is a feminine\n strength. Judaism had made woman only a means to an end\u2014the\n multiplication of the race. So it had degraded her. Paul will\n restore woman to her original and equal dignity.\u201d _Col.\n 2:18_\u2014\u201c_Let no man rob you of your prize by a voluntary humility\n and worshiping of the angels_\u201d\u2014a false worship which would be very\n natural if angels were present to guard the meetings of the\n saints. _1 Tim. 5:21_\u2014\u201c_I charge thee in the sight of God, and\n Christ Jesus, and the elect angels, that thou observe these\n things_\u201d\u2014the public duties of the Christian minister.\n\n Alford regards \u201c_the angels of the seven churches_\u201d (_Rev. 1:20_)\n as superhuman beings appointed to represent and guard the\n churches, and that upon the grounds: (1) that the word is used\n elsewhere in the book of Revelation only in this sense; and (2)\n that nothing in the book is addressed to a teacher individually,\n but all to some one who reflects the complexion and fortunes of\n the church as no human person could. We prefer, however, to regard\n \u201c_the angels of the seven churches_\u201d as meaning simply the pastors\n of the seven churches. The word \u201c_angel_\u201d means simply\n \u201cmessenger,\u201d and may be used of human as well as of superhuman\n beings\u2014see _Hag. 1:13_\u2014\u201c_Haggai, Jehovah\u2019s messenger_\u201d\u2014literally,\n \u201c_the angel of Jehovah_.\u201d The use of the word in this figurative\n sense would not be incongruous with the mystical character of the\n book of Revelation (see Bib. Sac. 12:339). John Lightfoot, Heb.\n and Talmud. Exerc., 2:90, says that \u201cangel\u201d was a term designating\n officer or elder of a synagogue. See also Bp. Lightfoot, Com. on\n Philippians, 187, 188; Jacobs, Eccl. Polity, 100 and note. In the\n Irvingite church, accordingly, \u201cangels\u201d constitute an official\n class.\n\n\n(_f_) by assisting and protecting individual believers;\n\n\n _1 K. 19:5_\u2014\u201c_an angel touched him_ [Elijah], _and said unto him,\n Arise and eat_\u201d; _Ps. 91:11_\u2014\u201c_he will give his angels charge over\n thee, To keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in\n their hands, Lest thou dash thy foot against a stone_\u201d; _Dan.\n 6:22_\u2014\u201c_My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions\u2019\n mouths, and they have not hurt me_\u201d; _Mat. 4:11_\u2014\u201c_angels came and\n ministered unto him_\u201d\u2014Jesus was the type of all believers;\n _18:10_\u2014\u201c_despise not one of these little ones, for I say unto\n you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my\n Father_\u201d; compare _verse 6_\u2014\u201c_one of these little ones that\n believe on me_\u201d; see Meyer, Com. _in loco_, who regards these\n passages as proving the doctrine of guardian angels. _Luke\n 16:22_\u2014\u201c_the beggar died, and ... was carried away by the angels\n into Abraham\u2019s bosom_\u201d; _Heb. 1:14_\u2014\u201c_Are they not all ministering\n spirits, sent forth to do service for the sake of them that shall\n inherit salvation?_\u201d Compare _Acts 12:15_\u2014\u201c_And they said, It is\n his angel_\u201d\u2014of Peter standing knocking; see Hackett, Com. _in\n loco_: the utterance \u201cexpresses a popular belief prevalent among\n the Jews, which is neither affirmed nor denied.\u201d Shakespeare,\n Henry IV, 2nd part, 2:2\u2014\u201cFor the boy\u2014there is a good angel about\n him.\u201d _Per contra_, see Broadus, Com. on _Mat. 18:10_\u2014\u201cIt is\n simply said of believers as a class that there are angels which\n are \u2018_their angels_\u2019; but there is nothing here or elsewhere to\n show that one angel has special charge of one believer.\u201d\n\n\n(_g_) by punishing God\u2019s enemies.\n\n\n _2 K. 19:35_\u2014\u201c_it came to pass that night, that the angel of\n Jehovah went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an\n hundred fourscore and five thousand_\u201d; _Acts 12:23_\u2014\u201c_And\n immediately an angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not\n God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost._\u201d\n\n\nA general survey of this Scripture testimony as to the employments of good\nangels leads us to the following conclusions:\n\nFirst,\u2014that good angels are not to be considered as the mediating agents\nof God\u2019s regular and common providence, but as the ministers of his\nspecial providence in the affairs of his church. He \u201cmaketh his angels\nwinds\u201d and \u201ca flaming fire,\u201d not in his ordinary procedure, but in\nconnection with special displays of his power for moral ends (Deut. 33:2;\nActs 7:53; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2). Their intervention is apparently\noccasional and exceptional\u2014not at their own option, but only as it is\npermitted or commanded by God. Hence we are not to conceive of angels as\ncoming between us and God, nor are we, without special revelation of the\nfact, to attribute to them in any particular case the effects which the\nScriptures generally ascribe to divine providence. Like miracles,\ntherefore, angelic appearances generally mark God\u2019s entrance upon new\nepochs in the unfolding of his plans. Hence we read of angels at the\ncompletion of creation (Job 38:7); at the giving of the law (Gal 3:19); at\nthe birth of Christ (Luke 2:13); at the two temptations in the wilderness\nand in Gethsemane (Mat. 4:11, Luke 22:43); at the resurrection (Mat.\n28:2); at the ascension (Acts 1:10); at the final judgment (Mat. 25:31).\n\n\n The substance of these remarks may be found in Hodge, Systematic\n Theology, 1:637-645. Milton tells us that \u201cMillions of spiritual\n creatures walk the earth Unseen, both when we wake and when we\n sleep.\u201d Whether this be true or not, it is a question of interest\n why such angelic beings as have to do with human affairs are not\n at present seen by men. Paul\u2019s admonition against the \u201c_worshiping\n of the angels_\u201d (_Col. 2:18_) seems to suggest the reason. If men\n have not abstained from worshiping their fellow-men, when these\n latter have been priests or media of divine communications, the\n danger of idolatry would be much greater if we came into close and\n constant contact with angels; see _Rev. 22:8, 9_\u2014\u201c_I fell down to\n worship before the feet of the angel which showed me these things.\n And he saith unto me, See thou do it not._\u201d\n\n The fact that we do not in our day see angels should not make us\n sceptical as to their existence any more than the fact that we do\n not in our day see miracles should make us doubt the reality of\n the New Testament miracles. As evil spirits were permitted to work\n most actively when Christianity began its appeal to men, so good\n angels were then most frequently recognized as executing the\n divine purposes. Nevius, Demon-Possession, 278, thinks that evil\n spirits are still at work where Christianity comes in conflict\n with heathenism, and that they retire into the background as\n Christianity triumphs. This may be true also of good angels.\n Otherwise we might be in danger of overestimating their greatness\n and authority. Father Taylor was right when he said: \u201cFolks are\n better than angels.\u201d It is vain to sing: \u201cI want to be an angel.\u201d\n We never shall be angels. Victor Hugo is wrong when he says: \u201cI am\n the tadpole of an archangel.\u201d John Smith is not an angel, and he\n never will be. But he may be far greater than an angel, because\n Christ took, not the nature of angels, but the nature of man\n (_Heb. 2:16_).\n\n As intimated above, there is no reason to believe that even the\n invisible presence of angels is a constant one. Doddridge\u2019s dream\n of accident prevented by angelic interposition seems to embody the\n essential truth. We append the passages referred to in the text.\n _Job 38:7_\u2014\u201c_When the morning stars sang together, And all the\n sons of God shouted for joy_\u201d; _Deut. 33:2_\u2014\u201c_Jehovah came from\n Sinai ... he came from the ten thousands of holy ones: At his\n right hand was a fiery law for them_\u201d; _Gal. 3:19_\u2014\u201c_it_ [the law]\n _was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator_\u201d; _Heb.\n 2:2_\u2014\u201c_the word spoken through angels_\u201d; _Acts 7:53_\u2014\u201c_who\n received the law as it was ordained by angels_\u201d; _Luke\n 2:13_\u2014\u201c_suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the\n heavenly host_\u201d; _Mat. 4:11_\u2014\u201c_Then the devil leaveth him; and\n behold, angels came and ministered unto him_\u201d; _Luke 22:43_\u2014\u201c_And\n there appeared unto him an angel from heaven, strengthening him_\u201d;\n _Mat. 28:2_\u2014\u201c_an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came\n and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it_\u201d; _Acts 1:10_\u2014\u201c_And\n while they were looking steadfastly into heaven as he went,\n behold, two men stood by them in white apparel_\u201d; _Mat.\n 25:31_\u2014\u201c_when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the\n angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory._\u201d\n\n\nSecondly,\u2014that their power, as being in its nature dependent and derived,\nis exercised in accordance with the laws of the spiritual and natural\nworld. They cannot, like God, create, perform miracles, act without means,\nsearch the heart. Unlike the Holy Spirit, who can influence the human mind\ndirectly, they can influence men only in ways analogous to those by which\nmen influence each other. As evil angels may tempt men to sin, so it is\nprobable that good angels may attract men to holiness.\n\n\n Recent psychical researches disclose almost unlimited\n possibilities of influencing other minds by suggestion. Slight\n physical phenomena, as the odor of a violet or the sight in a book\n of a crumpled roseleaf, may start trains of thought which change\n the whole course of a life. A word or a look may have great power\n over us. Fisher, Nature and Method of Revelation, 276\u2014\u201cThe facts\n of hypnotism illustrate the possibility of one mind falling into a\n strange thraldom under another.\u201d If other men can so powerfully\n influence us, it is quite possible that spirits which are not\n subject to limitations of the flesh may influence us yet more.\n\n Binet, in his Alterations of Personality, says that experiments on\n hysterical patients have produced in his mind the conviction that,\n in them at least, \u201ca plurality of persons exists.... We have\n established almost with certainty that in such patients, side by\n side with the principal personality, there is a secondary\n personality, which is unknown by the first, which sees, hears,\n reflects, reasons and acts\u201d; see Andover Review, April, 1890:422.\n Hudson, Law of Psychic Phenomena, 81-143, claims that we have two\n minds, the objective and conscious, and the subjective and\n unconscious. The latter works automatically upon suggestion from\n the objective or from other minds. In view of the facts referred\n to by Binet and Hudson, we claim that the influence of angelic\n spirits is no more incredible than is the influence of suggestion\n from living men. There is no need of attributing the phenomena of\n hypnotism to spirits of the dead. Our human nature is larger and\n more susceptible to spiritual influence than we have commonly\n believed. These psychical phenomena indeed furnish us with a\n corroboration of our Ethical Monism, for if in one human being\n there may be two or more consciousnesses, then in the one God\n there may be not only three infinite personalities but also\n multitudinous finite personalities. See T. H. Wright, The Finger\n of God, 124-133.\n\n\nB. The employments of evil angels.\n\n\n(_a_) They oppose God and strive to defeat his will. This is indicated in\nthe names applied to their chief. The word \u201cSatan\u201d means\n\u201cadversary\u201d\u2014primarily to God, secondarily to men; the term \u201cdevil\u201d\nsignifies \u201cslanderer\u201d\u2014of God to men, and of men to God. It is indicated\nalso in the description of the \u201cman of sin\u201d as \u201che that opposeth and\nexalteth himself against all that is called God.\u201d\n\n\n _Job 1:6_\u2014Satan appears among \u201c_the sons of God_\u201d; _Zech.\n 3:1_\u2014\u201c_Joshua the high priest ... and Satan standing at his right\n hand to be his adversary_\u201d; _Mat. 13:39_\u2014\u201c_the enemy that sowed\n them is the devil_\u201d; _1 Pet. 5:8_\u2014\u201c_your adversary the devil._\u201d\n Satan slanders God to men, in _Gen. 3:1, 4_\u2014\u201c_Yea, hath God\n said?... Ye shall not surely die_\u201d; men to God, in _Job 1:9,\n 11_\u2014\u201c_Doth Job fear God for naught?... put forth thy hand now, and\n touch all that he hath, and he will renounce thee to thy face_\u201d;\n _2:4, 5_\u2014\u201c_Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give\n for his life. But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and\n his flesh, and he will renounce thee to thy face_\u201d; _Rev.\n 12:10_\u2014\u201c_the accuser of our brethren is cast down, who accuseth\n them before our God night and day._\u201d\n\n Notice how, over against the evil spirit who thus accuses God to\n man and man to God, stands the Holy Spirit, the Advocate, who\n pleads God\u2019s cause with man and man\u2019s cause with God: _John\n 16:8_\u2014\u201c_he, when he is come, will convict the world in respect of\n sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment_\u201d; _Rom. 8:26_\u2014\u201c_the\n Spirit also helpeth our infirmity: for we know not how to pray as\n we ought; but the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us with\n groanings which cannot be uttered._\u201d Hence Balaam can say: _Num.\n 23:21_, \u201c_He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, Neither hath he\n seen perverseness in Israel_\u201d; and the Lord can say to Satan as he\n resists Joshua: \u201c_Jehovah rebuke thee, O Satan; yea, Jehovah that\n hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee_\u201d (_Zech. 3:2_). \u201cThus he puts\n himself between his people and every tongue that would accuse\n them\u201d (C. H. M.). For the description of the \u201c_man of sin_,\u201d see\n _2 Thess. 2:3, 4_\u2014\u201c_he that opposeth_\u201d; _cf._ _verse 9_\u2014\u201c_whose\n coming is according to the working of Satan._\u201d\n\n On the \u201c_man of sin_,\u201d see Wm. Arnold Stevens, in Bap. Quar. Rev.,\n July, 1889:328-360. As in _Daniel 11:36_, the great enemy of the\n faith, he who \u201c_shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above\n every God_\u201d, is the Syrian King, Antiochus Epiphanes, so the man\n of lawlessness described by Paul in _2 Thess. 2:3, 4_ was \u201cthe\n corrupt and impious Judaism of the apostolic age.\u201d This only had\n its seat in the temple of God. It was doomed to destruction when\n the Lord should come at the fall of Jerusalem. But this fulfilment\n does not preclude a future and final fulfilment of the prophecy.\n\n\nContrasts between the Holy Spirit and the spirit of evil: 1. The dove, and\nthe serpent; 2. the father of lies, and the Spirit of truth; 3. men\npossessed by dumb spirits, and men given wonderful utterance in diverse\ntongues; 4. the murderer from the beginning, and the life-giving Spirit,\nwho regenerates the soul and quickens our mortal bodies; 5. the adversary,\nand the Helper; 6. the slanderer, and the Advocate; 7. Satan\u2019s sifting,\nand the Master\u2019s winnowing; 8. the organizing intelligence and malignity\nof the evil one, and the Holy Spirit\u2019s combination of all the forces of\nmatter and mind to build up the kingdom of God; 9. the strong man fully\narmed, and a stronger than he; 10. the evil one who works only evil, and\nthe holy One who is the author of holiness in the hearts of men. The\nopposition of evil angels, at first and ever since their fall, may be a\nreason why they are incapable of redemption.\n\n(_b_) They hinder man\u2019s temporal and eternal welfare,\u2014sometimes by\nexercising a certain control over natural phenomena, but more commonly by\nsubjecting man\u2019s soul to temptation. Possession of man\u2019s being, either\nphysical or spiritual, by demons, is also recognized in Scripture.\n\n\n Control of natural phenomena is ascribed to evil spirits in _Job\n 1:12, 16, 19_ and _2:7_\u2014\u201c_all that he hath is in thy power_\u201d\u2014and\n Satan uses lightning, whirlwind, disease, for his purposes; _Luke\n 13:11, 16_\u2014\u201c_a woman that had a spirit of infirmity ... whom Satan\n had bound, lo, these eighteen years_\u201d; _Acts 10:38_\u2014\u201c_healing all\n that were oppressed of the devil_\u201d; _2 Cor. 12:7_\u2014\u201c_a thorn in the\n flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet me_\u201d; _1 Thess. 2:18_\u2014\u201c_we\n would fain have come unto you, I Paul once and again; and Satan\n hindered us_\u201d; _Heb. 2:14_\u2014\u201c_him that had the power of death, that\n is, the devil._\u201d Temptation is ascribed to evil spirits in _Gen.\n 3:1_ _sq._\u2014\u201c_Now the serpent was more subtle_\u201d; _cf._ _Rev.\n 20:2_\u2014\u201c_the old serpent, which is the Devil and Satan_\u201d; _Mat.\n 4:3_\u2014\u201c_the tempter came_\u201d; _John 13:27_\u2014\u201c_after the sop, then\n entered Satan into him_\u201d; _Acts 5:3_\u2014\u201c_why hath Satan filled thy\n heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?_\u201d _Eph. 2:2_\u2014\u201c_the spirit that\n now worketh in the sons of disobedience_\u201d; _1 Thess. 3:5_\u2014\u201c_lest\n by any means the tempter had tempted you_\u201d; _1 Pet 5:8_\u2014\u201c_your\n adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking\n whom he may devour._\u201d\n\n At the time of Christ, popular belief undoubtedly exaggerated the\n influence of evil spirits. Savage, Life after Death, 113\u2014\u201cWhile\n God was at a distance, the demons were very, very near. The air\n about the earth was full of these evil tempting spirits. They\n caused shipwreck at sea, and sudden death on land; they blighted\n the crops; they smote and blasted in the tempests; they took\n possession of the bodies and the souls of men. They entered into\n compacts, and took mortgages on men\u2019s souls.\u201d If some good end has\n been attained in spite of them they feel that \u201cTheir labor must be\n to pervert that end. And out of good still to find means of evil.\u201d\n In Goethe\u2019s Faust, Margaret detects the evil in Mephistopheles:\n \u201cYou see that he with no soul sympathizes. \u2019Tis written on his\n face\u2014he never loved.... Whenever he comes near, I cannot pray.\u201d\n Mephistopheles describes himself as \u201cEin Theil von jener Kraft Die\n st\u00e4ts das B\u00f6se will Und st\u00e4ts das Gute schafft\u201d\u2014\u201cPart of that\n power not understood, which always wills the bad, and always works\n the good\u201d\u2014through the overruling Providence of God. \u201cThe devil\n says his prayers backwards.\u201d \u201cHe tried to learn the Basque\n language, but had to give it up, having learned only three words\n in two years.\u201d Walter Scott tells us that a certain sulphur spring\n in Scotland was reputed to owe its quality to an ancient\n compulsory immersion of Satan in it.\n\n Satan\u2019s temptations are represented as both negative and\n positive,\u2014he takes away the seed sown, and he sows tares. He\n controls many subordinate evil spirits; there is only one devil,\n but there are many angels or demons, and through their agency\n Satan may accomplish his purposes.\n\n Satan\u2019s negative agency is shown in _Mark 4:15_\u2014\u201c_when they have\n heard, straightway cometh Satan, and taketh away the word which\n hath been sown in them_\u201d; his positive agency in _Mat. 13:38,\n 39_\u2014\u201c_the tares are the sons of the evil one; and the enemy that\n sowed them is the devil._\u201d One devil, but many angels: see _Mat.\n 25:41_\u2014\u201c_the devil and his angels_\u201d; _Mark 5:9_\u2014\u201c_My name is\n Legion, for we are many_\u201d; _Eph. 2:2_\u2014\u201c_the prince of the powers\n of the air_\u201d; _6:12_\u2014\u201c_principalities ... powers ... world-rulers\n of this darkness ... spiritual hosts of wickedness._\u201d The mode of\n Satan\u2019s access to the human mind we do not know. It may be that by\n moving upon our physical organism he produces subtle signs of\n thought and so reaches the understanding and desires. He certainly\n has the power to present in captivating forms the objects of\n appetite and selfish ambition, as he did to Christ in the\n wilderness (_Mat. 4:3, 6, 9_), and to appeal to our love for\n independence by saying to us, as he did to our first parents\u2014\u201c_ye\n shall be as God_\u201d (_Gen. 3:5_).\n\n C. C. Everett, Essays Theol. and Lit., 186-218, on The Devil: \u201cIf\n the supernatural powers would only hold themselves aloof and not\n interfere with the natural processes of the world, there would be\n no sickness, no death, no sorrow.... This shows a real, though\n perhaps unconscious, faith in the goodness and trustworthiness of\n nature. The world in itself is a source only of good. Here is the\n germ of a positive religion, though this religion when it appears,\n may adopt the form of supernaturalism.\u201d If there was no Satan,\n then Christ\u2019s temptations came from within, and showed a\n predisposition to evil on his own part.\n\n\nPossession is distinguished from bodily or mental disease, though such\ndisease often accompanies possession or results from it.\u2014The demons speak\nin their own persons, with supernatural knowledge, and they are directly\naddressed by Christ. Jesus recognizes Satanic agency in these cases of\npossession, and he rejoices in the casting out of demons, as a sign of\nSatan\u2019s downfall. These facts render it impossible to interpret the\nnarratives of demoniac possession as popular descriptions of abnormal\nphysical or mental conditions.\n\n\n Possession may apparently be either physical, as in the case of\n the Gerasene demoniacs (_Mark 5:2-4_), or spiritual, as in the\n case of the \u201c_maid having a spirit of divination_\u201d (_Acts 16:16_),\n where the body does not seem to have been affected. It is\n distinguished from bodily disease: see _Mat. 17:15,\n 18_\u2014\u201c_epileptic ... the demon went out from him: and the boy was\n cured_\u201d; _Mark 9:25_\u2014\u201c_Thou dumb and deaf spirit_\u201d; _3:11,\n 12_\u2014\u201c_the unclean spirits ... cried, saying, Thou art the Son of\n God. And he charged them much that they should not make him\n known_\u201d; _Luke 8:30, 31_\u2014\u201c_And Jesus asked him, What is thy name?\n And he said, Legion; for many demons were entered unto him. And\n they entreated him that he would not command them to depart into\n the abyss_\u201d; _10:17, 18_\u2014\u201c_And the seventy returned with joy,\n saying, Lord, even the demons are subject unto us in thy name. And\n he said unto them, I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from\n heaven._\u201d\n\n\nThese descriptions of personal intercourse between Christ and the demons\ncannot be interpreted as metaphorical. \u201cIn the temptation of Christ and in\nthe possession of the swine, imagination could have no place. Christ was\n_above_ its delusions; the brutes were _below_ them.\u201d Farrar (Life of\nChrist, 1:337-341, and 2:excursus vii), while he admits the existence and\nagency of good angels, very inconsistently gives a metaphorical\ninterpretation to the Scriptural accounts of evil angels. We find\ncorroborative evidence of the Scripture doctrine in the domination which\none wicked man frequently exercises over others; in the opinion of some\nmodern physicians in charge of the insane, that certain phenomena in their\npatients\u2019 experience are best explained by supposing an actual subjection\nof the will to a foreign power; and, finally, in the influence of the Holy\nSpirit upon the human heart. See Trench, Miracles, 125-136; Smith\u2019s Bible\nDictionary, 1:586\u2014\u201cPossession is distinguished from mere temptation by the\ncomplete or incomplete loss of the sufferer\u2019s reason or power of will; his\nactions, words, and almost his thoughts, are mastered by the evil spirit,\ntill his personality seems to be destroyed, or at least so overborne as to\nproduce the consciousness of a twofold will within him like that in a\ndream. In the ordinary assaults and temptations of Satan, the will itself\nyields consciously, and by yielding gradually assumes, without losing its\napparent freedom of action, the characteristics of the Satanic nature. It\nis solicited, urged, and persuaded against the strivings of grace, but it\nis not overborne.\u201d\n\nT. H. Wright, The Finger of God, argues that Jesus, in his mention of\ndemoniacs, accommodated himself to the beliefs of his time. Fisher, Nature\nand Method of Revelation, 274, with reference to Weiss\u2019s Meyer on _Mat.\n4:24_, gives Meyer\u2019s arguments against demoniacal possession as follows:\n1. the absence of references to demoniacal possession in the Old\nTestament, and the fact that so-called demoniacs were cured by exorcists;\n2. that no clear case of possession occurs at present; 3. that there is no\nnotice of demoniacal possession in John\u2019s Gospel, though the overcoming of\nSatan is there made a part of the Messiah\u2019s work and Satan is said to\nenter into a man\u2019s mind and take control there (_John 13:27_); 4. and that\nthe so-called demoniacs are not, as would be expected, of a diabolic\ntemper and filled with malignant feelings toward Christ. Harnack, Wesen\ndes Christenthums, 38\u2014\u201cThe popular belief in demon-possession gave form to\nthe conceptions of those who had nervous diseases, so that they expressed\nthemselves in language proper only to those who were actually possessed.\nJesus is no believer in Christian Science: he calls sickness sickness and\nhealth health; but he regards all disease as a proof and effect of the\nworking of the evil one.\u201d\n\n\n On _Mark 1:21-34_, see Maclaren in S. S. Times, Jan. 23, 1904\u2014\u201cWe\n are told by some that this demoniac was an epileptic. Possibly;\n but, if the epilepsy was not the result of possession, why should\n it take the shape of violent hatred of Jesus? And what is there in\n epilepsy to give discernment of his character and the purpose of\n his mission?\u201d Not Jesus\u2019 exorcism of demons as a fact, but his\n casting them out by a word, was our Lord\u2019s wonderful\n characteristic. Nevius, Demon-Possession, 240\u2014\u201cMay not\n demon-possession be only a different, a more advanced, form of\n hypnotism?... It is possible that these evil spirits are familiar\n with the organism of the nervous system, and are capable of acting\n upon and influencing mankind in accordance with physical and\n psychological laws.... The hypnotic trance may be effected,\n without the use of physical organs, by the mere force of\n will-power, spirit acting upon spirit.\u201d Nevius quotes F. W. A.\n Myers, Fortnightly Rev., Nov. 1885\u2014\u201cOne such discovery, that of\n telepathy, or the transference of thought and sensation from mind\n to mind without the agency of the recognized organs of sense, has,\n as I hold, been already achieved.\u201d See Bennet, Diseases of the\n Bible; Kedney, Diabolology; and references in Poole\u2019s Synopsis,\n 1:343; also Bramwell, Hypnotism, 358-398.\n\n\n(_c_) Yet, in spite of themselves, they execute God\u2019s plans of punishing\nthe ungodly, of chastening the good, and of illustrating the nature and\nfate of moral evil.\n\n\n Punishing the ungodly: _Ps. 78:49_\u2014\u201c_He cast upon them the\n fierceness of his anger, Wrath and indignation, and trouble, A\n band of angels of evil_\u201d; _1 K. 22:23_\u2014\u201c_Jehovah hath put a lying\n spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets; and Jehovah hath\n spoken evil concerning thee._\u201d In _Luke 22:31_, Satan\u2019s sifting\n accomplishes the opposite of the sifter\u2019s intention, and the same\n as the Master\u2019s winnowing (Maclaren).\n\n Chastening the good: see _Job, chapters 1_ and _2_; _1 Cor.\n 5:5_\u2014\u201c_deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the\n flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord\n Jesus_\u201d; _cf._ _1 Tim. 1:20_\u2014\u201c_Hymen\u00e6us and Alexander; whom I\n delivered onto Satan, that they might be taught not to\n blaspheme._\u201d This delivering to Satan for the destruction of the\n flesh seems to have involved four things: (1) excommunication from\n the church; (2) authoritative infliction of bodily disease or\n death; (3) loss of all protection from good angels, who minister\n only to saints; (4) subjection to the buffetings and tormentings\n of the great accuser. Gould, in Am. Com. on _1 Cor. 5:5_, regards\n \u201cdelivering to Satan\u201d as merely putting a man out of the church by\n excommunication. This of itself was equivalent to banishing him\n into \u201cthe world,\u201d of which Satan was the ruler.\n\n Evil spirits illustrate the nature and fate of moral evil: see\n _Mat 8:29_\u2014\u201c_art thou come hither to torment us before the time?_\u201d\n _25:41_\u2014\u201c_eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his\n angels_\u201d; _2 Thess. 2:8_\u2014\u201c_then shall be revealed the lawless\n one_\u201d; _James 2:19_\u2014\u201c_the demons also believe, and shudder_\u201d;\n _Rev. 12:9, 12_\u2014\u201c_the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole\n world ... the devil is gone down unto you, having great wrath,\n knowing that he hath but a short time_\u201d; _20:10_\u2014\u201c_cast into the\n lake of fire ... tormented day and night for ever and ever._\u201d\n\n It is an interesting question whether Scripture recognizes any\n special connection of evil spirits with the systems of idolatry,\n witchcraft, and spiritualism which burden the world. _1 Cor.\n 10:20_\u2014\u201c_the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice\n to demons, and not to God_\u201d; _2 Thess. 2:9_\u2014\u201c_the working of Satan\n with all power and signs of lying wonders_\u201d\u2014would seem to favor an\n affirmative answer. But _1 Cor. 8:4_\u2014\u201c_concerning therefore the\n eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that no idol is\n anything in the world_\u201d\u2014seems to favor a negative answer. This\n last may, however, mean that \u201cthe beings whom the idols are\n designed to _represent_ have no existence, although it is\n afterwards shown (_10:20_) that there are _other_ beings connected\n with false worship\u201d (Ann. Par. Bible, _in loco_). \u201cHeathenism is\n the reign of the devil\u201d (Meyer), and while the heathen think\n themselves to be sacrificing to Jupiter or Venus, they are really\n \u201c_sacrificing to demons_,\u201d and are thus furthering the plans of a\n malignant spirit who uses these forms of false religion as a means\n of enslaving their souls. In like manner, the network of\n influences which support the papacy, spiritualism, modern\n unbelief, is difficult of explanation, unless we believe in a\n superhuman intelligence which organizes these forces against God.\n In these, as well as in heathen religions, there are facts\n inexplicable upon merely natural principles of disease and\n delusion.\n\n Nevius, Demon-Possession, 294\u2014\u201cPaul teaches that the gods\n mentioned under different names are imaginary and non-existent;\n but that, behind and in connection with these gods, there are\n demons who make use of idolatry to draw men away from God; and it\n is to these that the heathen are unconsciously rendering obedience\n and service.... It is most reasonable to believe that the\n sufferings of people bewitched were caused by the devil, not by\n the so-called witches. Let us substitute \u2018devilcraft\u2019 for\n \u2018witchcraft.\u2019... Had the courts in Salem proceeded on the\n Scriptural presumption that the testimony of those under the\n control of evil spirits would, in the nature of the case, be\n false, such a thing as the Salem tragedy would never have been\n known.\u201d\n\n\nA survey of the Scripture testimony with regard to the employments of evil\nspirits leads to the following general conclusions:\n\nFirst,\u2014the power of evil spirits over men is not independent of the human\nwill. This power cannot be exercised without at least the original consent\nof the human will, and may be resisted and shaken off through prayer and\nfaith in God.\n\n\n _Luke 22:31, 40_\u2014\u201c_Satan asked to have you, that he might sift you\n as wheat.... Pray that ye enter not into temptation_\u201d; _Eph.\n 6:11_\u2014\u201c_Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to\n stand against the wiles of the devil_\u201d; _16_\u2014\u201c_the shield of\n faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of\n the evil one_\u201d; _James 4:7_\u2014\u201c_resist the devil, and he will flee\n from you_\u201d; _1 Pet. 5:9_\u2014\u201c_whom withstand stedfast in your\n faith._\u201d The coals are already in the human heart, in the shape of\n corrupt inclinations; Satan only blows them into flame. The double\n source of sin is illustrated in _Acts 5:3, 4_\u2014\u201c_Why hath Satan\n filled thy heart?... How is it that thou hast conceived this thing\n in thine heart?_\u201d The Satanic impulse could have been resisted,\n and \u201c_after it was_\u201d suggested, it was still \u201c_in his own power_,\u201d\n as was the land that he had sold (Maclaren).\n\n The soul is a castle into which even the king of evil spirits\n cannot enter without receiving permission from within. Bp.\n Wordsworth: \u201cThe devil may _tempt_ us to fall, but he cannot\n _make_ us fall; he may persuade us to cast _ourselves_ down, but\n he cannot _cast_ us down.\u201d E. G. Robinson: \u201cIt is left to us\n whether the devil shall get control of us. We pack off on the\n devil\u2019s shoulders much of our own wrong doing, just as Adam had\n the impertinence to tell God that the woman did the mischief.\u201d\n Both God and Satan stand at the door and knock, but neither heaven\n nor hell can come in unless we will. \u201cWe cannot prevent the birds\n from flying over our heads, but we can prevent them from making\n their nests in our hair.\u201d _Mat 12:43-45_\u2014\u201c_The unclean spirit,\n when he is gone out of a man_\u201d\u2014suggests that the man who gets rid\n of one vice but does not occupy his mind with better things is\n ready to be repossessed. \u201c_Seven other spirits more evil than\n himself_\u201d implies that some demons are more wicked than others and\n so are harder to cast out (_Mark 9:29_). The Jews had cast out\n idolatry, but other and worse sins had taken possession of them.\n\n Hudson, Law of Psychic Phenomena, 129\u2014\u201cThe hypnotic subject cannot\n be controlled so far as to make him do what he knows to be wrong,\n unless he himself voluntarily assents.\u201d A. S. Hart: \u201cUnless one is\n willing to be hypnotized, no one can put him under the influence.\n The more intelligent one is, the more susceptible. Hypnotism\n requires the subject to do two-thirds of the work, while the\n instructor does only one-third\u2014that of telling the subject what to\n do. It is not an inherent influence, nor a gift, but can be\n learned by any one who can read. It is impossible to compel a\n person to do wrong while under the influence, for the subject\n retains a consciousness of the difference between right and\n wrong.\u201d\n\n H\u00f6ffding, Outlines of Psychology, 330-335\u2014\u201cSome persons have the\n power of intentionally calling up hallucinations; but it often\n happens to them as to Goethe\u2019s Zauberlehrling, or\n apprentice-magician, that the phantoms gain power over them and\n will not be again dispersed. Goethe\u2019s Fischer\u2014\u2018Half she drew him\n down and half he sank\u2019\u2014repeats the duality in the second term; for\n to sink is to let one\u2019s self sink.\u201d Manton, the Puritan: \u201cA\n stranger cannot call off a dog from the flock, but the Shepherd\n can do so with a word; so the Lord can easily rebuke Satan when he\n finds him most violent.\u201d Spurgeon, the modern Puritan, remarks on\n the above: \u201cO Lord, when I am worried by my great enemy, call him\n off, I pray thee! Let me hear a voice saying: \u2018_Jehovah rebuke\n thee, O Satan; even Jehovah that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke\n thee!_\u2019 (_Zech. 3:2)_. By thine election of me, rebuke him, I pray\n thee, and deliver me from \u2018_the power of the dog_\u2019! (_Ps.\n 22:20)_.\u201d\n\n\nSecondly,\u2014their power is limited, both in time and in extent, by the\npermissive will of God. Evil spirits are neither omnipotent, omniscient,\nnor omnipresent. We are to attribute disease and natural calamity to their\nagency, only when this is matter of special revelation. Opposed to God as\nevil spirits are, God compels them to serve his purposes. Their power for\nharm lasts but for a season, and ultimate judgment and punishment will\nvindicate God\u2019s permission of their evil agency.\n\n\n _1 Cor. 10:13_\u2014\u201c_God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be\n tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation make\n also the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it_\u201d; _Jude\n 6_\u2014\u201c_angels which kept not their own beginning, but left their\n proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under\n darkness unto the judgment of the great day._\u201d\n\n\nLuther saw Satan nearer to man than his coat, or his shirt, or even his\nskin. In all misfortune he saw the devil\u2019s work. Was there a conflagration\nin the town? By looking closely you might see a demon blowing upon the\nflame. Pestilence and storm he attributed to Satan. All this was a relic\nof the medi\u00e6val exaggerations of Satan\u2019s power. It was then supposed that\nmen might make covenants with the evil one, in which supernatural power\nwas purchased at the price of final perdition (see Goethe\u2019s Faust).\n\n\n Scripture furnishes no warrant for such representations. There\n seems to have been permitted a special activity of Satan in\n temptation and possession during our Savior\u2019s ministry, in order\n that Christ\u2019s power might be demonstrated. By his death Jesus\n brought \u201c_to naught him that had the power of death, that is, the\n devil_\u201d (_Heb. 2:14)_ and \u201c_having despoiled the principalities\n and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over\n them in it_,\u201d _i. e._, in the Cross (_Col. 2:15_). _1 John\n 3:8_\u2014\u201c_To this end was the Son of God manifested, that he might\n destroy the works of the devil._\u201d Evil spirits now exist and act\n only upon sufferance. McLeod, Temptation of our Lord, 24\u2014\u201cSatan\u2019s\n power is limited, (1) by the fact that he is a creature; (2) by\n the fact of God\u2019s providence; (3) by the fact of his own\n wickedness.\u201d\n\n Genung, Epic of the Inner Life, 136\u2014\u201cHaving neither fixed\n principle in himself nor connection with the source of order\n outside, Satan has not prophetic ability. He can appeal to chance,\n but he cannot foresee. So Goethe\u2019s Mephistopheles insolently\n boasts that he can lead Faust astray: \u2018What will you bet? There\u2019s\n still a chance to gain him, If unto me full leave you give Gently\n upon _my_ road to train him!\u2019 And in _Job 1:11; 2:5_, Satan\n wagers: \u2018_He will renounce thee to thy face._\u2019 \u201d William Ashmore:\n \u201cIs Satan omnipresent? No, but he is very spry. Is he bound? Yes,\n but with a rather loose rope.\u201d In the Persian story, God scattered\n seed. The devil buried it, and sent the rain to rot it. But soon\n it sprang up, and the wilderness blossomed as the rose.\n\n\nII. Objections to the Doctrine of Angels.\n\n\n1. To the doctrine of angels in general.\n\n\nIt is objected:\n\n(_a_) That it is opposed to the modern scientific view of the world, as a\nsystem of definite forces and laws.\u2014We reply that, whatever truth there\nmay be in this modern view, it does not exclude the play of divine or\nhuman free agency. It does not, therefore, exclude the possibility of\nangelic agency.\n\n\n Ladd, Philosophy of Knowledge, 332\u2014\u201cIt is easier to believe in\n angels than in ether; in God rather than atoms; and in the history\n of his kingdom as a divine self-revelation rather than in the\n physicist\u2019s or the biologist\u2019s purely mechanical process of\n evolution.\u201d\n\n\n(_b_) That it is opposed to the modern doctrine of infinite space above\nand beneath us\u2014a space peopled with worlds. With the surrender of the old\nconception of the firmament, as a boundary separating this world from the\nregions beyond, it is claimed that we must give up all belief in a heaven\nof the angels.\u2014We reply that the notions of an infinite universe, of\nheaven as a definite place, and of spirits as confined to fixed locality,\nare without certain warrant either in reason or in Scripture. We know\nnothing of the modes of existence of pure spirits.\n\n\n What we know of the universe is certainly finite. Angels are\n apparently incorporeal beings, and as such are free from all laws\n of matter and space. Heaven and hell are essentially conditions,\n corresponding to character\u2014conditions in which the body and the\n surroundings of the soul express and reflect its inward state. The\n main thing to be insisted on is therefore the state; place is\n merely incidental. The fact that Christ ascended to heaven with a\n human body, and that the saints are to possess glorified bodies,\n would seem to imply that heaven is a place. Christ\u2019s declaration\n with regard to him who is \u201c_able to destroy both soul and body in\n hell_\u201d (_Mat. 10:28_) affords some reason for believing that hell\n is also a place.\n\n Where heaven and hell are, is not revealed to us. But it is not\n necessary to suppose that they are in some remote part of the\n universe; for aught we know, they may be right about us, so that\n if our eyes were opened, like those of the prophet\u2019s servant (_2\n Kings 6:17_), we ourselves should behold them. Upon ground of\n _Eph. 2:2_\u2014\u201c_prince of the __ powers of the air_\u201d\u2014and _3:10_\u2014\u201c_the\n principalities and the powers in the heavenly places_\u201d\u2014some have\n assigned the atmosphere of the earth as the abode of angelic\n spirits, both good and evil. But the expressions \u201c_air_\u201d and\n \u201c_heavenly places_\u201d may be merely metaphorical designations of\n their spiritual method of existence.\n\n The idealistic philosophy, which regards time and space as merely\n subjective forms of our human thinking and as not conditioning the\n thought of God, may possibly afford some additional aid in the\n consideration of this problem. If matter be only the expression of\n God\u2019s mind and will, having no existence apart from his\n intelligence and volition, the question of place ceases to have\n significance. Heaven is in that case simply the state in which God\n manifests himself in his grace, and hell is the state in which a\n moral being finds himself in opposition to God, and God in\n opposition to him. Christ can manifest himself to his followers in\n all parts of the earth and to all the inhabitants of heaven at one\n and the same time (_John 14:21_; _Mat. 28:20_; _Rev. 1:7_). Angels\n in like manner, being purely spiritual beings, may be free from\n the laws of space and time, and may not be limited to any fixed\n locality.\n\n We prefer therefore to leave the question of place undecided, and\n to accept the existence and working of angels both good and evil\n as a matter of faith, without professing to understand their\n relations to space. For the rationalistic view, see Strauss,\n Glaubenslehre, 1:670-675. _Per contra_, see Van Oosterzee,\n Christian Dogmatics, 1:308-317; Martensen, Christian Dogmatics,\n 127-136.\n\n\n2. To the doctrine of evil angels in particular.\n\n\nIt is objected that:\n\n(_a_) The idea of the fall of angels is self-contradictory, since a fall\ndetermined by pride presupposes pride\u2014that is, a fall before the fall.\u2014We\nreply that the objection confounds the occasion of sin with the sin\nitself. The outward motive to disobedience is not disobedience. The fall\ntook place only when that outward motive was chosen by free will. When the\nmotive of independence was selfishly adopted, only then did the innocent\ndesire for knowledge and power become pride and sin. How an evil volition\ncould originate in spirits created pure is an insoluble problem. Our faith\nin God\u2019s holiness, however, compels us to attribute the origin of this\nevil volition, not to the Creator, but to the creature.\n\n\n There can be no sinful propensity before there is sin. The reason\n of the _first_ sin can not be sin itself. This would be to make\n sin a necessary development; to deny the holiness of God the\n Creator; to leave the ground of theism for pantheism.\n\n\n(_b_) It is irrational to suppose that Satan should have been able to\nchange his whole nature by a single act, so that he thenceforth willed\nonly evil.\u2014But we reply that the circumstances of that decision are\nunknown to us; while the power of single acts permanently to change\ncharacter is matter of observation among men.\n\n\n Instance the effect, upon character and life, of a single act of\n falsehood or embezzlement. The first glass of intoxicating drink,\n and the first yielding to impure suggestion, often establish\n nerve-tracts in the brain and associations in the mind which are\n not reversed and overcome for a whole lifetime. \u201cSow an act, and\n you reap a habit; sow a habit, and you reap a character; sow a\n character, and you reap a destiny.\u201d And what is true of men, may\n be also true of angels.\n\n\n(_c_) It is impossible that so wise a being should enter upon a hopeless\nrebellion.\u2014We answer that no amount of mere knowledge ensures right moral\naction. If men gratify present passion, in spite of their knowledge that\nthe sin involves present misery and future perdition, it is not impossible\nthat Satan may have done the same.\n\n\n Scherer, Essays on English Literature, 139, puts this objection as\n follows: \u201cThe idea of Satan is a contradictory idea; for it is\n contradictory to know God and yet attempt rivalry with him.\u201d But\n we must remember that understanding is the servant of will, and is\n darkened by will. Many clever men fail to see what belongs to\n their peace. It is the very madness of sin, that it persists in\n iniquity, even when it sees and fears the approaching judgment of\n God. Jonathan Edwards: \u201cAlthough the devil be exceedingly crafty\n and subtle, yet he is one of the greatest fools and blockheads in\n the world, as the subtlest of wicked men are. Sin is of such a\n nature that it strangely infatuates and stultifies the mind.\u201d One\n of Ben Jonson\u2019s plays has, for its title: \u201cThe Devil is an Ass.\u201d\n\n Schleiermacher, Die Christliche Glaube, 1:210, urges that\n continual wickedness must have weakened Satan\u2019s understanding, so\n that he could be no longer feared, and he adds: \u201cNothing is easier\n than to contend against emotional evil.\u201d On the other hand, there\n seems evidence in Scripture of a progressive rage and devastating\n activity in the case of the evil one, beginning in Genesis and\n culminating in the Revelation. With this increasing malignity\n there is also abundant evidence of his unwisdom. We may instance\n the devil\u2019s mistakes in misrepresenting 1. God to man (_Gen.\n 3:1_\u2014\u201c_hath God said?_\u201d). 2. Man to himself (_Gen. 3:4_\u2014\u201c_Ye shall\n not surely die_\u201d). 3. Man to God (_Job 1:9_\u2014\u201c_Doth Job fear God\n for naught?_\u201d). 4. God to himself (_Mat. 4:3_\u2014\u201c_If thou art the\n Son of God_\u201d). 5. Himself to man (_2 Cor. 11:14_\u2014\u201c_Satan\n fashioneth himself into an angel of light_\u201d). 6. Himself to\n himself (_Rev. 12:12_\u2014\u201c_the devil is gone down unto you, having\n great wrath_\u201d\u2014thinking he could successfully oppose God or destroy\n man).\n\n\n(_d_) It is inconsistent with the benevolence of God to create and uphold\nspirits, who he knows will be and do evil.\u2014We reply that this is no more\ninconsistent with God\u2019s benevolence than the creation and preservation of\nmen, whose action God overrules for the furtherance of his purposes, and\nwhose iniquity he finally brings to light and punishes.\n\n\n Seduction of the pure by the impure, piracy, slavery, and war,\n have all been permitted among men. It is no more inconsistent with\n God\u2019s benevolence to permit them among angelic spirits. Caroline\n Fox tells of Emerson and Carlyle that the latter once led his\n friend, the serene philosopher, through the abominations of the\n streets of London at midnight, asking him with grim humor at every\n few steps: \u201cDo you believe in the devil now?\u201d Emerson replied that\n the more he saw of the English people, the greater and better he\n thought them. It must have been because with such depths beneath\n them they could notwithstanding reach such heights of\n civilization. Even vice and misery can be overruled for good, and\n the fate of evil angels may be made a warning to the universe.\n\n\n(_e_) The notion of organization among evil spirits is self-contradictory,\nsince the nature of evil is to sunder and divide.\u2014We reply that such\norganization of evil spirits is no more impossible than the organization\nof wicked men, for the purpose of furthering their selfish ends. Common\nhatred to God may constitute a principle of union among them, as among\nmen.\n\n\n Wicked men succeed in their plans only by adhering in some way to\n the good. Even a robber-horde must have laws, and there is a sort\n of \u201chonor among thieves.\u201d Else the world would be a pandemonium,\n and society would be what Hobbes called it: \u201cbellum omnium contra\n omnes.\u201d See art. on Satan, by Whitehouse, in Hastings, Dictionary\n of the Bible: \u201cSome personalities are ganglionic centres of a\n nervous system, incarnations of evil influence. The Bible teaches\n that Satan is such a centre.\u201d\n\n But the organizing power of Satan has its limitations. Nevius,\n Demon-Possession, 279\u2014\u201cSatan is not omniscient, and it is not\n certain that all demons are perfectly subject to his control. Want\n of vigilance on his part, and personal ambition in them, may\n obstruct and delay the execution of his plans, as among men.\u201d An\n English parliamentarian comforted himself by saying: \u201cIf the fleas\n were all of one mind, they would have us out of bed.\u201d Plato,\n Lysis, 214\u2014\u201cThe good are like one another, and friends to one\n another, and the bad are never at unity with one another or with\n themselves; for they are passionate and restless, and anything\n which is at variance and enmity with itself is not likely to be in\n union or harmony with any other thing.\u201d\n\n\n(_f_) The doctrine is morally pernicious, as transferring the blame of\nhuman sin to the being or beings who tempt men thereto.\u2014We reply that\nneither conscience nor Scripture allows temptation to be an excuse for\nsin, or regards Satan as having power to compel the human will. The\nobjection, moreover, contradicts our observation,\u2014for only where the\npersonal existence of Satan is recognized, do we find sin recognized in\nits true nature.\n\n\n The diabolic character of sin makes it more guilty and abhorred.\n The immorality lies, not in the maintenance, but in the denial, of\n the doctrine. Giving up the doctrine of Satan is connected with\n laxity in the administration of criminal justice. Penalty comes to\n be regarded as only deterrent or reformatory.\n\n\n(_g_) The doctrine degrades man, by representing him as the tool and slave\nof Satan.\u2014We reply that it does indeed show his actual state to be\ndegraded, but only with the result of exalting our idea of his original\ndignity, and of his possible glory in Christ. The fact that man\u2019s sin was\nsuggested from without, and not from within, may be the one mitigating\ncircumstance which renders possible his redemption.\n\n\n It rather puts a stigma upon human nature to say that it is _not_\n fallen\u2014that its present condition is its original and normal\n state. Nor is it worth while to attribute to man a dignity he does\n not possess, if thereby we deprive him of the dignity that may be\n his. Satan\u2019s sin was, in its essence, sin against the Holy Ghost,\n for which there can be no \u201c_Father, forgive them, for they know\n not what they do_\u201d (_Luke 23:34_), since it was choosing evil with\n the _mala gaudia mentis_, or the clearest intuition that it was\n evil. If there be no devil, then man himself is devil. It has been\n said of Voltaire, that without believing in a devil, he saw him\n everywhere\u2014even where he was not. Christian, in Bunyan\u2019s Pilgrim\u2019s\n Progress, takes comfort when he finds that the blasphemous\n suggestions which came to him in the dark valley were suggestions\n from the fiend that pursued him. If all temptation is from within,\n our case would seem hopeless. But if \u201c_an enemy hath done this_\u201d\n (_Mat. 13:28_), then there is hope. And so we may accept the\n maxim: \u201cNullus diabolus, nullus Redemptor.\u201d Unitarians have no\n Captain of their Salvation, and so have no Adversary against whom\n to contend. See Trench, Studies in the Gospels, 17; Birks,\n Difficulties of Belief, 78-100; Ebrard, Dogmatik, 1:291-293. Many\n of the objections and answers mentioned above have been taken from\n Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 3:251-284, where a fuller statement of\n them may be found.\n\n\nIII. Practical uses of the Doctrine of Angels.\n\n\nA. Uses of the doctrine of good angels.\n\n\n(_a_) It gives us a new sense of the greatness of the divine resources,\nand of God\u2019s grace in our creation, to think of the multitude of unfallen\nintelligences who executed the divine purposes before man appeared.\n\n(_b_) It strengthens our faith in God\u2019s providential care, to know that\nspirits of so high rank are deputed to minister to creatures who are\nenvironed with temptations and are conscious of sin.\n\n(_c_) It teaches us humility, that beings of so much greater knowledge and\npower than ours should gladly perform these unnoticed services, in behalf\nof those whose only claim upon them is that they are children of the same\ncommon Father.\n\n(_d_) It helps us in the struggle against sin, to learn that these\nmessengers of God are near, to mark our wrong doing if we fall, and to\nsustain us if we resist temptation.\n\n(_e_) It enlarges our conceptions of the dignity of our own being, and of\nthe boundless possibilities of our future existence, to remember these\nforms of typical innocence and love, that praise and serve God unceasingly\nin heaven.\n\n\n Instance the appearance of angels in Jacob\u2019s life at Bethel (_Gen.\n 28:12_\u2014Jacob\u2019s conversion?) and at Mahanaim (_Gen. 32:1, 2_\u2014two\n camps, of angels, on the right hand and on the left; _cf._ _Ps.\n 34:7_\u2014\u201c_The angel of Jehovah encampeth round about them that fear\n him, And delivereth them_\u201d); so too the Angel at Penuel that\n struggled with Jacob at his entering the promised land (_Gen.\n 32:24_; _cf._ _Hos. 12:3, 4_\u2014\u201c_in his manhood he had power with\n God: yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed_\u201d), and \u201c_the\n angel who hath redeemed me from all evil_\u201d (_Gen. 48:16_) to whom\n Jacob refers on his dying bed. Edmund Spenser, The Faerie Queene:\n \u201cAnd is there care in heaven? and is there love In heavenly\n spirits to these creatures base That may compassion of their evils\n move? There is; else much more wretched were the case Of men than\n beasts. But O, th\u2019 exceeding grace Of highest God that loves his\n creatures so, And all his works with mercy doth embrace, That\n blessed angels he sends to and fro To serve to wicked man, to\n serve his wicked foe! How oft do they their silver bowers leave\n And come to succor us who succor want! How oft do they with golden\n pinions cleave The flitting skies like flying pursuivant, Against\n foul fiends to aid us militant! They for us fight; they watch and\n duly ward, And their bright squadrons round about us plant; And\n all for love, and nothing for reward. Oh, why should heavenly God\n for men have such regard!\u201d\n\n It shows us that sin is not mere finiteness, to see these finite\n intelligences that maintained their integrity. Shakespeare, Henry\n VIII, 2:2\u2014\u201cHe counsels a divorce\u2014a loss of her That, like a jewel,\n has hung twenty years About his neck, yet never lost her lustre;\n Of her that loves him with that excellence That angels love good\n men with; even of her That, when the greatest stroke of fortune\n falls, Will bless the king.\u201d Measure for Measure, 2:2\u2014\u201cMan, proud\n man, Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven, As makes the\n angels weep.\u201d\n\n\nB. Uses of the doctrine of evil angels.\n\n\n(_a_) It illustrates the real nature of sin, and the depth of the ruin to\nwhich it may bring the soul, to reflect upon the present moral condition\nand eternal wretchedness to which these spirits, so highly endowed, have\nbrought themselves by their rebellion against God.\n\n(_b_) It inspires a salutary fear and hatred of the first subtle\napproaches of evil from within or from without, to remember that these may\nbe the covert advances of a personal and malignant being, who seeks to\novercome our virtue and to involve us in his own apostasy and destruction.\n\n(_c_) It shuts us up to Christ, as the only Being who is able to deliver\nus or others from the enemy of all good.\n\n(_d_) It teaches us that our salvation is wholly of grace, since for such\nmultitudes of rebellious spirits no atonement and no renewal were\nprovided\u2014simple justice having its way, with no mercy to interpose or\nsave.\n\n\n Philippi, in his Glaubenslehre, 3:151-284, suggests the following\n relations of the doctrine of Satan to the doctrine of sin: 1.\n Since Satan is a fallen _angel_, who once was pure, evil is not\n self-existent or necessary. Sin does not belong to the substance\n which God created, but is a later addition. 2. Since Satan is a\n purely _spiritual_ creature, sin cannot have its origin in mere\n sensuousness, or in the mere possession of a physical nature. 3.\n Since Satan is not a _weak_ and _poorly endowed_ creature, sin is\n not a necessary result of weakness and limitation. 4. Since Satan\n is _confirmed in evil_, sin is not necessarily a transient or\n remediable act of will. 5. Since in Satan sin _does not come to an\n end_, sin is not a step of creaturely development, or a stage of\n progress to something higher and better. On the uses of the\n doctrine, see also Van Oosterzee, Christian Dogmatics, 1:316;\n Robert Hall, Works, 3:35-51; Brooks, Satan and his Devices.\n\n \u201cThey never sank so low, They are not raised so high; They never\n knew such depths of woe, Such heights of majesty. The Savior did\n not join Their nature to his own; For them he shed no blood\n divine. Nor heaved a single groan.\u201d If no redemption has been\n provided for them, it may be because: 1. sin originated with them;\n 2. the sin which they committed was \u201c_an eternal sin_\u201d (_cf._\n _Mark 3:29_); 3. they sinned with clearer intellect and fuller\n knowledge than ours (_cf._ _Luke 23:34_); 4. their incorporeal\n being aggravated their sin and made it analogous to our sinning\n against the Holy Spirit (_cf._ _Mat. 12:31, 32_); 5. this\n incorporeal being gave no opportunity for Christ to objectify his\n grace and visibly to join himself to them (_cf._ _Heb. 2:16_); 6.\n their persistence in evil, in spite of their growing knowledge of\n the character of God as exhibited in human history, has resulted\n in a hardening of heart which is not susceptible of salvation.\n\n Yet angels were created in Christ (_Col. 1:16_); they consist in\n him (_Col. 1:17_); he must suffer in their sin; God would save\n them, if he consistently could. Dr. G. W. Samson held that the\n Logos became an angel before he became man, and that this explains\n his appearances as \u201c_the angel of Jehovah_\u201d in the Old Testament\n (_Gen. 22:11_). It is not asserted that _all_ fallen angels shall\n be eternally tormented (_Rev. 14:10_). In terms equally strong\n (_Mat. 25:41_; _Rev. 20:10_) the existence of a place of eternal\n punishment for wicked men is declared, but nevertheless we do not\n believe that all men will go there, in spite of the fact that all\n men are wicked. The silence of Scripture with regard to a\n provision of salvation for fallen angels does not prove that there\n is no such provision. _2 Pet. 2:4_ shows that evil angels have not\n received _final_ judgment, but are in a temporary state of\n existence, and their final state is yet to be revealed. If God has\n not already provided, may he not yet provide redemption for them,\n and the \u201c_elect angels_\u201d (_1 Tim. 5:21_) be those whom God has\n predestinated to stand this future probation and be saved, while\n only those who persist in their rebellion will be consigned to the\n lake of fire and brimstone (_Rev. 20:10_)?\n\n The keeper of a young tigress patted her head and she licked his\n hand. But when she grew older she seized his hand with her teeth\n and began to craunch it. He pulled away his hand in shreds. He\n learned not to fondle a tigress. Let us learn not to fondle Satan.\n Let us not be \u201c_ignorant of his devices_\u201d (_2 Cor. 2:11_). It is\n not well to keep loaded firearms in the chimney corner. \u201cThey who\n fear the adder\u2019s sting will not come near her hissing.\u201d Talmage:\n \u201cO Lord, help us to hear the serpent\u2019s rattle before we feel its\n fangs.\u201d Ian Maclaren, Cure of Souls, 215\u2014The pastor trembles for a\n soul, \u201cwhen he sees the destroyer hovering over it like a hawk\n poised in midair, and would have it gathered beneath Christ\u2019s\n wing.\u201d\n\n Thomas K. Beecher: \u201cSuppose I lived on Broadway where the crowd\n was surging past in both directions all the time. Would I leave my\n doors and windows open, saying to the crowd of strangers: \u2018Enter\n my door, pass through my hall, come into my parlor, make\n yourselves at home in my dining-room, go up into my bedchambers\u2019?\n No! I would have my windows and doors barred and locked against\n intruders, to be opened only to me and mine and those I would have\n as companions. Yet here we see foolish men and women stretching\n out their arms and saying to the spirits of the vasty deep: \u2018Come\n in, and take possession of me. Write with my hands, think with my\n brain, speak with my lips, walk with my feet, use me as a medium\n for whatever you will.\u2019 God respects the sanctity of man\u2019s spirit.\n Even Christ stands at the door and knocks. Holy Spirit, fill me,\n so that there shall be room for no other!\u201d (_Rev. 3:20_; _Eph.\n 5:18_.)\n\n\n\n\n\nPART V. ANTHROPOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF MAN.\n\n\n\n\nChapter I. Preliminary.\n\n\n\nI. Man a Creation of God and a Child of God.\n\n\nThe fact of man\u2019s creation is declared in Gen. 1:27\u2014\u201cAnd God created man\nin his own image, in the image of God created he him\u201d; 2:7\u2014\u201cAnd Jehovah\nGod formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils\nthe breath of life; and man became a living soul.\u201d\n\n(_a_) The Scriptures, on the one hand, negate the idea that man is the\nmere product of unreasoning natural forces. They refer his existence to a\ncause different from mere nature, namely, the creative act of God.\n\n\n Compare _Hebrews 12:9_\u2014\u201c_the Father of spirits_\u201d; _Num.\n 16:22_\u2014\u201c_the God of the spirits of all flesh_\u201d; _27:16_\u2014\u201c_Jehovah,\n the God of the spirits of all flesh_\u201d; _Rev. 22:6_\u2014\u201c_the God of\n the spirits of the prophets._\u201d Bruce, The Providential Order,\n 25\u2014\u201cFaith in God may remain intact, though we concede that man in\n all his characteristics, physical and psychical, is no exception\n to the universal law of growth, no breach in the continuity of the\n evolutionary process.\u201d By \u201c_mere_ nature\u201d we mean nature apart\n from God. Our previous treatment of the doctrine of creation in\n general has shown that the laws of nature are only the regular\n methods of God, and that the conception of a nature apart from God\n is an irrational one. If the evolution of the lower creation\n cannot be explained without taking into account the originating\n agency of God, much less can the coming into being of man, the\n crown of all created things. Hudson, Divine Pedigree of Man:\n \u201cSpirit in man is linked with, because derived from, God, who is\n spirit.\u201d\n\n\n(_b_) But, on the other hand, the Scriptures do not disclose the method of\nman\u2019s creation. Whether man\u2019s physical system is or is not derived, by\nnatural descent, from the lower animals, the record of creation does not\ninform us. As the command \u201cLet the earth bring forth living creatures\u201d\n(Gen. 1:24) does not exclude the idea of mediate creation, through natural\ngeneration, so the forming of man \u201cof the dust of the ground\u201d (Gen. 2:7)\ndoes not in itself determine whether the creation of man\u2019s body was\nmediate or immediate.\n\n\n We may believe that man sustained to the highest preceding brute\n the same relation which the multiplied bread and fish sustained to\n the five loaves and two fishes (_Mat. 14:19_), or which the wine\n sustained to the water which was transformed at Cana (_John\n 2:7-10_), or which the multiplied oil sustained to the original\n oil in the O. T. miracle (_2 K. 4:1-7_). The \u201c_dust_,\u201d before the\n breathing of the spirit into it, may have been animated dust.\n Natural means may have been used, so far as they would go.\n Sterrett, Reason and Authority in Religion, 39\u2014\u201cOur heredity is\n from God, even though it be from lower forms of life, and our goal\n is also God, even though it be through imperfect manhood.\u201d\n\n Evolution does not make the idea of a Creator superfluous, because\n evolution is only the method of God. It is perfectly consistent\n with a Scriptural doctrine of Creation that man should emerge at\n the proper time, governed by different laws from the brute\n creation yet growing out of the brute, just as the foundation of a\n house built of stone is perfectly consistent with the wooden\n structure built upon it. All depends upon the plan. An atheistic\n and undesigning evolution cannot include man without excluding\n what Christianity regards as essential to man; see Griffith-Jones,\n Ascent through Christ, 43-73. But a theistic evolution can\n recognize the whole process of man\u2019s creation as equally the work\n of nature and the work of God.\n\n Schurman, Agnosticism and Religion, 42\u2014\u201cYou are not what you have\n come from, but what you have become.\u201d Huxley said of the brutes:\n \u201cWhether _from_ them or not, man is assuredly not _of_ them.\u201d\n Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 1:289\u2014\u201cThe religious dignity of man\n rests after all upon what he _is_, not upon the mode and manner in\n which he has _become_ what he is.\u201d Because he came _from_ a beast,\n it does not follow that he _is_ a beast. Nor does the fact that\n man\u2019s existence can be traced back to a brute ancestry furnish any\n proper reason why the brute should become man. Here is a teleology\n which requires a divine Creatorship.\n\n J. M. Bronson: \u201cThe theist must accept evolution if he would keep\n his argument for the existence of God from the unity of design in\n nature. Unless man is an _end_, he is an _anomaly_. The greatest\n argument for God is the fact that all animate nature is one vast\n and connected unity. Man has developed not _from_ the ape, but\n _away from_ the ape. He was never anything but potential man. He\n did not, as man, come into being until he became a conscious moral\n agent.\u201d This conscious moral nature, which we call personality,\n requires a divine Author, because it surpasses all the powers\n which can be found in the animal creation. Romanes, Mental\n Evolution in Animals, tells us that: 1. Mollusca learn by\n experience; 2. Insects and spiders recognize offspring; 3. Fishes\n make mental association of objects by their similarity; 4.\n Reptiles recognize persons; 5. Hymenoptera, as bees and ants,\n communicate ideas; 6. Birds recognize pictorial representations\n and understand words; 7. Rodents, as rats and foxes, understand\n mechanisms; 8. Monkeys and elephants learn to use tools; 9.\n Anthropoid apes and dogs have indefinite morality.\n\n But it is definite and not indefinite morality which differences\n man from the brute. Drummond, in his Ascent of Man, concedes that\n man passed through a period when he resembled the ape more than\n any known animal, but at the same time declares that no anthropoid\n ape could develop into a man. The brute can be defined in terms of\n man, but man cannot be defined in terms of the brute. It is\n significant that in insanity the higher endowments of man\n disappear in an order precisely the reverse of that in which,\n according to the development theory, they have been acquired. The\n highest part of man totters first. The last added is first to\n suffer. Man moreover can transmit his own acquisitions to his\n posterity, as the brute cannot. Weismann, Heredity, 2:69\u2014\u201cThe\n evolution of music does not depend upon any increase of the\n musical faculty or any alteration in the inherent physical nature\n of man, but solely upon the power of transmitting the intellectual\n achievements of each generation to those which follow. This, more\n than anything, is the cause of the superiority of men over\n animals\u2014this, and not merely human faculty, although it may be\n admitted that this latter is much higher than in animals.\u201d To this\n utterance of Weismann we would add that human progress depends\n quite as much upon man\u2019s power of reception as upon man\u2019s power of\n transmission. Interpretation must equal expression; and, in this\n interpretation of the past, man has a guarantee of the future\n which the brute does not possess.\n\n\n(_c_) Psychology, however, comes in to help our interpretation of\nScripture. The radical differences between man\u2019s soul and the principle of\nintelligence in the lower animals, especially man\u2019s possession of\nself-consciousness, general ideas, the moral sense, and the power of\nself-determination, show that that which chiefly constitutes him man could\nnot have been derived, by any natural process of development, from the\ninferior creatures. We are compelled, then, to believe that God\u2019s\n\u201cbreathing into man\u2019s nostrils the breath of life\u201d (Gen. 2:7), though it\nwas a mediate creation as presupposing existing material in the shape of\nanimal forms, was yet an immediate creation in the sense that only a\ndivine reinforcement of the process of life turned the animal into man. In\nother words, man came not _from_ the brute, but _through_ the brute, and\nthe same immanent God who had previously created the brute created also\nthe man.\n\n\n Tennyson, In Memoriam, XLV\u2014\u201cThe baby new to earth and sky, What\n time his tender palm is pressed Against the circle of the breast,\n Has never thought that \u2018this is I\u2019: But as he grows he gathers\n much, And learns the use of \u2018I\u2019 and \u2018me,\u2019 And finds \u2018I am not what\n I see, And other than the things I touch.\u2019 So rounds he to a\n separate mind From whence clear memory may begin, As thro\u2019 the\n frame that binds him in His isolation grows defined.\u201d Fichte\n called that the birthday of his child, when the child awoke to\n self-consciousness and said \u201cI.\u201d Memory goes back no further than\n language. Knowledge of the ego is objective, before it is\n subjective. The child at first speaks of himself in the third\n person: \u201cHenry did so and so.\u201d Hence most men do not remember what\n happened before their third year, though Samuel Miles Hopkins,\n Memoir, 20, remembered what must have happened when he was only 23\n months old. Only a conscious person remembers, and he remembers\n only as his will exerts itself in attention.\n\n Jean Paul Richter, quoted in Ladd, Philosophy of Mind, 110\u2014\u201cNever\n shall I forget the phenomenon in myself, never till now recited,\n when I stood by the birth of my own self-consciousness, the place\n and time of which are distinct in my memory. On a certain\n forenoon, I stood, a very young child, within the house-door, and\n was looking out toward the wood-pile, as in an instant the inner\n revelation \u2018I am I,\u2019 like lightning from heaven, flashed and stood\n brightly before me; in that moment I had seen myself as I, for the\n first time and forever.\u201d\n\n H\u00f6ffding, Outlines of Psychology, 3\u2014\u201cThe beginning of conscious\n life is to be placed probably before birth.... Sensations only\n faintly and dimly distinguished from the general feeling of\n vegetative comfort and discomfort. Still the experiences undergone\n before birth perhaps suffice to form the foundation of the\n consciousness of an external world.\u201d Hill, Genetic Philosophy,\n 282, suggests that this early state, in which the child speaks of\n self in the third person and is devoid of _self_-consciousness,\n corresponds to the brute condition of the race, before it had\n reached self-consciousness, attained language, and become man. In\n the race, however, there was no heredity to predetermine\n self-consciousness\u2014it was a new acquisition, marking transition to\n a superior order of being.\n\n Connecting these remarks with our present subject, we assert that\n no brute ever yet said, or thought, \u201cI.\u201d With this, then, we may\n begin a series of simple distinctions between man and the brute,\n so far as the immaterial principle in each is concerned. These are\n mainly compiled from writers hereafter mentioned.\n\n 1. The brute is conscious, but man is self-conscious. The brute\n does not objectify self. \u201cIf the pig could once say, \u2018I am a pig,\u2019\n it would at once and thereby cease to be a pig.\u201d The brute does\n not distinguish itself from its sensations. The brute has\n perception, but only the man has apperception, _i. e._, perception\n accompanied by reference of it to the self to which it belongs.\n\n 2. The brute has only percepts; man has also concepts. The brute\n knows white things, but not whiteness. It remembers things, but\n not thoughts. Man alone has the power of abstraction, _i. e._, the\n power of deriving abstract ideas from particular things or\n experiences.\n\n 3. Hence the brute has no language. \u201cLanguage is the expression of\n general notions by symbols\u201d (Harris). Words are the symbols of\n concepts. Where there are no concepts there can be no words. The\n parrot utters cries; but \u201cno parrot ever yet spoke a true word.\u201d\n Since language is a sign, it presupposes the existence of an\n intellect capable of understanding the sign,\u2014in short, language is\n the effect of mind, not the cause of mind. See Mivart, in Brit.\n Quar., Oct. 1881:154-172. \u201cThe ape\u2019s tongue is eloquent in his own\n dispraise.\u201d James, Psychology, 2:356\u2014\u201cThe notion of a sign as\n such, and the general purpose to apply it to everything, is the\n distinctive characteristic of man.\u201d Why do not animals speak?\n Because they have nothing to say, _i. e._, have no general ideas\n which words might express.\n\n 4. The brute forms no judgments, _e. g._, that _this_ is like\n _that_, accompanied with belief. Hence there is no sense of the\n ridiculous, and no laughter. James, Psychology, 2:360\u2014\u201cThe brute\n does not associate ideas by similarity.... Genius in man is the\n possession of this power of association in an extreme degree.\u201d\n\n 5. The brute has no reasoning\u2014no sense that _this_ follows from\n _that_, accompanied by a feeling that the sequence is necessary.\n Association of ideas without judgment is the typical process of\n the brute mind, though not that of the mind of man. See Mind,\n 5:402-409, 575-581. Man\u2019s dream-life is the best analogue to the\n mental life of the brute.\n\n 6. The brute has no general ideas or intuitions, as of space,\n time, substance, cause, right. Hence there is no generalizing, and\n no proper experience or progress. There is no capacity for\n improvement in animals. The brute cannot be trained, except in\n certain inferior matters of association, where independent\n judgment is not required. No animal makes tools, uses clothes,\n cooks food, breeds other animals for food. No hunter\u2019s dog,\n however long its observation of its master, ever learned to put\n wood on a fire to keep itself from freezing. Even the rudest stone\n implements show a break in continuity and mark the introduction of\n man; see J. P. Cook, Credentials of Science, 14. \u201cThe dog can see\n the printed page as well as a man can, but no dog was ever taught\n to read a book. The animal cannot create in its own mind the\n thoughts of the writer. The physical in man, on the contrary, is\n only an aid to the spiritual. Education is a trained capacity to\n discern the inner meaning and deeper relations of things. So the\n universe is but a symbol and expression of spirit, a garment in\n which an invisible Power has robed his majesty and glory\u201d; see S.\n S. Times, April 7, 1900. In man, mind first became supreme.\n\n 7. The brute has determination, but not self-determination. There\n is no freedom of choice, no conscious forming of a purpose, and no\n self-movement toward a predetermined end. The donkey is\n determined, but not self-determined; he is the victim of heredity\n and environment; he acts only as he is acted upon. Harris, Philos.\n Basis of Theism, 537-554\u2014\u201cMan, though implicated in nature through\n his bodily organization, is in his personality supernatural; the\n brute is wholly submerged in nature.... Man is like a ship in the\n sea\u2014in it, yet above it\u2014guiding his course, by observing the\n heavens, even against wind and current. A brute has no such power;\n it is in nature like a balloon, wholly immersed in air, and driven\n about by its currents, with no power of steering.\u201d Calderwood,\n Philosophy of Evolution, chapter on Right and Wrong: \u201cThe grand\n distinction of human life is self-control in the field of\n action\u2014control over all the animal impulses, so that these do not\n spontaneously and of themselves determine activity\u201d [as they do in\n the brute]. By what Mivart calls a process of \u201cinverse\n anthropomorphism,\u201d we clothe the brute with the attributes of\n freedom; but it does not really possess them. Just as we do not\n transfer to God all our human imperfections, so we ought not to\n transfer all our human perfections to the brute, \u201creading our full\n selves in life of lower forms.\u201d The brute has no power to choose\n between motives; it simply obeys motive. The necessitarian\n philosophy, therefore, is a correct and excellent philosophy for\n the brute. But man\u2019s power of initiative\u2014in short, man\u2019s free\n will\u2014renders it impossible to explain his higher nature as a mere\n natural development from the inferior creatures. Even Huxley has\n said that, taking mind into the account, there is between man and\n the highest beasts an \u201cenormous gulf,\u201d a \u201cdivergence immeasurable\u201d\n and \u201cpractically infinite.\u201d\n\n 8. The brute has no conscience and no religious nature. No dog\n ever brought back to the butcher the meat it had stolen. \u201cThe\n aspen trembles without fear, and dogs skulk without guilt.\u201d The\n dog mentioned by Darwin, whose behavior in presence of a newspaper\n moved by the wind seemed to testify to \u201ca sense of the\n supernatural,\u201d was merely exhibiting the irritation due to the\n sense of an unknown future; see James, Will to Believe, 79. The\n bearing of flogged curs does not throw light upon the nature of\n conscience. If ethics is not hedonism, if moral obligation is not\n a refined utilitarianism, if the right is something distinct from\n the good we get out of it, then there must be a flaw in the theory\n that man\u2019s conscience is simply a development of brute instincts;\n and a reinforcement of brute life from the divine source of life\n must be postulated in order to account for the appearance of man.\n Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 165-167\u2014\u201cIs the spirit of man derived\n from the soul of the animal? No, for neither one of these has\n self-existence. Both are self-differentiations of God. The latter\n is simply God\u2019s preparation for the former.\u201d Calderwood, Evolution\n and Man\u2019s Place in Nature, 337, speaks of \u201cthe impossibility of\n tracing the origin of man\u2019s rational life to evolution from a\n lower life.... There are no physical forces discoverable in nature\n sufficient to account for the appearance of this life.\u201d Shaler,\n Interpretation of Nature, 186\u2014\u201cMan\u2019s place has been won by an\n entire change in the limitations of his psychic development....\n The old bondage of the mind to the body is swept away.... In this\n new freedom we find the one dominant characteristic of man, the\n feature which entitles us to class him as an entirely new class of\n animal.\u201d\n\n John Burroughs, Ways of Nature: \u201cAnimal life parallels human life\n at many points, but it is in another plane. Something guides the\n lower animals, but it is not thought; something restrains them,\n but it is not judgment; they are provident without prudence; they\n are active without industry; they are skilful without practice;\n they are wise without knowledge; they are rational without reason;\n they are deceptive without guile.... When they are joyful, they\n sing or they play; when they are distressed, they moan or they\n cry; ... and yet I do not suppose they experience the emotion of\n joy or sorrow, or anger or love, as we do, because these feelings\n in them do not involve reflection, memory, and what we call the\n higher nature, as with us. Their instinct is intelligence directed\n outward, never inward, as in man. They share with man the emotions\n of his animal nature, but not of his moral or \u00e6sthetic nature;\n they know no altruism, no moral code.\u201d Mr. Burroughs maintains\n that we have no proof that animals in a state of nature can\n reflect, form abstract ideas, associate cause and effect. Animals,\n for instance, that store up food for the winter simply follow a\n provident instinct but do not take thought for the future, any\n more than does the tree that forms new buds for the coming season.\n He sums up his position as follows: \u201cTo attribute human motives\n and faculties to the animals is to caricature them; but to put us\n in such relation to them that we feel their kinship, that we see\n their lives embosomed in the same iron necessity as our own, that\n we see in their minds a humbler manifestation of the same psychic\n power and intelligence that culminates and is conscious of itself\n in man\u2014that, I take it, is the true humanization.\u201d We assent to\n all this except the ascription to human life of the same iron\n necessity that rules the animal creation. Man is man, because his\n free will transcends the limitations of the brute.\n\n While we grant, then, that man is the last stage in the\n development of life and that he has a brute ancestry, we regard\n him also as the offspring of God. The same God who was the author\n of the brute became in due time the creator of man. Though man\n came _through_ the brute, he did not come _from_ the brute, but\n from God, the Father of spirits and the author of all life.\n \u0152dipus\u2019 terrific oracle: \u201cMayst thou ne\u2019er know the truth of what\n thou art!\u201d might well be uttered to those who believe only in the\n brute origin of man. Pascal says it is dangerous to let man see\n too clearly that he is on a level with the animals unless at the\n same time we show him his greatness. The doctrine that the brute\n is imperfect man is logically connected with the doctrine that man\n is a perfect brute. Thomas Carlyle: \u201cIf this brute philosophy is\n true, then man should go on all fours, and not lay claim to the\n dignity of being moral.\u201d G. F. Wright, Ant. and Origin of Human\n Race, lecture IX\u2014\u201cOne or other of the lower animals may exhibit\n all the faculties used by a child of fifteen months. The\n difference may seem very little, but what there is is very\n important. It is like the difference in direction in the early\n stages of two separating curves, which go on forever diverging....\n The probability is that both in his bodily and in his mental\n development man appeared as a _sport_ in nature, and leaped at\n once in some single pair from the plane of irrational being to the\n possession of the higher powers that have ever since characterized\n him and dominated both his development and his history.\u201d\n\n Scripture seems to teach the doctrine that man\u2019s nature is the\n creation of God. _Gen. 2:7_\u2014\u201c_Jehovah God formed man of the dust\n of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;\n and man became a living soul_\u201d\u2014appears, says Hovey (State of the\n Impen. Dead, 14), \u201cto distinguish the vital informing principle of\n human nature from its material part, pronouncing the former to be\n more directly from God, and more akin to him, than the latter.\u201d So\n in _Zech. 12:1_\u2014\u201c_Jehovah, who stretcheth forth the heavens, and\n layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man\n within him_\u201d\u2014the soul is recognized as distinct in nature from the\n body, and of a dignity and value far beyond those of any material\n organism. _Job 32:8_\u2014\u201c_there is a spirit in man, and the breath of\n the Almighty giveth them understanding_\u201d; _Eccl. 12:7_\u2014\u201c_the dust\n returneth to the earth as it was, and the spirit returneth unto\n God who gave it._\u201d A sober view of the similarities and\n differences between man and the lower animals may be found in\n Lloyd Morgan, Animal Life and Intelligence. See also Martineau,\n Types, 2:65, 140, and Study, 1:180; 2:9, 13, 184, 350; Hopkins,\n Outline Study of Man, 8:23; Chadbourne, Instinct, 187-211; Porter,\n Hum. Intellect, 384, 386, 397; Bascom, Science of Mind, 295-305;\n Mansel, Metaphysics, 49, 50; Princeton Rev., Jan. 1881:104-128;\n Henslow, in Nature, May 1, 1879:21, 22; Ferrier, Remains, 2:39;\n Argyll, Unity of Nature, 117-119; Bib. Sac., 29:275-282; Max\n M\u00fcller, Lectures on Philos. of Language, no. 1, 2, 3; F. W.\n Robertson, Lectures on Genesis, 21; Le Conte, in Princeton Rev.,\n May, 1884:238-261; Lindsay, Mind in Lower Animals; Romanes, Mental\n Evolution in Animals; Fiske, The Destiny of Man.\n\n\n(_d_) Comparative physiology, moreover, has, up to the present time, done\nnothing to forbid the extension of this doctrine to man\u2019s body. No single\ninstance has yet been adduced of the transformation of one animal species\ninto another, either by natural or artificial selection; much less has it\nbeen demonstrated that the body of the brute has ever been developed into\nthat of man. All evolution implies progress and reinforcement of life, and\nis unintelligible except as the immanent God gives new impulses to the\nprocess. Apart from the direct agency of God, the view that man\u2019s physical\nsystem is descended by natural generation from some ancestral simian form\ncan be regarded only as an irrational hypothesis. Since the soul, then, is\nan immediate creation of God, and the forming of man\u2019s body is mentioned\nby the Scripture writer in direct connection with this creation of the\nspirit, man\u2019s body was in this sense an immediate creation also.\n\n\n For the theory of natural selection, see Darwin, Origin of\n Species, 398-424, and Descent of Man, 2:368-387; Huxley, Critiques\n and Addresses, 241-269, Man\u2019s Place in Nature, 71-138, Lay\n Sermons, 323, and art.: Biology, in Encyc. Britannica, 9th ed.;\n Romanes, Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution. The theory\n holds that, in the struggle for existence, the varieties best\n adapted to their surroundings succeed in maintaining and\n reproducing themselves, while the rest die out. Thus, by gradual\n change and improvement of lower into higher forms of life, man has\n been evolved. We grant that Darwin has disclosed one of the\n important features of God\u2019s method. We concede the partial truth\n of his theory. We find it supported by the vertebrate structure\n and nervous organization which man has in common with the lower\n animals; by the facts of embryonic development; of rudimentary\n organs; of common diseases and remedies; and of reversion to\n former types. But we refuse to regard natural selection as a\n complete explanation of the history of life, and that for the\n following reasons:\n\n 1. It gives no account of the origin of substance, nor of the\n origin of variations. Darwinism simply says that \u201cround stones\n will roll down hill further than flat ones\u201d (Gray, Natural Science\n and Religion). It accounts for the selection, not for the\n creation, of forms. \u201cNatural selection originates nothing. It is a\n destructive, not a creative, principle. If we must idealize it as\n a positive force, we must think of it, not as the preserver of the\n fittest, but as the destroyer, that follows ever in the wake of\n creation and devours the failures; the scavenger of creation, that\n takes out of the way forms which are not fit to live and reproduce\n themselves\u201d (Johnson, on Theistic Evolution, in Andover Review,\n April, 1884:363-381). Natural selection is only unintelligent\n repression. Darwin\u2019s Origin of Species is in fact \u201cnot the\n Genesis, but the Exodus, of living forms.\u201d Schurman: \u201cThe\n _survival_ of the fittest does nothing to explain the _arrival_ of\n the fittest\u201d; see also DeVries, Species and Varieties, _ad finem_.\n Darwin himself acknowledged that \u201cOur ignorance of the laws of\n variation is profound.... The cause of each slight variation and\n of each monstrosity lies much more in the nature or constitution\n of the organism than in the nature of the surrounding conditions\u201d\n (quoted by Mivart, Lessons from Nature, 280-301). Weismann has\n therefore modified the Darwinian theory by asserting that there\n would be no development unless there were a spontaneous, innate\n tendency to variation. In this innate tendency we see, not mere\n nature, but the work of an originating and superintending God. E.\n M. Caillard, in Contemp. Rev., Dec. 1893:873-881\u2014\u201cSpirit was the\n moulding power, from the beginning, of those lower forms which\n would ultimately become man. Instead of the physical derivation of\n the soul, we propose the spiritual derivation of the body.\u201d\n\n 2. Some of the most important forms appear suddenly in the\n geological record, without connecting links to unite them with the\n past. The first fishes are the Ganoid, large in size and advanced\n in type. There are no intermediate gradations between the ape and\n man. Huxley, in Man\u2019s Place in Nature, 94, tells us that the\n lowest gorilla has a skull capacity of 24 cubic inches, whereas\n the highest gorilla has 34-\u00bd. Over against this, the lowest man\n has a skull capacity of 62; though men with less than 65 are\n invariably idiotic; the highest man has 114. Professor Burt G.\n Wilder of Cornell University: \u201cThe largest ape-brain is only half\n as large as the smallest normal human.\u201d Wallace, Darwinism,\n 458\u2014\u201cThe average human brain weighs 48 or 49 ounces; the average\n ape\u2019s brain is only 18 ounces.\u201d The brain of Daniel Webster\n weighed 53 ounces; but Dr. Bastian tells of an imbecile whose\n intellectual deficiency was congenital, yet whose brain weighed 55\n ounces. Large heads do not always indicate great intellect.\n Professor Virchow points out that the Greeks, one of the most\n intellectual of nations, are also one of the smallest-headed of\n all. Bain: \u201cWhile the size of the brain increases in arithmetical\n proportion, intellectual range increases in geometrical\n proportion.\u201d\n\n Respecting the Enghis and Neanderthal crania, Huxley says: \u201cThe\n fossil remains of man hitherto discovered do not seem to me to\n take us appreciably nearer to that lower pithecoid form by the\n modification of which he has probably become what he is.... In\n vain have the links which should bind man to the monkey been\n sought: not a single one is there to show. The so-called\n _Protanthropos_ who should exhibit this link has not been\n found.... None have been found that stood nearer the monkey than\n the men of to-day.\u201d Huxley argues that the difference between man\n and the gorilla is smaller than that between the gorilla and some\n apes; if the gorilla and the apes constitute one family and have a\n common origin, may not man and the gorilla have a common ancestry\n also? We reply that the space between the lowest ape and the\n highest gorilla is filled in with numberless intermediate\n gradations. The space between the lowest man and the highest man\n is also filled in with many types that shade off one into the\n other. But the space between the highest gorilla and the lowest\n man is absolutely vacant; there are no intermediate types; no\n connecting links between the ape and man have yet been found.\n\n Professor Virchow has also very recently expressed his belief that\n no relics of any predecessor of man have yet been discovered. He\n said: \u201cIn my judgment, no skull hitherto discovered can be\n regarded as that of a predecessor of man. In the course of the\n last fifteen years we have had opportunities of examining skulls\n of all the various races of mankind\u2014even of the most savage\n tribes; and among them all no group has been observed differing in\n its essential characters from the general human type.... Out of\n all the skulls found in the lake-dwellings there is not one that\n lies outside the boundaries of our present population.\u201d Dr. Eugene\n Dubois has discovered in the Post-pliocene deposits of the island\n of Java the remains of a preeminently hominine anthropoid which he\n calls _Pithecanthropus erectus_. Its cranial capacity approaches\n the physiological minimum in man, and is double that of the\n gorilla. The thigh bone is in form and dimensions the absolute\n analogue of that of man, and gives evidence of having supported a\n habitually erect body. Dr. Dubois unhesitatingly places this\n extinct Javan ape as the intermediate form between man and the\n true anthropoid apes. Haeckel (in The Nation, Sept. 15, 1898) and\n Keane (in Man Past and Present, 3), regard the _Pithecanthropus_\n as a \u201cmissing link.\u201d But \u201cNature\u201d regards it as the remains of a\n human microcephalous idiot. In addition to all this, it deserves\n to be noticed that man does not degenerate as we travel back in\n time. \u201cThe Enghis skull, the contemporary of the mammoth and the\n cave-bear, is as large as the average of to-day, and might have\n belonged to a philosopher.\u201d The monkey nearest to man in physical\n form is no more intelligent than the elephant or the bee.\n\n 3. There are certain facts which mere heredity cannot explain,\n such for example as the origin of the working-bee from the queen\n and the drone, neither of which produces honey. The working-bee,\n moreover, does not transmit the honey-making instinct to its\n posterity; for it is sterile and childless. If man had descended\n from the conscienceless brute, we should expect him, when\n degraded, to revert to his primitive type. On the contrary, he\n does not revert to the brute, but dies out instead. The theory can\n give no explanation of beauty in the lowest forms of life, such as\n molluscs and diatoms. Darwin grants that this beauty must be of\n use to its possessor, in order to be consistent with its\n origination through natural selection. But no such use has yet\n been shown; for the creatures which possess the beauty often live\n in the dark, or have no eyes to see. So, too, the large brain of\n the savage is beyond his needs, and is inconsistent with the\n principle of natural selection which teaches that no organ can\n permanently attain a size unrequired by its needs and its\n environment. See Wallace, Natural Selection, 338-360. G. F.\n Wright, Man and the Glacial Epoch, 242-301\u2014\u201cThat man\u2019s bodily\n organization is in some way a development from some extinct member\n of the animal kingdom allied to the anthropoid apes is scarcely\n any longer susceptible of doubt.... But he is certainly not\n descended from any _existing_ species of anthropoid apes.... When\n once _mind_ became supreme, the bodily adjustment must have been\n rapid, if indeed it is not necessary to suppose that the bodily\n preparation for the highest mental faculties was instantaneous, or\n by what is called in nature a _sport_.\u201d With this statement of Dr.\n Wright we substantially agree, and therefore differ from Shedd\n when he says that there is just as much reason for supposing that\n monkeys are degenerate men, as that men are improved monkeys.\n Shakespeare, Timon of Athens, 1:1:249, seems to have hinted the\n view of Dr. Shedd: \u201cThe strain of man\u2019s bred out into baboon and\n monkey.\u201d Bishop Wilberforce asked Huxley whether he was related to\n an ape on his grandfather\u2019s or grandmother\u2019s side. Huxley replied\n that he should prefer such a relationship to having for an\n ancestor a man who used his position as a minister of religion to\n ridicule truth which he did not comprehend. \u201cMamma, am I descended\n from a monkey?\u201d \u201cI do not know, William, I never met any of your\n father\u2019s people.\u201d\n\n 4. No species is yet known to have been produced either by\n artificial or by natural selection. Huxley, Lay Sermons, 323\u2014\u201cIt\n is not absolutely proven that a group of animals having all the\n characters exhibited by species in nature has ever been originated\n by selection, whether artificial or natural\u201d; Man\u2019s Place in\n Nature, 107\u2014\u201cOur acceptance of the Darwinian hypothesis must be\n provisional, so long as one link in the chain of evidence is\n wanting; and so long as all the animals and plants certainly\n produced by selective breeding from a common stock are fertile\n with one another, that link will be wanting.\u201d Huxley has more\n recently declared that the missing proof has been found in the\n descent of the modern horse with one toe, from Hipparion with two\n toes, Anchitherium with three, and Orohippus with four. Even if\n this were demonstrated, we should still maintain that the only\n proper analogue was to be found in that artificial selection by\n which man produces new varieties, and that natural selection can\n bring about no useful results and show no progress, unless it be\n the method and revelation of a wise and designing mind. In other\n words, selection implies intelligence and will, and therefore\n cannot be exclusively natural. Mivart, Man and Apes, 192\u2014\u201cIf it is\n inconceivable and impossible for man\u2019s body to be developed or to\n exist without his informing soul, we conclude that, as no natural\n process accounts for the different kind of soul\u2014one capable of\n articulately expressing general conceptions,\u2014so no merely natural\n process can account for the origin of the body informed by it\u2014a\n body to which such an intellectual faculty was so essentially and\n intimately related.\u201d Thus Mivart, who once considered that\n evolution could account for man\u2019s body, now holds instead that it\n can account neither for man\u2019s body nor for his soul, and calls\n natural selection \u201ca puerile hypothesis\u201d (Lessons from Nature,\n 300; Essays and Criticisms, 2:289-314).\n\n\n(_e_) While we concede, then, that man has a brute ancestry, we make two\nclaims by way of qualification and explanation: first, that the laws of\norganic development which have been followed in man\u2019s origin are only the\nmethods of God and proofs of his creatorship; secondly, that man, when he\nappears upon the scene, is no longer brute, but a self-conscious and\nself-determining being, made in the image of his Creator and capable of\nfree moral decision between good and evil.\n\n\n Both man\u2019s original creation and his new creation in regeneration\n are creations from within, rather than from without. In both\n cases, God builds the new upon the basis of the old. Man is not a\n product of blind forces, but is rather an emanation from that same\n divine life of which the brute was a lower manifestation. The fact\n that God used pre\u00ebxisting material does not prevent his authorship\n of the result. The wine in the miracle was not water because water\n had been used in the making of it, nor is man a brute because the\n brute has made some contributions to his creation. Professor John\n H. Strong: \u201cSome who freely allow the presence and power of God in\n the age-long process seem nevertheless not clearly to see that, in\n the final result of finished man, God successfully revealed\n himself. God\u2019s work was never really or fully done; man was a\n compound of brute and man; and a compound of two such elements\n could not be said to possess the qualities of either. God did not\n really succeed in bringing moral personality to birth. The\n evolution was incomplete; man is still on all fours; he cannot\n sin, because he was begotten of the brute; no fall, and no\n regeneration, is conceivable. We assert, on the contrary, that,\n though man came _through_ the brute, he did not come _from_ the\n brute. He came from God, whose immanent life he reveals, whose\n image he reflects in a finished moral personality. Because God\n succeeded, a fall was possible. We can believe in the age-long\n creation of evolution, provided only that this evolution completed\n itself. With that proviso, sin remains and the fall.\u201d See also A.\n H. Strong, Christ in Creation, 163-180.\n\n An atheistic and unteleological evolution is a reversion to the\n savage view of animals as brethren, and to the heathen idea of a\n sphynx-man growing out of the brute. Darwin himself did not deny\n God\u2019s authorship. He closes his first great book with the\n declaration that life, with all its potencies, was originally\n breathed \u201cby the Creator\u201d into the first forms of organic being.\n And in his letters he refers with evident satisfaction to Charles\n Kingsley\u2019s finding nothing in the theory which was inconsistent\n with an earnest Christian faith. It was not Darwin, but disciples\n like Haeckel, who put forward the theory as making the hypothesis\n of a Creator superfluous. We grant the principle of evolution, but\n we regard it as only the method of the divine intelligence, and\n must moreover consider it as preceded by an original creative act,\n introducing vegetable and animal life, and as supplemented by\n other creative acts, at the introduction of man and at the\n incarnation of Christ. Chadwick, Old and New Unitarianism,\n 33\u2014\u201cWhat seemed to wreck our faith in human nature [its origin\n from the brute] has been its grandest confirmation. For nothing\n argues the essential dignity of man more clearly than his triumph\n over the limitations of his brute inheritance, while the long way\n that he has come is prophecy of the moral heights undreamed of\n that await his tireless feet.\u201d All this is true if we regard human\n nature, not as an undesigned result of atheistic evolution, but as\n the efflux and reflection of the divine personality. R. E.\n Thompson, in S. S. Times, Dec. 29, 1906\u2014\u201cThe greatest fact in\n heredity is our descent from God, and the greatest fact in\n environment is his presence in human life at every point.\u201d\n\n The atheistic conception of evolution is well satirized in the\n verse: \u201cThere was an ape in days that were earlier; Centuries\n passed and his hair became curlier; Centuries more and his thumb\n gave a twist, And he was a man and a Positivist.\u201d That this\n conception is not a necessary conclusion of modern science, is\n clear from the statements of Wallace, the author with Darwin of\n the theory of natural selection. Wallace believes that man\u2019s body\n was developed from the brute, but he thinks there have been three\n breaks in continuity: 1. the appearance of life; 2. the appearance\n of sensation and consciousness; and 3. the appearance of spirit.\n These seem to correspond to 1. vegetable; 2. animal; and 3. human\n life. He thinks natural selection may account for man\u2019s place _in_\n nature, but not for man\u2019s place _above_ nature, as a spiritual\n being. See Wallace, Darwinism, 445-478\u2014\u201cI fully accept Mr.\n Darwin\u2019s conclusion as to the essential identity of man\u2019s bodily\n structure with that of the higher mammalia, and his descent from\n some ancestral form common to man and the anthropoid apes.\u201d But\n the conclusion that man\u2019s higher faculties have also been derived\n from the lower animals \u201cappears to me not to be supported by\n adequate evidence, and to be directly opposed to many\n well-ascertained facts\u201d (461).... The mathematical, the artistic\n and musical faculties, are results, not causes, of\n advancement,\u2014they do not help in the struggle for existence and\n could not have been developed by natural selection. The\n introduction of life (vegetable), of consciousness (animal), of\n higher faculty (human), point clearly to a world of spirit, to\n which the world of matter is subordinate (474-476).... Man\u2019s\n intellectual and moral faculties could not have been developed\n from the animal, but must have had another origin; and for this\n origin we can find an adequate cause only in the world of spirit.\n\n Wallace, Natural Selection, 338\u2014\u201cThe average cranial capacity of\n the lowest savage is probably not less than five-sixths of that of\n the highest civilized races, while the brain of the anthropoid\n apes scarcely amounts to one-third of that of man, in both cases\n taking the average; or the proportions may be represented by the\n following figures: anthropoid apes, 10; savages, 26; civilized\n man, 32.\u201d _Ibid._, 360\u2014\u201cThe inference I would draw from this class\n of phenomena is, that a superior intelligence has guided the\n development of man in a definite direction and for a special\n purpose, just as man guides the development of many animal and\n vegetable forms.... The controlling action of a higher\n intelligence is a necessary part of the laws of nature, just as\n the action of all surrounding organisms is one of the agencies in\n organic development,\u2014else the laws which govern the material\n universe are insufficient for the production of man.\u201d Sir Wm.\n Thompson: \u201cThat man could be evolved out of inferior animals is\n the wildest dream of materialism, a pure assumption which offends\n me alike by its folly and by its arrogance.\u201d Hartmann, in his\n Anthropoid Apes, 302-306, while not despairing of \u201cthe possibility\n of discovering the true link between the world of man and\n mammals,\u201d declares that \u201cthat purely hypothetical being, the\n common ancestor of man and apes, is still to be found,\u201d and that\n \u201cman cannot have descended from any of the fossil species which\n have hitherto come to our notice, nor yet from any of the species\n of apes now extant.\u201d See Dana, Amer. Journ. Science and Arts,\n 1876:251, and Geology, 603, 604; Lotze, Mikrokosmos, vol. I, bk.\n 3, chap. 1; Mivart, Genesis of Species, 202-222, 259-307, Man and\n Apes, 88, 149-192, Lessons from Nature, 128-242, 280-301, The Cat.\n and Encyclop. Britannica, art.: Apes; Quatrefages, Natural History\n of Man, 64-87; Bp. Temple, Bampton Lect., 1884:161-189; Dawson,\n Story of the Earth and Man, 321-329; Duke of Argyll, Primeval Man,\n 38-75; Asa Gray, Natural Science and Religion; Schmid, Theories of\n Darwin, 115-140; Carpenter, Mental Physiology, 59; McIlvaine,\n Wisdom of Holy Scripture, 55-86; Bible Commentary, 1:43;\n Martensen, Dogmatics, 136; LeConte, in Princeton Rev., Nov.\n 1878:776-803; Z\u00f6ckler, Urgeschichte, 81-105; Shedd, Dogm. Theol.,\n 1:499-515. Also, see this Compendium, pages 392, 393.\n\n\n(_f_) The truth that man is the offspring of God implies the correlative\ntruth of a common divine Fatherhood. God is Father of all men, in that he\noriginates and sustains them as personal beings like in nature to himself.\nEven toward sinners God holds this natural relation of Father. It is his\nfatherly love, indeed, which provides the atonement. Thus the demands of\nholiness are met and the prodigal is restored to the privileges of sonship\nwhich have been forfeited by transgression. This natural Fatherhood,\ntherefore, does not exclude, but prepares the way for, God\u2019s special\nFatherhood toward those who have been regenerated by his Spirit and who\nhave believed on his Son; indeed, since all God\u2019s creations take place in\nand through Christ, there is a natural and physical sonship of all men, by\nvirtue of their relation to Christ, the eternal Son, which antedates and\nprepares the way for the spiritual sonship of those who join themselves to\nhim by faith. Man\u2019s natural sonship underlies the history of the fall, and\nqualifies the doctrine of Sin.\n\n\n Texts referring to God\u2019s natural and common Fatherhood are: _Mal.\n 2:10_\u2014\u201c_Have we not all one father_ [Abraham]? _hath not one God\n created us?_\u201d _Luke 3:38_\u2014\u201c_Adam, the son of God_\u201d; _15:11-32_\u2014the\n parable of the prodigal son, in which the father is father even\n before the prodigal returns; _John 3:16_\u2014\u201c_God so loved the world,\n that he gave his only begotten Son_\u201d; _John 15:6_\u2014\u201c_If a man abide\n not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and they\n gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are\n burned_\u201d;\u2014these words imply a natural union of all men with\n Christ,\u2014otherwise they would teach that those who are spiritually\n united to him can perish everlastingly. _Acts 17:28_\u2014\u201c_For we are\n also his offspring_\u201d\u2014words addressed by Paul to a heathen\n audience; _Col. 1:16, 17_\u2014\u201c_in him were all things created ... and\n in him all things consist_\u201d; _Heb. 12:9_\u2014\u201c_the Father of\n spirits._\u201d Fatherhood, in this larger sense, implies: 1.\n Origination; 2. Impartation of life; 3. Sustentation; 4. Likeness\n in faculties and powers; 5. Government; 6. Care; 7. Love. In all\n these respects God is the Father of all men, and his fatherly love\n is both preserving and atoning. God\u2019s natural fatherhood is\n mediated by Christ, through whom all things were made, and in whom\n all things, even humanity, consist. We are naturally children of\n God, as we were _created_ in Christ; we are spiritually sons of\n God, as we have been _created anew_ in Christ Jesus. G. W.\n Northrop: \u201cGod never _becomes_ Father to any men or class of men;\n he only becomes a _reconciled_ and _complacent_ Father to those\n who become ethically like him. Men are not sons in the full ideal\n sense until they comport themselves as sons of God.\u201d Chapman,\n Jesus Christ and the Present Age, 39\u2014\u201cWhile God is the Father of\n all men, all men are not the children of God: in other words, God\n always realizes completely the idea of Father to every man; but\n the majority of men realize only partially the idea of sonship.\u201d\n\n Texts referring to the special Fatherhood of grace are: _John\n 1:12, 13_\u2014\u201c_as many as received him, to them gave he the right to\n become children of God, even to them that believe on his name; who\n were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the\n will of man, but of God_\u201d; _Rom. 8:14_\u2014\u201c_for as many as are led by\n the Spirit of God, these are sons of God_\u201d; _15_\u2014\u201c_ye received the\n spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father_\u201d; _2 Cor.\n 6:17_\u2014\u201c_Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the\n Lord, and touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you, and will\n be to you a Father, and ye shall be to me sons and daughters,\n saith the Lord Almighty_\u201d; _Eph. 1:5, 6_\u2014\u201c_having foreordained us\n unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself_\u201d; _3:14,\n 15_\u2014\u201c_the Father, from whom every family_ [marg. \u201cfatherhood\u201d] _in\n heaven and on earth is named_\u201d (= every race among angels or\n men\u2014so Meyer, Romans, 158, 159); _Gal 3:26_\u2014\u201c_for ye are all sons\n of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus_\u201d; _4:6_\u2014\u201c_And because ye\n are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts,\n crying, Abba, Father_\u201d; _1 John 3:1, 2_\u2014\u201c_Behold what manner of\n love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called\n children of God; __ and such we are.... Beloved, now are we\n children of God._\u201d The sonship of the race is only rudimentary.\n The actual realization of sonship is possible only through Christ.\n _Gal. 4:1-7_ intimates a universal sonship, but a sonship in which\n the child \u201c_differeth nothing from a bondservant though he is lord\n of all_,\u201d and needs still to \u201c_receive the adoption of sons_.\u201d\n Simon, Reconciliation, 81\u2014\u201cIt is one thing to be a father; another\n to discharge all the fatherly functions. Human fathers sometimes\n fail to behave like fathers for reasons lying solely in\n themselves; sometimes because of hindrances in the conduct or\n character of their children. No father can normally discharge his\n fatherly functions toward children who are unchildlike. So even\n the rebellious son is a son, but he does not act like a son.\u201d\n Because all men are naturally sons of God, it does not follow that\n all men will be saved. Many who are naturally sons of God are not\n spiritually sons of God; they are only \u201c_servants_\u201d who \u201c_abide\n not in the house forever_\u201d (_John 8:35_). God is their Father, but\n they have yet to \u201c_become_\u201d his children (_Mat. 5:45_).\n\n The controversy between those who maintain and those who deny that\n God is the Father of all men is a mere logomachy. God is\n physically and naturally the Father of all men; he is morally and\n spiritually the Father only of those who have been renewed by his\n Spirit. All men are sons of God in a lower sense by virtue of\n their natural union with Christ; only those are sons of God in the\n higher sense who have joined themselves by faith to Christ in a\n spiritual union. We can therefore assent to much that is said by\n those who deny the universal divine fatherhood, as, for example,\n C. M. Mead, in Am. Jour. Theology, July, 1897:577-600, who\n maintains that sonship consists in spiritual kinship with God, and\n who quotes, in support of this view, _John 8:41-44_\u2014\u201c_If God were\n your Father, ye would love me.... Ye are of your father, the\n devil_\u201d = the Fatherhood of God is not universal; _Mat. 5:44,\n 45_\u2014\u201c_Love your enemies ... in order that ye may become sons of\n your Father who is in heaven_\u201d; _John 1:12_\u2014\u201c_as many as received\n him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to\n them that believe on his name._\u201d Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit,\n 103\u2014\u201cThat God has created all men does not constitute them his\n sons in the evangelical sense of the word. The sonship on which\n the N. T. dwells so constantly is based solely on the experience\n of the new birth, while the doctrine of universal sonship rests\n either on a daring denial or a daring assumption\u2014the denial of the\n universal fall of man through sin, or the assumption of the\n universal regeneration of man through the Spirit. In either case\n the teaching belongs to \u2018_another gospel_\u2019 (_Gal. 1:7_), the\n recompense of whose preaching is not a beatitude, but an\n \u2018_anathema_\u2019 (_Gal 1:8._)\u201d\n\n But we can also agree with much that is urged by the opposite\n party, as for example, Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 1:193\u2014\u201cGod does\n not _become_ the Father, but _is_ the heavenly Father, even of\n those who become his sons.... This Fatherhood of God, instead of\n the kingship which was the dominant idea of the Jews, Jesus made\n the primary doctrine. The relation is ethical, not the Fatherhood\n of mere origination, and therefore only those who live aright are\n true sons of God.... 209\u2014Mere kingship, or exaltation above the\n world, led to Pharisaic legal servitude and external ceremony and\n to Alexandrian philosophical speculation. The Fatherhood\n apprehended and announced by Jesus was essentially a relation of\n love and holiness.\u201d A. H. Bradford, Age of Faith, 116-120\u2014\u201cThere\n is something sacred in humanity. But systems of theology once\n began with the essential and natural worthlessness of man.... If\n there is no Fatherhood, then selfishness is logical. But\n Fatherhood carries with it identity of nature between the parent\n and the child. Therefore every laborer is of the nature of God,\n and he who has the nature of God cannot be treated like the\n products of factory and field.... All the children of God are by\n nature partakers of the life of God. They are called \u2018_children of\n wrath_\u2019 (_Eph. 2:3_), or \u2018_of perdition_\u2019 (_John 17:12_), only to\n indicate that their proper relations and duties have been\n violated.... Love for man is dependent on something worthy of\n love, and that is found in man\u2019s essential divinity.\u201d We object to\n this last statement, as attributing to man at the beginning what\n can come to him only through grace. Man was indeed created in\n Christ (_Col. 1:16_) and was a son of God by virtue of his union\n with Christ (_Luke 3:38_; _John 15:6_). But since man has sinned\n and has renounced his sonship, it can be restored and realized. In\n a moral and spiritual sense, only through the atoning work of\n Christ and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit (_Eph.\n 2:10_\u2014\u201c_created in Christ Jesus for good works_\u201d; _2 Pet\n 1:4_\u2014\u201c_his precious and exceeding great promises; that through\n these ye may become partakers of the divine nature_\u201d).\n\n Many who deny the universal Fatherhood of God refuse to carry\n their doctrine to its logical extreme. To be consistent they\n should forbid the unconverted to offer the Lord\u2019s Prayer or even\n to pray at all. A mother who did not believe God to be the Father\n of all actually said: \u201cMy children are not converted, and if I\n were to teach them the Lord\u2019s Prayer, I must teach them to say:\n \u2018Our father who art in hell\u2019; for they are only children of the\n devil.\u201d Papers on the question: Is God the Father of all Men? are\n to be found in the Proceedings of the Baptist Congress,\n 1896:106-136. Among these the essay of F. H. Rowley asserts God\u2019s\n universal Fatherhood upon the grounds: 1. Man is created in the\n image of God; 2. God\u2019s fatherly treatment of man, especially in\n the life of Christ among men; 3. God\u2019s universal claim on man for\n his filial love and trust; 4. Only God\u2019s Fatherhood makes\n incarnation possible, for this implies oneness of nature between\n God and man. To these we may add: 5. The atoning death of Christ\n could be efficacious only upon the ground of a common nature in\n Christ and in humanity; and 6. The regenerating work of the Holy\n Spirit is intelligible only as the restoration of a filial\n relation which was native to man, but which his sin had put into\n abeyance. For denial that God is Father to any but the regenerate,\n see Candlish, Fatherhood of God; Wright, Fatherhood of God. For\n advocacy of the universal Fatherhood, see Crawford, Fatherhood of\n God; Lidgett, Fatherhood of God.\n\n\n\nII. Unity of the Human Race.\n\n\n(_a_) The Scriptures teach that the whole human race is descended from a\nsingle pair.\n\n\n _Gen. 1:27, 28_\u2014\u201c_And God created man in his own image, in the\n image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And\n God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and\n multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it_\u201d; _2:7_\u2014\u201c_And\n Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed\n into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living\n soul_\u201d; _22_\u2014\u201c_and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the\n man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man_\u201d; _3:20_\u2014\u201c_And\n the man called his wife\u2019s name Eve; because she was the mother of\n all living_\u201d = even Eve is traced back to Adam; _9:19_\u2014\u201c_These\n three were the sons of Noah; and of these was the whole earth\n overspread._\u201d Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 110\u2014\u201cLogically, it seems\n easier to account for the divergence of what was at first one,\n than for the union of what was at first heterogeneous.\u201d\n\n\n(_b_) This truth lies at the foundation of Paul\u2019s doctrine of the organic\nunity of mankind in the first transgression, and of the provision of\nsalvation for the race in Christ.\n\n\n _Rom. 5:12_\u2014\u201c_Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the\n world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men,\n for that all sinned_\u201d; _19_\u2014\u201c_For as through the one man\u2019s\n disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the\n obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous_\u201d; _1 Cor.\n 15:21, 22_\u2014\u201c_For since by man came death, by man came also the\n resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in\n Christ shall all be made alive_\u201d; _Heb. 2:16_\u2014\u201c_For verily not of\n angels doth he take hold, but he taketh hold of the seed of\n Abraham._\u201d One of the most eminent ethnologists and\n anthropologists, Prof. D. G. Brinton, said not long before his\n death that all scientific research and teaching tended to the\n conviction that mankind has descended from one pair.\n\n\n(_c_) This descent of humanity from a single pair also constitutes the\nground of man\u2019s obligation of natural brotherhood to every member of the\nrace.\n\n\n _Acts 17:26_\u2014\u201c_he made of one every nation of men to dwell on all\n the face of the earth_\u201d\u2014here the Rev. Vers. omits the word\n \u201c_blood_\u201d (\u201c_made of one blood_\u201d\u2014Auth. Vers.). The word to be\n supplied is possibly \u201cfather,\u201d but more probably \u201cbody\u201d; _cf._\n _Heb. 2:11_\u2014\u201c_for both he that sanctifieth and they that are\n sanctified are all of one_ [father or body]: _for which cause he\n is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will declare thy\n name unto my brethren, In the midst of the congregation will I\n sing thy praise._\u201d\n\n Winchell, in his Preadamites, has recently revived the theory\n broached in 1655 by Peyrerius, that there were men before Adam:\n \u201cAdam is descended from a black race\u2014not the black races from\n Adam.\u201d Adam is simply \u201cthe remotest ancestor to whom the Jews\n could trace their lineage.... The derivation of Adam from an older\n human stock is essentially the creation of Adam.\u201d Winchell does\n not deny the unity of the race, nor the retroactive effect of the\n atonement upon those who lived before Adam; he simply denies that\n Adam was the first man. 297\u2014He \u201cregards the Adamic stock as\n derived from an older and humbler human type,\u201d originally as low\n in the scale as the present Australian savages.\n\n Although this theory furnishes a plausible explanation of certain\n Biblical facts, such as the marriage of Cain (_Gen. 4:17_), Cain\u2019s\n fear that men would slay him (_Gen. 4:14_), and the distinction\n between \u201c_the sons of God_\u201d and \u201c_the daughters of men_\u201d (_Gen.\n 6:1, 2_), it treats the Mosaic narrative as legendary rather than\n historical. Shem, Ham, and Japheth, it is intimated, may have\n lived hundreds of years apart from one another (409). Upon this\n view, Eve could not be \u201c_the mother of all living_\u201d (_Gen. 3:20_),\n nor could the transgression of Adam be the cause and beginning of\n condemnation to the whole race (_Rom. 5:12, 19_). As to Cain\u2019s\n fear of other families who might take vengeance upon him, we must\n remember that we do not know how many children were born to Adam\n between Cain and Abel, nor what the age of Cain and Abel was, nor\n whether Cain feared only those that were then living. As to Cain\u2019s\n marriage, we must remember that even if Cain married into another\n family, his wife, upon any hypothesis of the unity of the race,\n must have been descended from some other original Cain that\n married his sister.\n\n See Keil and Delitzsch, Com. on Pentateuch, 1:116\u2014\u201cThe marriage of\n brothers and sisters was inevitable in the case of children of the\n first man, in case the human race was actually to descend from a\n single pair, and may therefore be justified, in the face of the\n Mosaic prohibition of such marriages, on the ground that the sons\n and daughters of Adam represented not merely the family but the\n genus, and that it was not till after the rise of several families\n that the bonds of fraternal and conjugal love became distinct from\n one another and assumed fixed and mutually exclusive forms, the\n violation of which is sin.\u201d Prof. W. H. Green: \u201c_Gen. 20:12_ shows\n that Sarah was Abraham\u2019s half-sister;...the regulations\n subsequently ordained in the Mosaic law were not then in force.\u201d\n G. H. Darwin, son of Charles Darwin, has shown that marriage\n between cousins is harmless where there is difference of\n temperament between the parties. Modern pal\u00e6ontology makes it\n probable that at the beginning of the race there was greater\n differentiation of brothers and sisters in the same family than\n obtains in later times. See Ebrard, Dogmatik, 1:275. For criticism\n of the doctrine that there were men before Adam, see Methodist\n Quar. Rev., April, 1881:205-231; Presb. Rev., 1881:440-444.\n\n\nThe Scripture statements are corroborated by considerations drawn from\nhistory and science. Four arguments may be briefly mentioned:\n\n\n1. The argument from history.\n\n\nSo far as the history of nations and tribes in both hemispheres can be\ntraced, the evidence points to a common origin and ancestry in central\nAsia.\n\n\n The European nations are acknowledged to have come, in successive\n waves of migration, from Asia. Modern ethnologists generally agree\n that the Indian races of America are derived from Mongoloid\n sources in Eastern Asia, either through Polynesia or by way of the\n Aleutian Islands. Bunsen, Philos. of Universal History, 2:112\u2014the\n Asiatic origin of all the North American Indians \u201cis as fully\n proved as the unity of family among themselves.\u201d Mason, Origins of\n Invention, 361\u2014\u201cBefore the time of Columbus, the Polynesians made\n canoe voyages from Tahiti to Hawaii, a distance of 2300 miles.\u201d\n Keane, Man Past and Present, 1-15, 349-440, treats of the American\n Aborigines under two primitive types: Longheads from Europe and\n Roundheads from Asia. The human race, he claims, originated in\n Indomalaysia and spread thence by migration over the globe. The\n world was peopled from one center by Pleistocene man. The primary\n groups were evolved each in its special habitat, but all sprang\n from a Pleiocene precursor 100,000 years ago. W. T. Lopp,\n missionary to the Eskimos, at Port Clarence, Alaska, on the\n American side of Bering Strait, writes under date of August 31,\n 1892: \u201cNo thaws during the winter, and ice blocked in the Strait.\n This has always been doubted by whalers. Eskimos have told them\n that they sometimes crossed the Strait on ice, but they have never\n believed them. Last February and March our Eskimos had a tobacco\n famine. Two parties (five men) went with dogsleds to East Cape, on\n the Siberian coast, and traded some beaver, otter and marten skins\n for Russian tobacco, and returned safely. It is only during an\n occasional winter that they can do this. But every summer they\n make several trips in their big wolf-skin boats\u2014forty feet long.\n These observations may throw some light upon the origin of the\n prehistoric races of America.\u201d\n\n Tylor, Primitive Culture, 1:48\u2014\u201cThe semi-civilized nations of Java\n and Sumatra are found in possession of a civilization which at\n first glance shows itself to have been borrowed from Hindu and\n Moslem sources.\u201d See also Sir Henry Rawlinson, quoted in Burgess,\n Antiquity and Unity of the Race, 156, 157; Smyth, Unity of Human\n Races, 223-236; Pickering, Races of Man, Introd., synopsis, and\n page 316; Guyot, Earth and Man, 298-334; Quatrefages, Natural\n History of Man, and Unit\u00e9 de l\u2019Esp\u00e8ce Humaine; Godron, Unit\u00e9 de\n l\u2019Esp\u00e8ce Humaine, 2:412 _sq._ _Per contra_, however, see Prof. A.\n H. Sayce: \u201cThe evidence is now all tending to show that the\n districts in the neighborhood of the Baltic were those from which\n the Aryan languages first radiated, and where the race or races\n who spoke them originally dwelt. The Aryan invaders of\n Northwestern India could only have been a late and distant\n offshoot of the primitive stock, speedily absorbed into the\n earlier population of the country as they advanced southward; and\n to speak of \u2018our Indian brethren\u2019 is as absurd and false as to\n claim relationship with the negroes of the United States because\n they now use an Aryan language.\u201d Scribner, Where Did Life Begin?\n has lately adduced arguments to prove that life on the earth\n originated at the North Pole, and Prof. Asa Gray favors this view;\n see his Darwiniana, 205, and Scientific Papers, 2:152; so also\n Warren, Paradise Found; and Wieland, in Am. Journal of Science,\n Dec. 1903:401-430. Dr. J. L. Wortman, in Yale Alumni Weekly, Jan.\n 14, 1903:129\u2014\u201cThe appearance of all these primates in North\n America was very abrupt at the beginning of the second stage of\n the Eocene. And it is a striking coincidence that approximately\n the same forms appear in beds of exactly corresponding age in\n Europe. Nor does this synchronism stop with the apes. It applies\n to nearly all the other types of Eocene mammalia in the Northern\n Hemisphere, and to the accompanying flora as well. These facts can\n be explained only on the hypothesis that there was a common centre\n from which these plants and animals were distributed. Considering\n further that the present continental masses were essentially the\n same in the Eocene time as now, and that the North Polar region\n then enjoyed a subtropical climate, as is abundantly proved by\n fossil plants, we are forced to the conclusion that this common\n centre of dispersion lay approximately within the Arctic\n Circle.... The origin of the human species did not take place on\n the Western Hemisphere.\u201d\n\n\n2. The argument from language.\n\n\nComparative philology points to a common origin of all the more important\nlanguages, and furnishes no evidence that the less important are not also\nso derived.\n\n\n On Sanskrit as a connecting link between the Indo-Germanic\n languages, see Max M\u00fcller, Science of Language, 1:146-165,\n 326-342, who claims that all languages pass through the three\n stages: monosyllabic, agglutinative, inflectional; and that\n nothing necessitates the admission of different independent\n beginnings for either the material or the formal elements of the\n Turanian, Semitic, and Aryan branches of speech. The changes of\n language are often rapid. Latin becomes the Romance languages, and\n Saxon and Norman are united into English, in three centuries. The\n Chinese may have departed from their primitive abodes while their\n language was yet monosyllabic.\n\n G. J. Romanes, Life and Letters, 195\u2014\u201cChildren are the\n constructors of all _languages_, as distinguished from\n _language_.\u201d Instance Helen Keller\u2019s sudden acquisition of\n language, uttering publicly a long piece only three weeks after\n she first began to imitate the motions of the lips. G. F. Wright,\n Man and the Glacial Period, 242-301\u2014\u201cRecent investigations show\n that children, when from any cause isolated at an early age, will\n often produce at once a language _de novo_. Thus it would appear\n by no means improbable that various languages in America, and\n perhaps the earliest languages of the world, may have arisen in a\n short time where conditions were such that a family of small\n children could have maintained existence when for any cause\n deprived of parental and other fostering care.... Two or three\n thousand years of prehistoric time is perhaps all that would be\n required to produce the diversification of languages which appears\n at the dawn of history.... The prehistoric stage of Europe ended\n less than a thousand years before the Christian Era.\u201d In a people\n whose speech has not been fixed by being committed to writing,\n baby-talk is a great source of linguistic corruption, and the\n changes are exceedingly rapid. Humboldt took down the vocabulary\n of a South American tribe, and after fifteen years of absence\n found their speech so changed as to seem a different language.\n\n Z\u00f6ckler, in Jahrbuch f\u00fcr deutsche Theologie, 8:68 _sq._, denies\n the progress from lower methods of speech to higher, and declares\n the most highly developed inflectional languages to be the oldest\n and most widespread. Inferior languages are a degeneration from a\n higher state of culture. In the development of the Indo-Germanic\n languages (such as the French and the English), we have instances\n of change from more full and luxuriant expression to that which is\n monosyllabic or agglutinative. The theory of Max M\u00fcller is also\n opposed by Pott, Die Verschiedenheiten der menschlichen Rassen,\n 202, 242. Pott calls attention to the fact that the Australian\n languages show unmistakable similarity to the languages of Eastern\n and Southern Asia, although the physical characteristics of these\n tribes are far different from the Asiatic.\n\n On the old Egyptian language as a connecting link between the\n Indo-European and the Semitic tongues, see Bunsen, Egypt\u2019s Place,\n 1: preface, 10; also see Farrar, Origin of Language, 213. Like the\n old Egyptian, the Berber and the Touareg are Semitic in parts of\n their vocabulary, while yet they are Aryan in grammar. So the\n Tibetan and Burmese stand between the Indo-European languages, on\n the one hand, and the monosyllabic languages, as of China, on the\n other. A French philologist claims now to have interpreted the\n _Yh-King_, the oldest and most unintelligible monumental writing\n of the Chinese, by regarding it as a corruption of the old\n Assyrian or Accadian cuneiform characters, and as resembling the\n syllabaries, vocabularies, and bilingual tablets in the ruined\n libraries of Assyria and Babylon; see Terrien de Lacouperie, The\n Oldest Book of the Chinese and its Authors, and The Languages of\n China before the Chinese, 11, note; he holds to \u201cthe\n non-indigenousness of the Chinese civilization and its derivation\n from the old Chald\u00e6o-Babylonian focus of culture by the medium of\n Susiana.\u201d See also Sayce, in Contemp. Rev., Jan. 1884:934-936;\n also, The Monist, Oct. 1906:562-596, on The Ideograms of the\n Chinese and the Central American Calendars. The evidence goes to\n show that the Chinese came into China from Susiana in the 23d\n century before Christ. Initial G wears down in time into a Y\n sound. Many words which begin with Y in Chinese are found in\n Accadian beginning with G, as Chinese Ye, \u201cnight,\u201d is in Accadian\n Ge, \u201cnight.\u201d The order of development seems to be: 1. picture\n writing; 2. syllabic writing; 3. alphabetic writing.\n\n In a similar manner, there is evidence that the Pharaonic\n Egyptians were immigrants from another land, namely, Babylonia.\n Hommel derives the hieroglyphs of the Egyptians from the pictures\n out of which the cuneiform characters developed, and he shows that\n the elements of the Egyptian language itself are contained in that\n mixed speech of Babylonia which originated in the fusion of\n Sumerians and Semites. The Osiris of Egypt is the Asari of the\n Sumerians. Burial in brick tombs in the first two Egyptian\n dynasties is a survival from Babylonia, as are also the\n seal-cylinders impressed on clay. On the relations between Aryan\n and Semitic languages, see Renouf, Hibbert Lectures, 55-61;\n Murray, Origin and Growth of the Psalms, 7; Bib. Sac., 1870:162;\n 1876:352-380; 1879:674-706. See also Pezzi, Aryan Philology, 125;\n Sayce, Principles of Comp. Philology, 132-174; Whitney, art. on\n Comp. Philology in Encyc. Britannica, also Life and Growth of\n Language, 269, and Study of Language, 307, 308\u2014\u201cLanguage affords\n certain indications of doubtful value, which, taken along with\n certain other ethnological considerations, also of questionable\n pertinency, furnish ground for suspecting an ultimate\n relationship.... That more thorough comprehension of the history\n of Semitic speech will enable us to determine this ultimate\n relationship, may perhaps be looked for with hope, though it is\n not to be expected with confidence.\u201d See also Smyth, Unity of\n Human Races, 199-222; Smith\u2019s Bib. Dict., art.: Confusion of\n Tongues.\n\n We regard the facts as, on the whole, favoring an opposite\n conclusion from that in Hastings\u2019s Bible Dictionary, art.: Flood:\n \u201cThe diversity of the human race and of language alike makes it\n improbable that men were derived from a single pair.\u201d E. G.\n Robinson: \u201cThe only trustworthy argument for the unity of the race\n is derived from comparative philology. If it should be established\n that one of the three families of speech was more ancient than the\n others, and the source of the others, the argument would be\n unanswerable. Coloration of the skin seems to lie back of climatic\n influences. We believe in the unity of the race because in this\n there are the fewest difficulties. We would not know how else to\n interpret Paul in _Romans 5_.\u201d Max M\u00fcller has said that the\n fountain head of modern philology as of modern freedom and\n international law is the change wrought by Christianity,\n superseding the narrow national conception of patriotism by the\n recognition of all the nations and races as members of one great\n human family.\n\n\n3. The argument from psychology.\n\n\nThe existence, among all families of mankind, of common mental and moral\ncharacteristics, as evinced in common maxims, tendencies and capacities,\nin the prevalence of similar traditions, and in the universal\napplicability of one philosophy and religion, is most easily explained\nupon the theory of a common origin.\n\n\n Among the widely prevalent traditions may be mentioned the\n tradition of the fashioning of the world and man, of a primeval\n garden, of an original innocence and happiness, of a tree of\n knowledge, of a serpent, of a temptation and fall, of a division\n of time into weeks, of a flood, of sacrifice. It is possible, if\n not probable, that certain myths, common to many nations, may have\n been handed down from a time when the families of the race had not\n yet separated. See Z\u00f6ckler, in Jahrbuch f\u00fcr deutsche Theologie,\n 8:71-90; Max M\u00fcller, Science of Language, 2:444-455; Prichard,\n Nat. Hist. of Man, 2:657-714; Smyth, Unity of Human Races,\n 236-240; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:77-91; Gladstone, Juventus Mundi.\n\n\n4. The argument from physiology.\n\n\nA. It is the common judgment of comparative physiologists that man\nconstitutes but a single species. The differences which exist between the\nvarious families of mankind are to be regarded as varieties of this\nspecies. In proof of these statements we urge: (_a_) The numberless\nintermediate gradations which connect the so-called races with each other.\n(_b_) The essential identity of all races in cranial, osteological, and\ndental characteristics. (_c_) The fertility of unions between individuals\nof the most diverse types, and the continuous fertility of the offspring\nof such unions.\n\n\n Huxley, Critiques and Addresses, 163\u2014\u201cIt may be safely affirmed\n that, even if the differences between men are specific, they are\n so small that the assumption of more than one primitive stock for\n all is altogether superfluous. We may admit that Negroes and\n Australians are distinct species, yet be the strictest\n monogenists, and even believe in Adam and Eve as the primeval\n parents of mankind, _i. e._, on Darwin\u2019s hypothesis\u201d; Origin of\n Species, 118\u2014\u201cI am one of those who believe that at present there\n is no evidence whatever for saying that mankind sprang originally\n from more than a single pair; I must say that I cannot see any\n good ground whatever, or any tenable evidence, for believing that\n there is more than one species of man.\u201d Owen, quoted by Burgess,\n Ant. and Unity of Race, 185\u2014\u201cMan forms but one species, and\n differences are but indications of varieties. These variations\n merge into each other by easy gradations.\u201d Alex. von Humboldt:\n \u201cThe different races of men are forms of one sole species,\u2014they\n are not different species of a genus.\u201d\n\n Quatrefages, in Revue d. deux Mondes, Dec. 1860:814\u2014\u201cIf one places\n himself exclusively upon the plane of the natural sciences, it is\n impossible not to conclude in favor of the monogenist doctrine.\u201d\n Wagner, quoted in Bib. Sac., 19:607\u2014\u201cSpecies\u2014the collective total\n of individuals which are capable of producing one with another an\n uninterruptedly fertile progeny.\u201d Pickering, Races of Man,\n 316\u2014\u201cThere is no middle ground between the admission of eleven\n distinct species in the human family and their reduction to one.\n The latter opinion implies a central point of origin.\u201d\n\n There is an impossibility of deciding how many races there are, if\n we once allow that there are more than one. While Pickering would\n say eleven, Agassiz says eight, Morton twenty-two, and Burke\n sixty-five. Modern science all tends to the derivation of each\n family from a single germ. Other common characteristics of all\n races of men, in addition to those mentioned in the text, are the\n duration of pregnancy, the normal temperature of the body, the\n mean frequency of the pulse, the liability to the same diseases.\n Meehan, State Botanist of Pennsylvania, maintains that hybrid\n vegetable products are no more sterile than are ordinary plants\n (Independent, Aug. 21, 1884).\n\n E. B. Tylor, art.: Anthropology, in Encyc. Britannica: \u201cOn the\n whole it may be asserted that the doctrine of the unity of mankind\n now stands on a firmer basis than in previous ages.\u201d Darwin,\n Animals and Plants under Domestication, 1:39\u2014\u201cFrom the resemblance\n in several countries of the half-domesticated dogs to the wild\n species still living there, from the facility with which they can\n be crossed together, from even half tamed animals being so much\n valued by savages, and from the other circumstances previously\n remarked on which favor domestication, it is highly probable that\n the domestic dogs of the world have descended from two good\n species of wolf (_viz._, _Canis lupus_ and _Canis latrans_), and\n from two or three other doubtful species of wolves (namely, the\n European, Indian and North American forms); from at least one or\n two South American canine species; from several races or species\n of the jackal; and perhaps from one or more extinct species.\u201d Dr.\n E. M. Moore tried unsuccessfully to produce offspring by pairing a\n Newfoundland dog and a wolf-like dog from Canada. He only proved\n anew the repugnance of even slightly separated species toward one\n another.\n\n\nB. Unity of species is presumptive evidence of unity of origin. Oneness of\norigin furnishes the simplest explanation of specific uniformity, if\nindeed the very conception of species does not imply the repetition and\nreproduction of a primordial type-idea impressed at its creation upon an\nindividual empowered to transmit this type-idea to its successors.\n\n\n Dana, quoted in Burgess, Antiq. and Unity of Race, 185, 186\u2014\u201cIn\n the ascending scale of animals, the number of species in any genus\n diminishes as we rise, and should by analogy be smallest at the\n head of the series. Among mammals, the higher genera have few\n species, and the highest group next to man, the orang-outang, has\n only eight, and these constitute but two genera. Analogy requires\n that man should have pre\u00ebminence and should constitute only one.\u201d\n 194\u2014\u201cA species corresponds to a specific amount or condition of\n concentrated force defined in the act or law of creation.... The\n species in any particular case began its existence when the first\n germ-cell or individual was created. When individuals multiply\n from generation to generation, it is but a repetition of the\n primordial type-idea.... The specific is based on a numerical\n unity, the species being nothing else than an enlargement of the\n individual.\u201d For full statement of Dana\u2019s view, see Bib. Sac., Oct\n 1857:862-866. On the idea of species, see also Shedd, Dogm.\n Theol., 2:63-74.\n\n\n(_a_) To this view is opposed the theory, propounded by Agassiz, of\ndifferent centres of creation, and of different types of humanity\ncorresponding to the varying fauna and flora of each. But this theory\nmakes the plural origin of man an exception in creation. Science points\nrather to a single origin of each species, whether vegetable or animal. If\nman be, as this theory grants, a single species, he should be, by the same\nrule, restricted to one continent in his origin. This theory, moreover,\napplies an unproved hypothesis with regard to the distribution of\norganized beings in general to the very being whose whole nature and\nhistory show conclusively that he is an exception to such a general rule,\nif one exists. Since man can adapt himself to all climes and conditions,\nthe theory of separate centres of creation is, in his case, gratuitous and\nunnecessary.\n\n\n Agassiz\u2019s view was first published in an essay on the Provinces of\n the Animal World, in Nott and Gliddon\u2019s Types of Mankind, a book\n gotten up in the interest of slavery. Agassiz held to eight\n distinct centres of creation, and to eight corresponding types of\n humanity\u2014the Arctic, the Mongolian, the European, the American,\n the Negro, the Hottentot, the Malay, the Australian. Agassiz\n regarded Adam as the ancestor only of the white race, yet like\n Peyrerius and Winchell be held that man in all his various races\n constitutes but one species.\n\n The whole tendency of recent science, however, has been adverse to\n the doctrine of separate centres of creation, even in the case of\n animal and vegetable life. In temperate North America there are\n two hundred and seven species of quadrupeds, of which only eight,\n and these polar animals, are found in the north of Europe or Asia.\n If North America be an instance of a separate centre of creation\n for its peculiar species, why should God create the same species\n of man in eight different localities? This would make man an\n exception in creation. There is, moreover, no need of creating man\n in many separate localities; for, unlike the polar bears and the\n Norwegian firs, which cannot live at the equator, man can adapt\n himself to the most varied climates and conditions. For replies to\n Agassiz, see Bib. Sac., 19:607-632; Princeton Rev., 1862:435-464.\n\n\n(_b_) It is objected, moreover, that the diversities of size, color, and\nphysical conformation, among the various families of mankind, are\ninconsistent with the theory of a common origin. But we reply that these\ndiversities are of a superficial character, and can be accounted for by\ncorresponding diversities of condition and environment. Changes which have\nbeen observed and recorded within historic times show that the differences\nalluded to may be the result of slowly accumulated divergences from one\nand the same original and ancestral type. The difficulty in the case,\nmoreover, is greatly relieved when we remember (1) that the period during\nwhich these divergences have arisen is by no means limited to six thousand\nyears (see note on the antiquity of the race, pages 224-226); and (2)\nthat, since species in general exhibit their greatest power of divergence\ninto varieties immediately after their first introduction, all the\nvarieties of the human species may have presented themselves in man\u2019s\nearliest history.\n\n\n Instances of physiological change as the result of new conditions:\n The Irish driven by the English two centuries ago from Armagh and\n the south of Down, have become prognathous like the Australians.\n The inhabitants of New England have descended from the English,\n yet they have already a physical type of their own. The Indians of\n North America, or at least certain tribes of them, have\n permanently altered the shape of the skull by bandaging the head\n in infancy. The Sikhs of India, since the establishment of B\u00e1ba\n N\u00e1nak\u2019s religion (1500 A. D.) and their consequent advance in\n civilization, have changed to a longer head and more regular\n features, so that they are now distinguished greatly from their\n neighbors, the Afghans, Tibetans, Hindus. The Ostiak savages have\n become the Magyar nobility of Hungary. The Turks in Europe are, in\n cranial shape, greatly in advance of the Turks in Asia from whom\n they descended. The Jews are confessedly of one ancestry; yet we\n have among them the light-haired Jews of Poland, the dark Jews of\n Spain, and the Ethiopian Jews of the Nile Valley. The Portuguese\n who settled in the East Indies in the 16th century are now as dark\n in complexion as the Hindus themselves. Africans become lighter in\n complexion as they go up from the alluvial river-banks to higher\n land, or from the coast; and on the contrary the coast tribes\n which drive out the negroes of the interior and take their\n territory end by becoming negroes themselves. See, for many of the\n above facts, Burgess, Antiquity and Unity of the Race, 195-202.\n\n The law of originally greater plasticity, mentioned in the text,\n was first hinted by Hall, the pal\u00e6ontologist of New York. It is\n accepted and defined by Dawson, Story of the Earth and Man, 360\u2014\u201cA\n new law is coming into view: that species when first introduced\n have an innate power of expansion, which enables them rapidly to\n extend themselves to the limit of their geographical range, and\n also to reach the limit of their divergence into races. This limit\n once reached, these races run on in parallel lines until they one\n by one run out and disappear. According to this law the most\n aberrant races of men might be developed in a few centuries, after\n which divergence would cease, and the several lines of variation\n would remain permanent, at least so long as the conditions under\n which they originated remained.\u201d See the similar view of Von Baer\n in Schmid, Theories of Darwin, 55, note. Joseph Cook: Variability\n is a lessening quantity; the tendency to change is greatest at the\n first, but, like the rate of motion of a stone thrown upward, it\n lessens every moment after. Ruskin, Seven Lamps, 125\u2014\u201cThe life of\n a nation is usually, like the flow of a lava-stream, first bright\n and fierce, then languid and covered, at last advancing only by\n the tumbling over and over of its frozen blocks.\u201d Renouf, Hibbert\n Lectures, 54\u2014\u201cThe further back we go into antiquity, the more\n closely does the Egyptian type approach the European.\u201d Rawlinson\n says that negroes are not represented in the Egyptian monuments\n before 1500 B. C. The influence of climate is very great,\n especially in the savage state.\n\n In May, 1891, there died in San Francisco the son of an\n interpreter at the Merchants\u2019 Exchange. He was 21 years of age.\n Three years before his death his clear skin was his chief claim to\n manly beauty. He was attacked by \u201cAddison\u2019s disease,\u201d a gradual\n darkening of the color of the surface of the body. At the time of\n his death his skin was as dark as that of a full-blooded negro.\n His name was George L. Sturtevant. Ratzel, History of Mankind,\n 1:9, 10\u2014As there is only one species of man, \u201cthe reunion into one\n real whole of the parts which have diverged after the fashion of\n sports\u201d is said to be \u201cthe unconscious ultimate aim of all the\n movements\u201d which have taken place since man began his wanderings.\n \u201cWith Humboldt we can only hold fast to the external unity of the\n race.\u201d See Sir Wm. Hunter, The Indian Empire, 223, 410; Encyc.\n Britannica, 12:808; 20:110; Z\u00f6ckler, Urgeschichte, 109-132, and in\n Jahrbuch f\u00fcr deutsche Theologie, 8:51-71; Prichard, Researches,\n 5:547-552, and Nat. Hist. of Man, 2:644-656; Duke of Argyll,\n Primeval Man, 96-108; Smith, Unity of Human Races, 255-283;\n Morris, Conflict of Science and Religion, 325-385; Rawlinson, in\n Journ. Christ. Philosophy, April, 1883:359.\n\n\n\nIII. Essential Elements of Human Nature.\n\n\n1. The Dichotomous Theory.\n\n\nMan has a two-fold nature,\u2014on the one hand material, on the other hand\nimmaterial. He consists of body, and of spirit, or soul. That there are\ntwo, and only two, elements in man\u2019s being, is a fact to which\nconsciousness testifies. This testimony is confirmed by Scripture, in\nwhich the prevailing representation of man\u2019s constitution is that of\ndichotomy.\n\n\n Dichotomous, from \u03b4\u03af\u03c7\u03b1, \u201cin two,\u201d and \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9, \u201cto cut,\u201d = composed\n of two parts. Man is as conscious that his immaterial part is a\n unity, as that his body is a unity. He knows two, and only two,\n parts of his being\u2014body and soul. So man is the true Janus\n (Martensen), Mr. Facing-both-ways (Bunyan). That the Scriptures\n favor dichotomy will appear by considering:\n\n\n(_a_) The record of man\u2019s creation (Gen. 2:7), in which, as a result of\nthe inbreathing of the divine Spirit, the body becomes possessed and\nvitalized by a single principle\u2014the living soul.\n\n\n _Gen. 2:7_\u2014\u201c_And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground,\n and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became\n a living soul_\u201d\u2014here it is not said that man was first a living\n soul, and that then God breathed into him a spirit; but that God\n inbreathed spirit, and man became a living soul = God\u2019s life took\n possession of clay, and as a result, man had a soul. _Cf._ _Job\n 27:3_\u2014\u201c_for my life is yet whole in me, And the spirit of God is\n in my nostrils_\u201d; _32:8_\u2014\u201c_there is a spirit in man, And the\n breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding_\u201d; _33:4_\u2014\u201c_The\n Spirit of God hath made me, And the breath of the Almighty giveth\n me life._\u201d\n\n\n(_b_) Passages in which the human soul, or spirit, is distinguished, both\nfrom the divine Spirit from whom it proceeded, and from the body which it\ninhabits.\n\n\n _Num. 16:22_\u2014\u201c_O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh_\u201d;\n _Zech. 12:1_\u2014\u201c_Jehovah, who ... formeth the spirit of man within\n him_\u201d; _1 Cor. 2:11_\u2014\u201c_the spirit of the man which is in him ...\n the Spirit of God_\u201d; _Heb. 12:9_\u2014\u201c_the Father of spirits._\u201d The\n passages just mentioned distinguish the spirit of man from the\n Spirit of God. The following distinguish the soul, or spirit, of\n man from the body which it inhabits: _Gen, 35:18_\u2014\u201c_it came to\n pass, as her soul was departing (for she died)_\u201d; _1 K. 17:21_\u2014\u201c_O\n Jehovah my God, I pray thee, let this child\u2019s soul come into him\n again_\u201d; _Eccl. 12:7_\u2014\u201c_the dust returneth to the earth as it was,\n and the spirit returneth unto God who gave it_\u201d; _James\n 2:26_\u2014\u201c_the body apart from the spirit is dead._\u201d The first class\n of passages refutes pantheism; the second refutes materialism.\n\n\n(_c_) The interchangeable use of the terms \u201csoul\u201d and \u201cspirit.\u201d\n\n\n _Gen. 41:8_\u2014\u201c_his spirit was troubled_\u201d; _cf._ _Ps. 42:6_\u2014\u201c_my\n soul is cast down within me._\u201d _John 12:27_\u2014\u201c_Now is my soul\n troubled_\u201d; _cf._ _13:21_\u2014\u201c_he was troubled in the spirit._\u201d _Mat.\n 20:28_\u2014\u201c_to give his life (\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd) a ransom for many_\u201d; _cf._\n _27:50_\u2014\u201c_yielded up his spirit (\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1)._\u201d _Heb. 12:23_\u2014\u201c_spirits\n of just men made perfect_\u201d; _cf._ _Rev. 6:9_\u2014\u201c_I saw underneath\n the altar the souls of them that had been slain for the word of\n God._\u201d In these passages \u201c_spirit_\u201d and \u201c_soul_\u201d seem to be used\n interchangeably.\n\n\n(_d_) The mention of body and soul (or spirit) as together constituting\nthe whole man.\n\n\n _Mat 10:28_\u2014\u201c_able to destroy both soul and body in hell_\u201d; _1\n Cor. 5:3_\u2014\u201c_absent in body but present in spirit_\u201d; _3 John 2_\u2014\u201c_I\n pray that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul\n prospereth._\u201d These texts imply that body and soul (or spirit)\n together constitute the whole man.\n\n For advocacy of the dichotomous theory, see Goodwin, in Journ.\n Society Bib. Exegesis, 1881:73-86; Godet, Bib. Studies of the O.\n T., 32; Oehler, Theology of the O. T., 1:219; Hahn, Bib. Theol. N.\n T., 390 _sq._; Schmid, Bib. Theology N. T., 503; Weiss, Bib.\n Theology N. T., 214; Luthardt, Compendium der Dogmatik, 112, 113;\n Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, 1:294-298; Kahnis, Dogmatik, 1:549; 3:249;\n Harless, Com. on Eph., 4:23, and Christian Ethics, 22; Thomasius,\n Christi Person und Werk. 1:164-168; Hodge, in Princeton Review,\n 1865:116, and Systematic Theol., 2:47-51; Ebrard, Dogmatik,\n 1:261-263; Wm. H. Hodge, in Presb. and Ref. Rev., Apl. 1897.\n\n\n2. The Trichotomous Theory.\n\n\nSide by side with this common representation of human nature as consisting\nof two parts, are found passages which at first sight appear to favor\ntrichotomy. It must be acknowledged that \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 (spirit) and \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae (soul),\nalthough often used interchangeably, and always designating the same\nindivisible substance, are sometimes employed as contrasted terms.\n\nIn this more accurate use, \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae denotes man\u2019s immaterial part in its\ninferior powers and activities;\u2014as \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae, man is a conscious individual,\nand, in common with the brute creation, has an animal life, together with\nappetite, imagination, memory, understanding. \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, on the other hand,\ndenotes man\u2019s immaterial part in its higher capacities and faculties;\u2014as\n\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, man is a being related to God, and possessing powers of reason,\nconscience, and free will, which difference him from the brute creation\nand constitute him responsible and immortal.\n\n\n In the following texts, spirit and soul are distinguished from\n each other: _1 Thess. 5:23_\u2014\u201c_And the God of peace himself\n sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be\n preserved entire, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus\n Christ_\u201d; _Heb. 4:12_\u2014\u201c_For the word of God is living, and active,\n and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the\n dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick\n to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart._\u201d Compare _1\n Cor. 2:14_\u2014\u201c_Now the natural_ [Gr. \u201c_psychical_\u201d] _man receiveth\n not the things of the Spirit of God_\u201d; _15:44_\u2014\u201c_It is sown a\n natural_ [Gr. \u201c_psychical_\u201d] _body; it is raised a spiritual body.\n If there is a natural_ [Gr. \u201cpsychical\u201d] _body, there is also a\n spiritual body_\u201d; _Eph. 4:23_\u2014\u201c_that ye be renewed in the spirit\n of your mind_\u201d; _Jude 19_\u2014\u201c_sensual_ [Gr. \u201c_psychical_\u201d], _having\n not the Spirit._\u201d\n\n For the proper interpretation of these texts, see note on the next\n page. Among those who cite them as proofs of the trichotomous\n theory (trichotomous, from \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c7\u03b1, \u201cin three parts,\u201d and \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9, \u201cto\n cut,\u201d = composed of three parts, _i. e._, spirit, soul, and body)\n may be mentioned Olshausen, Opuscula, 134, and Com. on _1 Thess.,\n 5:23_; Beck, Biblische Seelenlehre, 81; Delitzsch, Biblical\n Psychology, 117, 118; G\u00f6schel, in Herzog, Realencyclop\u00e4die, art.:\n Seele; also, art. by Auberlen: Geist des Menschen; Cremer, N. T.\n Lexicon, on \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 and \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae; Usteri, Paulin. Lehrbegriff, 384\n _sq._; Neander, Planting and Training, 394; Van Oosterzee,\n Christian Dogmatics, 365, 366; Boardman, in Bap. Quarterly, 1:177,\n 325, 428; Heard, Tripartite Nature of Man, 62-114; Ellicott,\n Destiny of the Creature, 106-125.\n\n\nThe element of truth in trichotomy is simply this, that man has a\ntriplicity of endowment, in virtue of which the single soul has relations\nto matter, to self, and to God. The trichotomous theory, however, as it is\nordinarily defined, endangers the unity and immateriality of our higher\nnature, by holding that man consists of three _substances_, or three\ncomponent _parts_\u2014body, soul and spirit\u2014and that soul and spirit are as\ndistinct from each other as are soul and body.\n\n\n The advocates of this view differ among themselves as to the\n nature of the \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae and its relation to the other elements of our\n being; some (as Delitzsch) holding that the \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae is an efflux of\n the \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, distinct in substance, but not in essence, even as the\n divine Word is distinct from God, while yet he is God; others (as\n G\u00f6schel) regarding the \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae, not as a distinct substance, but as a\n resultant of the union of the \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 and the \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1. Still others\n (as Cremer) hold the \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae to be the subject of the personal life\n whose principle is the \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1. Heard, Tripartite Nature of Man,\n 103\u2014\u201cGod is the Creator _ex traduce_ of the animal and\n intellectual part of every man.... Not so with the spirit.... It\n proceeds from God, not by creation, but by emanation.\u201d\n\n\nWe regard the trichotomous theory as untenable, not only for the reasons\nalready urged in proof of the dichotomous theory, but from the following\nadditional considerations:\n\n(_a_) \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, as well as \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae, is used of the brute creation.\n\n\n _Eccl. 3:21_\u2014\u201c_Who knoweth the spirit of man, whether it goeth_\n [marg. \u201c_that goeth_\u201d] _upward, and the spirit of the beast,\n whether it goeth_ [marg. \u201c_that goeth_\u201d] _downward to the earth?_\u201d\n _Rev. 16:3_\u2014\u201c_And the second poured out his bowl into the sea; and\n it became blood, as of a dead man; and every living soul died,\n even the things that were in the sea_\u201d = the fish.\n\n\n(_b_) \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae is ascribed to Jehovah.\n\n\n _Amos 6:8_\u2014\u201c_The Lord Jehovah hath sworn by himself_\u201d (lit. \u201c_by\n his soul_\u201d) LXX _42:1_\u2014\u201c_my chosen in whom my soul delighteth_\u201d;\n _Jer. 9:9_\u2014\u201c_Shall I not visit them for these things? saith\n Jehovah; shall not my soul be avenged?_\u201d _Heb. 10:38_\u2014\u201c_my\n righteous one shall live by faith: And if he shrink back, my soul\n hath no pleasure in him._\u201d\n\n\n(_c_) The disembodied dead are called \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1\u03af.\n\n\n _Rev. 6:9_\u2014\u201c_I saw underneath the altar the souls of them that had\n been slain for the word of God_\u201d; _cf._ _20:4_\u2014\u201c_souls of them\n that had been beheaded._\u201d\n\n\n(_d_) The highest exercises of religion are attributed to the \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae.\n\n\n _Mark 12:30_\u2014\u201c_thou shalt love the Lord thy God ... with all thy\n soul_\u201d; _Luke 1:46_\u2014\u201c_My soul doth magnify the Lord_\u201d; _Heb. 6:18,\n 19_\u2014\u201c_the hope set before us: which we have as an anchor of the\n soul_\u201d; _James 1:21_\u2014\u201c_the implanted word, which is able to save\n your souls._\u201d\n\n\n(_e_) To lose this \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae is to lose all.\n\n\n _Mark 8:36, 37_\u2014\u201c_For what doth it profit a man, to gain the whole\n world, and forfeit his life_ [or \u201c_soul_,\u201d \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae]? _For what should\n a man give in exchange for his life_ [or \u2018_soul_,\u2019 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae]?\u201d\n\n\n(_f_) The passages chiefly relied upon as supporting trichotomy may be\nbetter explained upon the view already indicated, that soul and spirit are\nnot two distinct substances or parts, but that they designate the\nimmaterial principle from different points of view.\n\n\n _1 Thess. 5:23_\u2014\u201c_may your spirit and soul and body be preserved\n entire_\u201d = not a scientific enumeration of the constituent parts\n of human nature, but a comprehensive sketch of that nature in its\n chief relations; compare _Mark 12:30_\u2014\u201c_thou shalt love the Lord\n thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all\n thy mind, and with all thy strength_\u201d\u2014where none would think of\n finding proof of a fourfold division of human nature. On _1 Thess.\n 5:23_, see Riggenbach (in Lange\u2019s Com.), and Commentary of Prof.\n W. A. Stevens. _Heb. 4:12_\u2014\u201c_piercing even to the dividing of soul\n and spirit, of both joints and marrow_\u201d = not the dividing of soul\n _from_ spirit, or of joints _from_ marrow, but rather the piercing\n of the soul and of the spirit, even to their very joints and\n marrow; _i. e._, to the very depths of the spiritual nature. On\n _Heb. 4:12_, see Ebrard (in Olshausen\u2019s Com.), and L\u00fcnemann (in\n Meyer\u2019s Com.); also Tholuck, Com. _in loco_. _Jude 19_\u2014\u201c_sensual,\n having not the Spirit_\u201d (\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af, \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2)\u2014even though\n \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 = the human spirit, need not mean that there is no spirit\n existing, but only that the spirit is torpid and inoperative\u2014as we\n say of a weak man: \u201che has no mind,\u201d or of an unprincipled man:\n \u201che has no conscience\u201d; so Alford; see Nitzsch, Christian\n Doctrine, 202. But \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 here probably = the divine \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1. Meyer\n takes this view, and the Revised Version capitalizes the word\n \u201c_Spirit_.\u201d See Goodwin, Soc. Bib. Exegesis, 1881:85\u2014\u201cThe\n distinction between \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae and \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 is a _functional_, and not a\n _substantial_, distinction.\u201d Moule, Outlines of Christian\n Doctrine, 161, 162\u2014\u201cSoul = spirit organized, inseparably linked\n with the body; spirit = man\u2019s inner being considered as God\u2019s\n gift. Soul = man\u2019s inner being viewed as his own; spirit = man\u2019s\n inner being viewed as from God. They are not separate elements.\u201d\n See Lightfoot, Essay on St. Paul and Seneca, appended to his Com.\n on Philippians, on the influence of the ethical language of\n Stoicism on the N. T. writers. Martineau, Seat of Authority,\n 39\u2014\u201cThe difference between man and his companion creatures on this\n earth is not that his instinctive life is less than theirs, for in\n truth it goes far beyond them; but that in him it acts in the\n presence and under the eye of other powers which transform it, and\n by giving to it vision as well as light take its blindness away.\n He is let into his own secrets.\u201d\n\n\nWe conclude that the immaterial part of man, viewed as an individual and\nconscious life, capable of possessing and animating a physical organism,\nis called \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae; viewed as a rational and moral agent, susceptible of\ndivine influence and indwelling, this same immaterial part is called\n\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1. The \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, then, is man\u2019s nature looking Godward, and capable of\nreceiving and manifesting the \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; the \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae is man\u2019s nature\nlooking earthward, and touching the world of sense. The \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 is man\u2019s\nhigher part, as related to spiritual realities or as capable of such\nrelation; the \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae is man\u2019s higher part, as related to the body, or as\ncapable of such relation. Man\u2019s being is therefore not trichotomous but\ndichotomous, and his immaterial part, while possessing duality of powers,\nhas unity of substance.\n\n\n Man\u2019s nature is not a three-storied house, but a two-storied\n house, with windows in the upper story looking in two\n directions\u2014toward earth and toward heaven. The lower story is the\n physical part of us\u2014the body. But man\u2019s \u201cupper story\u201d has two\n aspects; there is an outlook toward things below, and a skylight\n through which to see the stars. \u201cSoul\u201d says Hovey, \u201cis spirit as\n modified by union with the body.\u201d Is man then the same in kind\n with the brute, but different in degree? No, man is different in\n kind, though possessed of certain powers which the brute has. The\n frog is not a magnified sensitive-plant, though his nerves\n automatically respond to irritation. The animal is different in\n kind from the vegetable, though he has some of the same powers\n which the vegetable has. God\u2019s powers include man\u2019s; but man is\n not of the same substance with God, nor could man be enlarged or\n developed into God. So man\u2019s powers include those of the brute,\n but the brute is not of the same substance with man, nor could he\n be enlarged or developed into man.\n\n Porter, Human Intellect, 39\u2014\u201cThe spirit of man, in addition to its\n higher endowments, may also possess the lower powers which\n vitalize dead matter into a human body.\u201d It does not follow that\n the soul of the animal or plant is capable of man\u2019s higher\n functions or developments, or that the subjection of man\u2019s spirit\n to body, in the present life, disproves his immortality. Porter\n continues: \u201cThat the soul begins to exist as a vital force, does\n not require that it should always exist as such a force or in\n connection with a material body. Should it require another such\n body, it may have the power to create it for itself, as it has\n formed the one it first inhabited; or it may have already formed\n it, and may hold it ready for occupation and use as soon as it\n sloughs off the one which connects it with the earth.\u201d\n\n Harris, Philos. Basis of Theism, 547\u2014\u201cBrutes may have organic life\n and sensitivity, and yet remain submerged in nature. It is not\n life and sensitivity that lift man above nature, but it is the\n distinctive characteristic of personality.\u201d Parkhurst, The Pattern\n in the Mount, 17-30, on Prov. 20:27\u2014\u201cThe spirit of man is the lamp\n of Jehovah\u201d\u2014not necessarily lighted, but capable of being lighted,\n and intended to be lighted, by the touch of the divine flame.\n _Cf._ _Mat. 6:22, 23_\u2014\u201c_The lamp of the body.... If therefore the\n light that is in thee be darkness, how great is the darkness._\u201d\n\n Schleiermacher, Christliche Glaube, 2:487\u2014\u201cWe think of the spirit\n as soul, only when in the body, so that we cannot speak of an\n immortality of the soul, in the proper sense, without bodily\n life.\u201d The doctrine of the spiritual body is therefore the\n complement to the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. A. A.\n Hodge, Pop. Lectures, 221\u2014\u201cBy soul we mean only one thing, _i.\n e._, an incarnate spirit, a spirit with a body. Thus we never\n speak of the souls of angels. They are pure spirits, having no\n bodies.\u201d Lisle, Evolution of Spiritual Man, 72\u2014\u201cThe animal is the\n foundation of the spiritual; it is what the cellar is to the\n house; it is the base of supplies.\u201d Ladd, Philosophy of Mind,\n 371-378\u2014\u201cTrichotomy is absolutely untenable on grounds of\n psychological science. Man\u2019s reason, or the spirit that is in man,\n is not to be regarded as a sort of Mansard roof, built on to one\n building in a block, all the dwellings in which are otherwise\n substantially alike.... On the contrary, in every set of\n characteristics, from those called lowest to those pronounced\n highest, the soul of man differences itself from the soul of any\n species of animals.... The highest has also the lowest. All must\n be assigned to one subject.\u201d\n\n\nThis view of the soul and spirit as different aspects of the same\nspiritual principle furnishes a refutation of six important errors:\n\n(_a_) That of the Gnostics, who held that the \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 is part of the divine\nessence, and therefore incapable of sin.\n\n(_b_) That of the Apollinarians, who taught that Christ\u2019s humanity\nembraced only \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 and \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae, while his divine nature furnished the \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1.\n\n(_c_) That of the Semi-Pelagians, who excepted the human \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 from the\ndominion of original sin.\n\n(_d_) That of Placeus, who held that only the \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 was directly created\nby God (see our section on Theories of Imputation).\n\n(_e_) That of Julius M\u00fcller, who held that the \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae comes to us from Adam,\nbut that our \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 was corrupted in a previous state of being (see page\n490).\n\n(_f_) That of the Annihilationists, who hold that man at his creation had\na divine element breathed into him, which he lost by sin, and which he\nrecovers only in regeneration; so that only when he has this \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\nrestored by virtue of his union with Christ does man become immortal,\ndeath being to the sinner a complete extinction of being.\n\n\n Tacitus might almost be understood to be a trichotomist when he\n writes: \u201cSi ut sapientibus placuit, non extinguuntur cum corpora\n _magn\u00e6_ anim\u00e6.\u201d Trichotomy allies itself readily with materialism.\n Many trichotomists hold that man can exist without a \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, but\n that the \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 and the \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae by themselves are mere matter, and are\n incapable of eternal existence. Trichotomy, however, when it\n speaks of the \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 as the divine principle in man, seems to\n savor of emanation or of pantheism. A modern English poet\n describes the glad and winsome child as \u201cA silver stream, Breaking\n with laughter from the lake divine, Whence all things flow.\u201d\n Another poet, Robert Browning, in his Death in the Desert, 107,\n describes body, soul, and spirit, as \u201cWhat does, what knows, what\n is\u2014three souls, one man.\u201d\n\n The Eastern church generally held to trichotomy, and is best\n represented by John of Damascus (11:12) who speaks of the soul as\n the sensuous life-principle which takes up the spirit\u2014the spirit\n being an efflux from God. The Western church, on the other hand,\n generally held to dichotomy, and is best represented by Anselm:\n \u201cConstat homo ex duabus naturis, ex natura anim\u00e6 et ex natura\n carnis.\u201d\n\n Luther has been quoted upon both sides of the controversy: by\n Delitzsch, Bib. Psych., 460-462, as trichotomous, and as making\n the Mosaic tabernacle with its three divisions an image of the\n tripartite man. \u201cThe first division,\u201d he says, \u201cwas called the\n holy of holies, since God dwelt there, and there was no light\n therein. The next was denominated the holy place, for within it\n stood a candlestick with seven branches and lamps. The third was\n called the atrium or court; this was under the broad heaven, and\n was open to the light of the sun. A regenerate man is depicted in\n this figure. His spirit is the holy of holies, God\u2019s\n dwelling-place, in the darkness of faith, without a light, for he\n believes what he neither sees, nor feels, nor comprehends. The\n _psyche_ of that man is the holy place, whose seven lights\n represent the various powers of understanding, the perception and\n knowledge of material and visible things. His body is the atrium\n or court, which is open to everybody, so that all can see how he\n acts and lives.\u201d\n\n Thomasius, however, in his Christi Person und Werk, 1:164-168,\n quotes from Luther the following statement, which is clearly\n dichotomous: \u201cThe first part, the spirit, is the highest, deepest,\n noblest part of man. By it he is fitted to comprehend eternal\n things, and it is, in short, the house in which dwell faith and\n the word of God. The other, the soul, is this same spirit,\n according to nature, but yet in another sort of activity, namely,\n in this, that it animates the body and works through it; and it is\n its method not to grasp things incomprehensible, but only what\n reason can search out, know, and measure.\u201d Thomasius himself says:\n \u201cTrichotomy, I hold with Meyer, is not Scripturally sustained.\u201d\n Neander, sometimes spoken of as a trichotomist, says that spirit\n is soul in its elevated and normal relation to God and divine\n things; \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae is that same soul in its relation to the sensuous and\n perhaps sinful things of this world. Godet, Bib. Studies of O. T.,\n 32\u2014\u201cSpirit = the breath of God, considered as independent of the\n body; soul = that same breath, in so far as it gives life to the\n body.\u201d\n\n The doctrine we have advocated, moreover, in contrast with the\n heathen view, puts honor upon man\u2019s body, as proceeding from the\n hand of God and as therefore originally pure (_Gen. 1:31_\u2014\u201c_And\n God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very\n good_\u201d); as intended to be the dwelling place of the divine Spirit\n (_1 Cor. 6:19_\u2014\u201c_know ye not that your body is a temple of the\n Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God?_\u201d); and as\n containing the germ of the heavenly body (_1 Cor. 15:44_\u2014\u201c_it is\n sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body_\u201d; _Rom.\n 8:11_\u2014\u201c_shall give life also to your mortal bodies through his\n Spirit that dwelleth in you_\u201d\u2014here many ancient authorities read\n \u201c_because of his Spirit that dwelleth in you_\u201d\u2014\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1). Birks, in his Difficulties of Belief, suggests that\n man, unlike angels, may have been provided with a fleshly body,\n (1) to objectify sin, and (2) to enable Christ to unite himself to\n the race, in order to save it.\n\n\n\nIV. Origin of the Soul.\n\n\nThree theories with regard to this subject have divided opinion:\n\n\n1. The Theory of Pre\u00ebxistence.\n\n\nThis view was held by Plato, Philo, and Origen; by the first, in order to\nexplain the soul\u2019s possession of ideas not derived from sense; by the\nsecond, to account for its imprisonment in the body; by the third, to\njustify the disparity of conditions in which men enter the world. We\nconcern ourselves, however, only with the forms which the view has assumed\nin modern times. Kant and Julius M\u00fcller in Germany, and Edward Beecher in\nAmerica, have advocated it, upon the ground that the inborn depravity of\nthe human will can be explained only by supposing a personal act of\nself-determination in a previous, or timeless, state of being.\n\n\n The truth at the basis of the theory of pre\u00ebxistence is simply the\n ideal existence of the soul, before birth, in the mind of God\u2014that\n is, God\u2019s foreknowledge of it. The intuitive ideas of which the\n soul finds itself in possession, such as space, time, cause,\n substance, right, God, are evolved from itself; in other words,\n man is so constituted that he perceives these truths upon proper\n occasions or conditions. The apparent recollection that we have\n seen at some past time a landscape which we know to be now for the\n first time before us, is an illusory putting together of\n fragmentary concepts or a mistaking of a part for the whole; we\n have seen something like a part of the landscape,\u2014we fancy that we\n have seen this landscape, and the whole of it. Our recollection of\n a past event or scene is one whole, but this one idea may have an\n indefinite number of subordinate ideas existing within it. The\n sight of something which is similar to one of these parts suggests\n the past whole. Coleridge: \u201cThe great law of the imagination that\n likeness in part tends to become likeness of the whole.\u201d Augustine\n hinted that this illusion of memory may have played an important\n part in developing the belief in metempsychosis.\n\n Other explanations are those of William James, in his Psychology:\n The brain tracts excited by the event proper, and those excited in\n its recall, are different; Baldwin, Psychology, 263, 264: We may\n remember what we have seen in a dream, or there may be a revival\n of ancestral or race experiences. Still others suggest that the\n two hemispheres of the brain act asynchronously;\n self-consciousness or apperception is distinguished from\n perception; divorce, from fatigue, of the processes of sensation\n and perception, causes paramnesia. Sully, Illusions, 280, speaks\n of an organic or atavistic memory: \u201cMay it not happen that by the\n law of hereditary transmission ... ancient experiences will now\n and then reflect themselves in our mental life, and so give rise\n to apparently personal recollections?\u201d Letson, The Crowd, believes\n that the mob is atavistic and that it bases its action upon\n inherited impulses: \u201cThe inherited reflexes are atavistic\n memories\u201d (quoted in Colegrove, Memory, 204).\n\n Plato held that intuitive ideas are reminiscences of things\n learned in a previous state of being; he regarded the body as the\n grave of the soul; and urged the fact that the soul had knowledge\n before it entered the body, as proof that the soul would have\n knowledge after it left the body, that is, would be immortal. See\n Plato, Meno, 82-85, Ph\u00e6do, 72-75, Ph\u00e6drus, 245-250, Republic,\n 5:460 and 10:614. Alexander, Theories of the Will, 36, 37\u2014\u201cPlato\n represents pre\u00ebxistent souls as having set before them a choice of\n virtue. The choice is free, but it will determine the destiny of\n each soul. Not God, but he who chooses, is responsible for his\n choice. After making their choice, the souls go to the fates, who\n spin the threads of their destiny, and it is thenceforth\n irreversible. As Christian theology teaches that man was free but\n lost his freedom by the fall of Adam, so Plato affirms that the\n pre\u00ebxistent soul is free until it has chosen its lot in life.\u201d See\n Introductions to the above mentioned works of Plato in Jowett\u2019s\n translation. Philo held that all souls are emanations from God,\n and that those who allowed themselves, unlike the angels, to be\n attracted by matter, are punished for this fall by imprisonment in\n the body, which corrupts them, and from which they must break\n loose. See Philo, De Gigantibus, Pfeiffer\u2019s ed., 2:360-364. Origen\n accounted for disparity of conditions at birth by the differences\n in the conduct of these same souls in a previous state. God\u2019s\n justice at the first made all souls equal; condition here\n corresponds to the degree of previous guilt; _Mat. 20:3_\u2014\u201c_others\n standing in the market place idle_\u201d = souls not yet brought into\n the world. The Talmudists regarded all souls as created at once in\n the beginning, and as kept like grains of corn in God\u2019s granary,\n until the time should come for joining each to its appointed body.\n See Origen, De Anima, 7; \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd, ii:9:6; _cf._ i:1:2, 4, 18;\n 4:36. Origen\u2019s view was condemned at the Synod of Constantinople,\n 538. Many of the preceding facts and references are taken from\n Bruch, Lehre der Pr\u00e4existenz, translated in Bib. Sac., 20:681-733.\n\n For modern advocates of the theory, see Kant, Critique of Pure\n Reason, sec. 15; Religion in. d. Grenzen d. bl. Vernunft, 26, 27;\n Julius M\u00fcller, Doctrine of Sin, 2:357-401; Edward Beecher,\n Conflict of Ages. The idea of pre\u00ebxistence has appeared to a\n notable extent in modern poetry. See Vaughan, The Retreate (1621);\n Wordsworth, Intimations of Immortality in Early Childhood;\n Tennyson, Two Voices, stanzas 105-119, and Early Sonnets, 25\u2014\u201cAs\n when with downcast eyes we muse and brood, And ebb into a former\n life, or seem To lapse far back in some confused dream To states\n of mystical similitude; If one but speaks or hems or stirs his\n chair, Ever the wonder waxeth more and more, So that we say \u2018All\n this hath been before, All this hath been, I know not when or\n where.\u2019 So, friend, when first I looked upon your face, Our\n thought gave answer each to each, so true\u2014Opposed mirrors each\n reflecting each\u2014That though I knew not in what time or place,\n Methought that I had often met with you, And either lived in\n either\u2019s heart and speech.\u201d Robert Browning, La Saisiaz, and\n Christina: \u201cAges past the soul existed; Here an age \u2019tis resting\n merely, And hence fleets again for ages.\u201d Rossetti, House of Life:\n \u201cI have been here before, But when or how I cannot tell; I know\n the grass beyond the door, The sweet, keen smell, The sighing\n sound, the lights along the shore. You have been mine before, How\n long ago I may not know; But just when, at that swallow\u2019s soar,\n Your neck turned so, Some veil did fall\u2014I knew it all of yore\u201d;\n quoted in Colegrove, Memory, 103-106, who holds the phenomenon due\n to false induction and interpretation.\n\n Briggs, School, College and Character, 95\u2014\u201cSome of us remember the\n days when we were on earth for the first time;\u201d\u2014which reminds us\n of the boy who remembered sitting in a corner before he was born\n and crying for fear he would be a girl. A more notable\n illustration is that found in the Life of Sir Walter Scott, by\n Lockhart, his son-in-law, 8:274\u2014\u201cYesterday, at dinner time, I was\n strangely haunted by what I would call the sense of\n pre\u00ebxistence\u2014viz., a confused idea that nothing that passed was\n said for the first time\u2014that the same topics had been discussed\n and the same persons had started the same opinions on them. It is\n true there might have been some ground for recollections,\n considering that three at least of the company were old friends\n and had kept much company together.... But the sensation was so\n strong as to resemble what is called a mirage in the desert, or a\n calenture on board of ship, when lakes are seen in the desert and\n sylvan landscapes in the sea. It was very distressing yesterday\n and brought to mind the fancies of Bishop Berkeley about an ideal\n world. There was a vile sense of want of reality in all I did and\n said.... I drank several glasses of wine, but these only\n aggravated the disorder. I did not find the _in vino veritas_ of\n the philosophers.\u201d\n\n\nTo the theory of pre\u00ebxistence we urge the following objections:\n\n(_a_) It is not only wholly without support from Scripture, but it\ndirectly contradicts the Mosaic account of man\u2019s creation in the image of\nGod, and Paul\u2019s description of all evil and death in the human race as the\nresult of Adam\u2019s sin.\n\n\n _Gen. 1:27_\u2014\u201c_And God created man in his own image, in the image\n of God created he him_\u201d; _31_\u2014\u201c_And God saw every thing that he\n had made, and, behold, it was very good._\u201d _Rom.\n 5:12_\u2014\u201c_Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world,\n and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that\n all sinned._\u201d The theory of pre\u00ebxistence would still leave it\n doubtful whether all men are sinners, or whether God assembles\n only sinners upon the earth.\n\n\n(_b_) If the soul in this pre\u00ebxistent state was conscious and personal, it\nis inexplicable that we should have no remembrance of such pre\u00ebxistence,\nand of so important a decision in that previous condition of being;\u2014if the\nsoul was yet unconscious and impersonal, the theory fails to show how a\nmoral act involving consequences so vast could have been performed at all.\n\n\n Christ remembered his pre\u00ebxistent state; why should not we? There\n is every reason to believe that in the future state we shall\n remember our present existence; why should we not now remember the\n past state from which we came? It may be objected that\n Augustinians hold to a sin of the race in Adam\u2014a sin which none of\n Adam\u2019s descendants can remember. But we reply that no Augustinian\n holds to a personal existence of each member of the race in Adam,\n and therefore no Augustinian needs to account for lack of memory\n of Adam\u2019s sin. The advocate of pre\u00ebxistence, however, does hold to\n a personal existence of each soul in a previous state, and\n therefore needs to account for our lack of memory of it.\n\n\n(_c_) The view sheds no light either upon the origin of sin, or upon God\u2019s\njustice in dealing with it, since it throws back the first transgression\nto a state of being in which there was no flesh to tempt, and then\nrepresents God as putting the fallen into sensuous conditions in the\nhighest degree unfavorable to their restoration.\n\n\n This theory only increases the difficulty of explaining the origin\n of sin, by pushing back its beginning to a state of which we know\n less than we do of the present. To say that the soul in that\n previous state was only potentially conscious and personal, is to\n deny any real probation, and to throw the blame of sin on God the\n Creator. Pfleiderer, Philos. of Religion, 1:228\u2014\u201cIn modern times,\n the philosophers Kant, Schelling and Schopenhauer have explained\n the bad from an intelligible act of freedom, which (according to\n Schelling and Schopenhauer) also at the same time effectuates the\n temporal existence and condition of the individual soul. But what\n are we to think of as meant by such a mystical deed or act through\n which the subject of it first comes into existence? Is it not\n this, that perhaps under this singular disguise there is concealed\n the simple thought that the origin of the bad lies not so much in\n a _doing_ of the individual freedom as rather in the _rise_ of\n it,\u2014that is to say, in the process of development through which\n the natural man becomes a moral man, and the merely potentially\n rational man becomes an actually rational man?\u201d\n\n\n(_d_) While this theory accounts for inborn spiritual sin, such as pride\nand enmity to God, it gives no explanation of inherited sensual sin, which\nit holds to have come from Adam, and the guilt of which must logically be\ndenied.\n\n\n While certain forms of the pre\u00ebxistence theory are exposed to the\n last objection indicated in the text, Julius M\u00fcller claims that\n his own view escapes it; see Doctrine of Sin, 2:393. His theory,\n he says, \u201cwould contradict holy Scripture if it derived inborn\n sinfulness _solely_ from this extra-temporal act of the\n individual, without recognizing in this sinfulness the element of\n hereditary depravity in the sphere of the natural life, and its\n connection with the sin of our first parents.\u201d M\u00fcller, whose\n trichotomy here determines his whole subsequent scheme, holds only\n the \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 to have thus fallen in a pre\u00ebxistent state. The \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae\n comes, with the body, from Adam. The tempter only brought man\u2019s\n latent perversity of will into open transgression. Sinfulness, as\n hereditary, does not involve guilt, but the hereditary principle\n is the \u201cmedium through which the transcendent self-perversion of\n the spiritual nature of man is transmitted to his whole temporal\n mode of being.\u201d While man is born guilty as to his \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, for the\n reason that this \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 sinned in a pre\u00ebxistent state, he is also\n born guilty as to his \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae, because this was one with the first\n man in his transgression.\n\n Even upon the most favorable statement of M\u00fcller\u2019s view, we fail\n to see how it can consist with the organic unity of the race; for\n in that which chiefly constitutes us men\u2014the \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\u2014we are as\n distinct and separate creations as are the angels. We also fail to\n see how, upon this view, Christ can be said to take our nature;\n or, if he takes it, how it can be without sin. See Ernesti,\n Ursprung der S\u00fcnde, 2:1-247; Frohschammer, Ursprung der Seele,\n 11-17: Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 3:92-122; Bruch, Lehre der\n Pr\u00e4existenz, translated in Bib. Sac., 20:681-733. Also Bib. Sac.,\n 11:186-191; 12:156; 17:419-427; 20:447; Kahnis, Dogmatik,\n 3:250\u2014\u201cThis doctrine is inconsistent with the indisputable fact\n that the souls of children are like those of the parents; and it\n ignores the connection of the individual with the race.\u201d\n\n\n2. The Creatian Theory.\n\n\nThis view was held by Aristotle, Jerome, and Pelagius, and in modern times\nhas been advocated by most of the Roman Catholic and Reformed theologians.\nIt regards the soul of each human being as immediately created by God and\njoined to the body either at conception, at birth, or at some time between\nthese two. The advocates of the theory urge in its favor certain texts of\nScripture, referring to God as the Creator of the human spirit, together\nwith the fact that there is a marked individuality in the child, which\ncannot be explained as a mere reproduction of the qualities existing in\nthe parents.\n\n\n Creatianism, as ordinarily held, regards only the body as\n propagated from past generations. Creatianists who hold to\n trichotomy would say, however, that the animal soul, the \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae, is\n propagated with the body, while the highest part of man, the\n \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, is in each case a direct creation of God,\u2014the \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 not\n being created, as the advocates of pre\u00ebxistence believe, ages\n before the body, but rather at the time that the body assumes its\n distinct individuality.\n\n Aristotle (De Anima) first gives definite expression to this view.\n Jerome speaks of God as \u201cmaking souls daily.\u201d The scholastics\n followed Aristotle, and through the influence of the Reformed\n church, creatianism has been the prevailing opinion for the last\n two hundred years. Among its best representatives are Turretin,\n Inst., 5:13 (vol. 1:425); Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:65-76; Martensen,\n Dogmatics, 141-148; Liddon, Elements of Religion, 99-106. Certain\n Reformed theologians have defined very exactly God\u2019s method of\n creation. Polanus (5:31:1) says that God breathes the soul into\n boys, forty days, and into girls, eighty days, after conception.\n G\u00f6schel (in Herzog, Encyclop., art.: Seele) holds that while\n dichotomy leads to traducianism, trichotomy allies itself to that\n form of creatianism which regards the \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 as a direct creation\n of God, but the \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae as propagated with the body. To the latter\n answers the family name; to the former the Christian name. Shall\n we count George Macdonald as a believer in Pre\u00ebxistence or in\n Creatianism, when he writes in his Baby\u2019s Catechism: \u201cWhere did\n you come from, baby dear? Out of the everywhere into here. Where\n did you get your eyes so blue? Out of the sky, as I came through.\n Where did you get that little tear? I found it waiting when I got\n here. Where did you get that pearly ear? God spoke, and it came\n out to hear. How did they all just come to be you? God thought\n about me, and so I grew.\u201d\n\n\nCreatianism is untenable for the following reasons:\n\n(_a_) The passages adduced in its support may with equal propriety be\nregarded as expressing God\u2019s mediate agency in the origination of human\nsouls; while the general tenor of Scripture, as well as its\nrepresentations of God as the author of man\u2019s body, favor this latter\ninterpretation.\n\n\n Passages commonly relied upon by creatianists are the following:\n _Eccl. 12:7_\u2014\u201c_the spirit returneth unto God who gave it_\u201d; _Is.\n 57:16_\u2014\u201c_the souls that I have made_\u201d; _Zech. 12:1_\u2014\u201c_Jehovah ...\n who formeth the spirit of man within him_\u201d; _Heb. 12:9_\u2014\u201c_the\n Father of spirits._\u201d But God is with equal clearness declared to\n be the former of man\u2019s body: see _Ps. 139:13, 14_\u2014\u201c_thou didst\n form my inward parts: Thou didst cover me_ [marg. \u201c_knit me\n together_\u201d] _in my mother\u2019s womb. I will give thanks unto thee;\n for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: Wonderful are thy\n works_\u201d; _Jer. 1:5_\u2014\u201c_I formed thee in the belly._\u201d Yet we do not\n hesitate to interpret these latter passages as expressive of\n mediate, not immediate, creatorship,\u2014God works through natural\n laws of generation and development so far as the production of\n man\u2019s body is concerned. None of the passages first mentioned\n forbid us to suppose that he works through these same natural laws\n in the production of the soul. The truth in creatianism is the\n presence and operation of God in all natural processes. A\n transcendent God manifests himself in all physical begetting.\n Shakespeare: \u201cThere\u2019s a divinity that shapes our ends, Rough hew\n them how we will.\u201d Pfleiderer, Grundriss, 112\u2014\u201cCreatianism, which\n emphasizes the divine origin of man, is entirely compatible with\n Traducianism, which emphasizes the mediation of natural agencies.\n So for the race as a whole, its origin in a creative activity of\n God is quite consistent with its being a product of natural\n evolution.\u201d\n\n\n(_b_) Creatianism regards the earthly father as begetting only the body of\nhis child\u2014certainly as not the father of the child\u2019s highest part. This\nmakes the beast to possess nobler powers of propagation than man; for the\nbeast multiplies himself after his own image.\n\n\n The new physiology properly views soul, not as something added\n from without, but as the animating principle of the body from the\n beginning and as having a determining influence upon its whole\n development. That children are like their parents, in intellectual\n and spiritual as well as in physical respects, is a fact of which\n the creatian theory gives no proper explanation. Mason, Faith of\n the Gospel, 115\u2014\u201cThe love of parents to children and of children\n to parents protests against the doctrine that only the body is\n propagated.\u201d Aubrey Moore, Science and the Faith, 207,\u2014quoted in\n Contemp. Rev., Dec. 1893:876\u2014\u201cInstead of the physical derivation\n of the soul, we stand for the spiritual derivation of the body.\u201d\n We would amend this statement by saying that we stand for the\n spiritual derivation of both soul and body, natural law being only\n the operation of spirit, human and divine.\n\n\n(_c_) The individuality of the child, even in the most extreme cases, as\nin the sudden rise from obscure families and surroundings of marked men\nlike Luther, may be better explained by supposing a law of variation\nimpressed upon the species at its beginning\u2014a law whose operation is\nforeseen and supervised by God.\n\n\n The differences of the child from the parent are often\n exaggerated; men are generally more the product of their ancestry\n and of their time than we are accustomed to think. Dickens made\n angelic children to be born of depraved parents, and to grow up in\n the slums. But this writing belongs to a past generation, when the\n facts of heredity were unrecognized. George Eliot\u2019s school is\n nearer the truth; although she exaggerates the doctrine of\n heredity in turn, until all idea of free will and all hope of\n escaping our fate vanish. Shaler, Interpretation of Nature, 78,\n 90\u2014\u201cSeparate motives, handed down from generation to generation,\n sometimes remaining latent for great periods, to become suddenly\n manifested under conditions the nature of which is not\n discernible.... Conflict of inheritances [from different\n ancestors] may lead to the institution of variety.\u201d\n\n Sometimes, in spite of George Eliot, a lily grows out of a\n stagnant pool\u2014how shall we explain the fact? We must remember that\n the paternal and the maternal elements are themselves unlike; the\n union of the two may well produce a third in some respects unlike\n either; as, when two chemical elements unite, the product differs\n from either of the constituents. We must remember also that\n _nature_ is one factor; _nurture_ is another; and that the latter\n is often as potent as the former (see Galton, Inquiries into Human\n Faculty, 77-81). Environment determines to a large extent both the\n fact and the degree of development. Genius is often another name\n for Providence. Yet before all and beyond all we must recognize a\n manifold wisdom of God, which in the very organization of species\n impresses upon it a law of variation, so that at proper times and\n under proper conditions the old is modified in the line of\n progress and advance to something higher. Dante, Purgatory, canto\n vii\u2014\u201cRarely into the branches of the tree Doth human worth mount\n up; and so ordains He that bestows it, that as his free gift It\n may be called.\u201d Pompilia, the noblest character in Robert\n Browning\u2019s Ring and the Book, came of \u201ca bad lot.\u201d Geo. A. Gordon,\n Christ of To-day, 123-126\u2014\u201cIt is mockery to account for Abraham\n Lincoln and Robert Burns and William Shakespeare upon naked\n principles of heredity and environment.... All intelligence and\n all high character are transcendent, and have their source in the\n mind and heart of God. It is in the range of Christ\u2019s\n transcendence of his earthly conditions that we note the complete\n uniqueness of his person.\u201d\n\n\n(_d_) This theory, if it allows that the soul is originally possessed of\ndepraved tendencies, makes God the direct author of moral evil; if it\nholds the soul to have been created pure, it makes God indirectly the\nauthor of moral evil, by teaching that he puts this pure soul into a body\nwhich will inevitably corrupt it.\n\n\n The decisive argument against creatianism is this one, that it\n makes God the author of moral evil. See Kahnis, Dogmatik,\n 3:250\u2014\u201cCreatianism rests upon a justly antiquated dualism between\n soul and body, and is irreconcilable with the sinful condition of\n the human soul. The truth in the doctrine is just this only, that\n generation can bring forth an immortal human life only according\n to the power imparted by God\u2019s word, and with the special\n co\u00f6peration of God himself.\u201d The difficulty of supposing that God\n immediately creates a pure soul, only to put it into a body that\n will infallibly corrupt it\u2014\u201csicut vinum in vase acetoso\u201d\u2014has led\n many of the most thoughtful Reformed theologians to modify the\n creatian doctrine by combining it with traducianism.\n\n Rothe, Dogmatik, 1:249-251, holds to creatianism in a wider\n sense\u2014a union of the paternal and maternal elements under the\n express and determining efficiency of God. Ebrard, Dogmatik,\n 1:327-332, regards the soul as new-created, yet by a process of\n mediate creation according to law, which he calls \u201cmetaphysical\n generation.\u201d Dorner, System of Doctrine, 3:56, says that the\n individual is not simply a manifestation of the species; God\n applies to the origination of every single man a special creative\n thought and act of will; yet he does this through the species, so\n that it is creation by law,\u2014else the child would be, not a\n continuation of the old species, but the establishment of a new\n one. So in speaking of the human soul of Christ, Dorner says\n (3:340-349) that the soul itself does not owe its origin to Mary\n nor to the species, but to the creative act of God. This soul\n appropriates to itself from Mary\u2019s body the elements of a human\n form, purifying them in the process so far as is consistent with\n the beginning of a life yet subject to development and human\n weakness.\n\n Bowne, Metaphysics, 500\u2014\u201cThe laws of heredity must be viewed\n simply as descriptions of a fact and never as its explanation. Not\n as if ancestors passed on something to posterity, but solely\n because of the inner consistency of the divine action\u201d are\n children like their parents. We cannot regard either of these\n mediating views as self-consistent or intelligible. We pass on\n therefore to consider the traducian theory which we believe more\n fully to meet the requirements of Scripture and of reason. For\n further discussion of creatianism, see Frohschammer, Ursprung der\n Seele, 18-58; Alger, Doctrine of a Future Life, 1-17.\n\n\n3. The Traducian Theory.\n\n\nThis view was propounded by Tertullian, and was implicitly held by\nAugustine. In modern times it has been the prevailing opinion of the\nLutheran Church. It holds that the human race was immediately created in\nAdam, and, as respects both body and soul, was propagated from him by\nnatural generation\u2014all souls since Adam being only mediately created by\nGod, as the upholder of the laws of propagation which were originally\nestablished by him.\n\n\n Tertullian, De Anima: \u201cTradux peccati, tradux anim\u00e6.\u201d Gregory of\n Nyssa: \u201cMan being one, consisting of soul and body, the common\n beginning of his constitution must be supposed also one; so that\n he may not be both older and younger than himself\u2014that in him\n which is bodily being first, and the other coming after\u201d (quoted\n in Crippen, Hist. of Christ. Doct., 80). Augustine, De Pec. Mer.\n et Rem., 3:7\u2014\u201cIn Adam all sinned, at the time when in his nature\n all were still that one man\u201d; De Civ. Dei, 13:14\u2014\u201cFor we all were\n in that one man, when we all were that one man.... The form in\n which we each should live was not as yet individually created and\n distributed to us, but there already existed the seminal nature\n from which we were propagated.\u201d\n\n Augustine, indeed, wavered in his statements with regard to the\n origin of the soul, apparently fearing that an explicit and\n pronounced traducianism might involve materialistic consequences;\n yet, as logically lying at the basis of his doctrine of original\n sin, traducianism came to be the ruling view of the Lutheran\n reformers. In his Table Talk, Luther says: \u201cThe reproduction of\n mankind is a great marvel and mystery. Had God consulted me in the\n matter, I should have advised him to continue the generation of\n the species by fashioning them out of clay, in the way Adam was\n fashioned; as I should have counseled him also to let the sun\n remain always suspended over the earth, like a great lamp,\n maintaining perpetual light and heat.\u201d\n\n Traducianism holds that man, as a species, was created in Adam. In\n Adam, the substance of humanity was yet undistributed. We derive\n our immaterial as well as our material being, by natural laws of\n propagation, from Adam,\u2014each individual man after Adam possessing\n a part of the substance that was originated in him. Sexual\n reproduction has for its purpose the keeping of variations within\n limit. Every marriage tends to bring back the individual type to\n that of the species. The offspring represents not one of the\n parents but both. And, as each of these parents represents two\n grandparents, the offspring really represents the whole race.\n Without this conjugation the individual peculiarities would\n reproduce themselves in divergent lines like the shot from a\n shot-gun. Fission needs to be supplemented by conjugation. The use\n of sexual reproduction is to preserve the average individual in\n the face of a progressive tendency to variation. In asexual\n reproduction the offspring start on deviating lines and never mix\n their qualities with those of their mates. Sexual reproduction\n makes the individual the type of the species and gives solidarity\n to the race. See Maupas, quoted by Newman Smith, Place of Death in\n Evolution, 19-22.\n\n John Milton, in his Christian Doctrine, is a Traducian. He has no\n faith in the notion of a soul separate from and inhabiting the\n body. He believes in a certain corporeity of the soul. Mind and\n thought are rooted in the bodily organism. Soul was not inbreathed\n after the body was formed. The breathing of God into man\u2019s\n nostrils was only the quickening impulse to that which already had\n life. God does not create souls every day. Man is a body-and-soul,\n or a soul-body, and he transmits himself as such. Harris, Moral\n Evolution, 171\u2014The individual man has a great number of ancestors\n as well as a great number of descendants. He is the central point\n of an hour-glass, or a strait between two seas which widen out\n behind and before. How then shall we escape the conclusion that\n the human race was most numerous at the beginning? We must\n remember that other children have the same great-grandparents with\n ourselves; that there have been inter-marriages; and that, after\n all, the generations run on in parallel lines, that the lines\n spread a little in some countries and periods, and narrow a little\n in other countries and periods. It is like a wall covered with\n paper in diamond pattern. The lines diverge and converge, but the\n figures are parallel. See Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:7-94, Hist.\n Doctrine, 2:1-26, Discourses and Essays, 259; Baird, Elohim\n Revealed, 137-151, 335-384; Edwards, Works, 2:483; Hopkins, Works,\n 1:289; Birks, Difficulties of Belief, 161; Delitzsch, Bib. Psych.,\n 128-142; Frohschammer, Ursprung der Seele, 59-224.\n\n\nWith regard to this view we remark:\n\n(_a_) It seems best to accord with Scripture, which represents God as\ncreating the species in Adam (Gen. 1:27), and as increasing and\nperpetuating it through secondary agencies (1:28; _cf._ 22). Only once is\nbreathed into man\u2019s nostrils the breath of life (2:7, _cf._ 22; 1 Cor.\n11:8. Gen. 4:1; 5:3; 46:26; _cf._ Acts 17:21-26; Heb. 7:10), and after\nman\u2019s formation God ceases from his work of creation (Gen. 2:2).\n\n\n _Gen. 1:27_\u2014\u201c_And God created man in his own image, in the image\n of God created he him: male and female created he them_\u201d;\n _28_\u2014\u201c_And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful,\n and multiply, and replenish the earth_\u201d; _cf._ _22_\u2014of the brute\n creation: \u201c_And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and\n multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply\n on the earth._\u201d _Gen. 2:7_\u2014\u201c_And Jehovah God formed man of the\n dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of\n life; and man became a living soul_\u201d; _cf._ _22_\u2014\u201c_and the rib\n which Jehovah God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and\n brought her unto the man_\u201d; _1 Cor. 11:8_\u2014\u201c_For the man is not of\n the woman; but the woman of the man_\u201d (\u1f10\u03be \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2). _Gen.\n 4:1_\u2014\u201c_Eve ... bare Cain_\u201d; _5:3_\u2014\u201c_Adam ... begat a son ...\n Seth_\u201d; _46:26_\u2014\u201c_All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt,\n that came out of his loins_\u201d; _Acts 17:26_\u2014\u201c_he made of one_\n [\u201cfather\u201d or \u201cbody\u201d] _every nation of men_\u201d; _Heb. 7:10_\u2014Levi\n \u201c_was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedek met him_\u201d;\n _Gen. 2:2_\u2014\u201c_And on the seventh day God finished his work which he\n had made, __ and he rested on the seventh day from all his work\n which he had made._\u201d Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:19-29, adduces also\n _John 1:13; 3:6_; _Rom. 1:13; 5:12_; _1 Cor. 15:22_; _Eph. 2:3_;\n _Heb. 12:9_; _Ps. 139:15, 16_. Only Adam had the right to be a\n creatianist. Westcott, Com. on Hebrews, 114\u2014\u201cLevi paying tithes in\n Abraham implies that descendants are included in the ancestor so\n far that his acts have force for them. Physically, at least, the\n dead so rule the living. The individual is not a completely\n self-centred being. He is member in a body. So far traducianism is\n true. But, if this were all, man would be a mere result of the\n past, and would have no individual responsibility. There is an\n element not derived from birth, though it may follow upon it.\n Recognition of individuality is the truth in creatianism. Power of\n vision follows upon preparation of an organ of vision, modified by\n the latter but not created by it. So we have the social unity of\n the race, _plus_ the personal responsibility of the individual,\n the influence of common thoughts _plus_ the power of great men,\n the foundation of hope _plus_ the condition of judgment.\u201d\n\n\n(_b_) It is favored by the analogy of vegetable and animal life, in which\nincrease of numbers is secured, not by a multiplicity of immediate\ncreations, but by the natural derivation of new individuals from a parent\nstock. A derivation of the human soul from its parents no more implies a\nmaterialistic view of the soul and its endless division and subdivision,\nthan the similar derivation of the brute proves the principle of\nintelligence in the lower animals to be wholly material.\n\n\n God\u2019s method is not the method of endless miracle. God works in\n nature through second causes. God does not create a new vital\n principle at the beginning of existence of each separate apple,\n and of each separate dog. Each of these is the result of a\n self-multiplying force, implanted once for all in the first of its\n race. To say, with Moxom (Baptist Review, 1881:278), that God is\n the immediate author of each new individual, is to deny second\n causes, and to merge nature in God. The whole tendency of modern\n science is in the opposite direction. Nor is there any good reason\n for making the origin of the individual human soul an exception to\n the general rule. Augustine wavered in his traducianism because he\n feared the inference that the soul is divided and subdivided,\u2014that\n is, that it is composed of parts, and is therefore material in its\n nature. But it does not follow that all separation is material\n separation. We do not, indeed, know how the soul is propagated.\n But we know that animal life is propagated, and still that it is\n not material, nor composed of parts. The fact that the soul is not\n material, nor composed of parts, is no reason why it may not be\n propagated also.\n\n It is well to remember that _substance_ does not necessarily imply\n either _extension_ or _figure_. _Substantia_ is simply that which\n stands under, underlies, supports, or in other words that which is\n the _ground_ of phenomena. The propagation of mind therefore does\n not involve any dividing up, or splitting off, as if the mind were\n a material mass. Flame is propagated, but not by division and\n subdivision. Professor Ladd is a creatianist, together with Lotze,\n whom he quotes, but he repudiates the idea that the mind is\n susceptible of division; see Ladd, Philosophy of Mind, 206,\n 359-366\u2014\u201cThe mind comes from nowhere, for it never was, as mind,\n in space, is not now in space, and cannot be conceived of as\n coming and going in space.... Mind is a growth.... Parents do not\n transmit their minds to their offspring. The child\u2019s mind does not\n exist before it acts. Its activities _are_ its existence.\u201d So we\n might say that flame has no existence before it acts. Yet it may\n owe its existence to a preceding flame. The Indian proverb is: \u201cNo\n lotus without a stem.\u201d Hall Caine, in his novel The Manxman, tells\n us that the Deemster of the Isle of Man had two sons. These two\n sons were as unlike each other as are the inside and the outside\n of a bowl. But the bowl was old Deemster himself. Hartley\n Coleridge inherited his father\u2019s imperious desire for stimulants\n and with it his inability to resist their temptation.\n\n\n(_c_) The observed transmission not merely of physical, but of mental and\nspiritual, characteristics in families and races, and especially the\nuniformly evil moral tendencies and dispositions which all men possess\nfrom their birth, are proof that in soul, as well as in body, we derive\nour being from our human ancestry.\n\n\n Galton, in his Hereditary Genius, and Inquiries into Human\n Faculty, furnishes abundant proof of the transmission of mental\n and spiritual characteristics from father to son. Illustrations,\n in the case of families, are the American Adamses, the English\n Georges, the French Bourbons, the German Bachs. Illustrations, in\n the case of races, are the Indians, the Negroes, the Chinese, the\n Jews. Hawthorne represented the introspection and the conscience\n of Puritan New England. Emerson had a minister among his ancestry,\n either on the paternal or the maternal side, for eight generations\n back. Every man is \u201ca chip of the old block.\u201d \u201cA man is an\n omnibus, in which all his ancestors are seated\u201d (O. W. Holmes).\n Variation is one of the properties of living things,\u2014the other is\n transmission. \u201cOn a dissecting table, in the membranes of a\n new-born infant\u2019s body, can be seen \u2018the drunkard\u2019s tinge.\u2019 The\n blotches on his grand-child\u2019s cheeks furnish a mirror to the old\n debauchee. Heredity is God\u2019s visiting of sin to the third and\n fourth generations.\u201d On heredity and depravity, see Phelps, in\n Bib. Sac., Apr. 1884:254\u2014\u201cWhen every molecule in the paternal\n brain bears the shape of a point of interrogation, it would border\n on the miraculous if we should find the exclamation-sign of faith\n in the brain-cells of the child.\u201d\n\n Robert G. Ingersoll said that most great men have great mothers,\n and that most great women have great fathers. Most of the great\n are like mountains, with the valley of ancestors on one side and\n the depression of posterity on the other. Hawthorne\u2019s House of the\n Seven Gables illustrates the principle of heredity. But in his\n Marble Faun and Transformation, Hawthorne unwisely intimates that\n sin is a necessity to virtue, a background or condition of good.\n Dryden, Absalom and Ahithophel, 1:156\u2014\u201cGreat wits are sure to\n madness near allied, And thin partitions do their bounds divide.\u201d\n Lombroso, The Man of Genius, maintains that genius is a mental\n disease allied to epileptiform mania or the dementia of cranks. If\n this were so, we should infer that civilization is the result of\n insanity, and that, so soon as Napoleons, Dantes and Newtons\n manifest themselves, they should be confined in Genius Asylums.\n Robert Browning, Hohenstiel-Schwangau, comes nearer the truth: \u201cA\n solitary great man\u2019s worth the world. God takes the business into\n his own hands At such time: Who creates the novel flower Contrives\n to guard and give it breathing-room.... \u2019Tis the great Gardener\n grafts the excellence On wildlings, where he will.\u201d\n\n\n(_d_) The traducian doctrine embraces and acknowledges the element of\ntruth which gives plausibility to the creatian view. Traducianism,\nproperly defined, admits a divine concurrence throughout the whole\ndevelopment of the human species, and allows, under the guidance of a\nsuperintending Providence, special improvements in type at the birth of\nmarked men, similar to those which we may suppose to have occurred in the\nintroduction of new varieties in the animal creation.\n\n\n Page-Roberts, Oxford University Sermons: \u201cIt is no more unjust\n that man should inherit evil tendencies, than that he should\n inherit good. To make the former impossible is to make the latter\n impossible. To object to the law of heredity, is to object to\n God\u2019s ordinance of society, and to say that God should have made\n men, like the angels, a company, and not a race.\u201d The common moral\n characteristics of the race can only be accounted for upon the\n Scriptural view that \u201c_that which is born of the flesh is flesh_\u201d\n (_John 3:6_). Since propagation is a propagation of soul, as well\n as body, we see that to beget children under improper conditions\n is a crime, and that f\u0153ticide is murder. Haeckel, Evolution of\n Man, 2:3\u2014\u201cThe human embryo passes through the whole course of its\n development in forty weeks. Each man is really older by this\n period than is usually assumed. When, for example, a child is said\n to be nine and a quarter years old, he is really ten years old.\u201d\n Is this the reason why Hebrews call a child a year old at birth?\n President Edwards prayed for his children and his children\u2019s\n children to the end of time, and President Woolsey congratulated\n himself that he was one of the inheritors of those prayers. R. W.\n Emerson: \u201cHow can a man get away from his ancestors?\u201d Men of\n genius should select their ancestors with great care. When begin\n the instruction of a child? A hundred years before he is born. A\n lady whose children were noisy and troublesome said to a Quaker\n relative that she wished she could get a good Quaker governess for\n them, to teach them the quiet ways of the Society of Friends. \u201cIt\n would not do them that service,\u201d was the reply; \u201cthey should have\n been rocked in a Quaker cradle, if they were to learn Quakerly\n ways.\u201d\n\n Galton, Natural Inheritance, 104\u2014\u201cThe child inherits partly from\n his parents, partly from his ancestry. In every population that\n intermarries freely, when the genealogy of any man is traced far\n backwards, his ancestry will be found to consist of such varied\n elements that they are indistinguishable from the sample taken at\n haphazard from the general population. Galton speaks of the\n tendency of peculiarities to revert to the general type, and says\n that a man\u2019s brother is twice as nearly related to him as his\n father is, and nine times as nearly as his cousin. The mean\n stature of any particular class of men will be the same as that of\n the race; in other words, it will be mediocre. This tells heavily\n against the full hereditary transmission of any rare and valuable\n gift, as only a few of the many children would resemble their\n parents.\u201d We may add to these thoughts of Galton that Christ\n himself, as respects his merely human ancestry, was not so much\n son of Mary, as he was Son of man.\n\n Brooks, Foundations of Zo\u00f6logy, 144-167\u2014In an investigated case,\n \u201cin seven and a half generations the maximum ancestry for one\n person is 382, or for three persons 1146. The names of 452 of\n them, or nearly half, are recorded, and these 452 named ancestors\n are not 452 distinct persons, but only 149, many of them, in the\n remote generations, being common ancestors of all three in many\n lines. If the lines of descent from the unrecorded ancestors were\n interrelated in the same way, as they would surely be in an old\n and stable community, the total ancestry of these three persons\n for seven and a half generations would be 378 persons instead of\n 1146. The descendants of many die out. All the members of a\n species descend from a few ancestors in a remote generation, and\n these few are the common ancestors of all. Extinction of family\n names is very common. We must seek in the modern world and not in\n the remote past for an explanation of that diversity among\n individuals which passes under the name of variation. The\n genealogy of a species is not a tree, but a slender thread of very\n few strands, a little frayed at the near end, but of immeasurable\n length. A fringe of loose ends all along the thread may represent\n the animals which having no descendants are now as if they had\n never been. Each of the strands at the near end is important as a\n possible line of union between the thread of the past and that of\n the distant future.\u201d\n\n Weismann, Heredity, 270, 272, 380, 384, denies Brooks\u2019s theory\n that the male element represents the principle of variation. He\n finds the cause of variation in the union of elements from the two\n parents. Each child unites the hereditary tendencies of two\n parents, and so must be different from either. The third\n generation is a compromise between four different hereditary\n tendencies. Brooks finds the cause of variation in sexual\n reproduction, but he bases his theory upon the transmission of\n acquired characters. This transmission is denied by Weismann, who\n says that the male germ-cell does not play a different part from\n that of the female in the construction of the embryo. Children\n inherit quite as much from the father as from the mother. Like\n twins are derived from the same egg-cell. No two germ-cells\n contain exactly the same combinations of hereditary tendencies.\n Changes in environment and organism affect posterity, not\n directly, but only through other changes produced in its germinal\n matter. Hence efforts to reach high food cannot directly produce\n the giraffe. See Dawson, Modern Ideas of Evolution, 235-239;\n Bradford, Heredity and Christian Problems; Ribot, Heredity; Woods,\n Heredity in Royalty. On organic unity in connection with realism,\n see Hodge, in Princeton Rev., Jan. 1865:126-135; Dabney, Theology,\n 317-321.\n\n\n\nV. The Moral Nature of Man.\n\n\nBy the moral nature of man we mean those powers which fit him for right or\nwrong action. These powers are intellect, sensibility, and will, together\nwith that peculiar power of discrimination and impulsion, which we call\nconscience. In order to have moral action, man has intellect or reason, to\ndiscern the difference between right and wrong; sensibility, to be moved\nby each of these; free will, to do the one or the other. Intellect,\nsensibility, and will, are man\u2019s three faculties. But in connection with\nthese faculties there is a sort of activity which involves them all, and\nwithout which there can be no moral action, namely, the activity of\nconscience. Conscience applies the moral law to particular cases in our\npersonal experience, and proclaims that law as binding upon us. Only a\nrational and sentient being can be truly moral; yet it does not come\nwithin our province to treat of man\u2019s intellect or sensibility in general.\nWe speak here only of Conscience and of Will.\n\n\n1. Conscience.\n\n\nA. Conscience an accompanying knowledge.\u2014As already intimated, conscience\nis not a separate faculty, like intellect, sensibility, and will, but\nrather a mode in which these faculties act. Like consciousness, conscience\nis an accompanying knowledge. Conscience is a knowing of self (including\nour acts and states) in connection with a moral standard, or law. Adding\nnow the element of feeling, we may say that conscience is man\u2019s\nconsciousness of his own moral relations, together with a peculiar feeling\nin view of them. It thus involves the combined action of the intellect and\nof the sensibility, and that in view of a certain class of objects, viz.:\nright and wrong.\n\n\n There is no separate ethical faculty any more than there is a\n separate \u00e6sthetic faculty. Conscience is like taste: it has to do\n with moral being and relations, as taste has to do with \u00e6sthetic\n being and relations. But the ethical judgment and impulse are,\n like the \u00e6sthetic judgment and impulse, the mode in which\n intellect, sensibility and will act with reference to a certain\n class of objects. Conscience deals with the right, as taste deals\n with the beautiful. As consciousness (_con_ and _scio_) is a\n con-knowing, a knowing of our thoughts, desires and volitions in\n connection with a knowing of the self that has these thoughts,\n desires and volitions; so conscience is a con-knowing, a knowing\n of our moral acts and states in connection with a knowing of some\n moral standard or law which is conceived of as our true self, and\n therefore as having authority over us. Ladd, Philosophy of Mind,\n 183-185\u2014\u201cThe condemnation of self involves self-diremption, double\n consciousness. Without it Kant\u2019s categorical imperative is\n impossible. The one self lays down the law to the other self,\n judges it, threatens it. This is what is meant, when the apostle\n says: \u2018_It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me_\u2019\n (_Rom. 7:17_).\u201d\n\n\nB. Conscience discriminative and impulsive.\u2014But we need to define more\nnarrowly both the intellectual and the emotional elements in conscience.\nAs respects the intellectual element, we may say that conscience is a\npower of judgment,\u2014it declares our acts or states to conform, or not to\nconform, to law; it declares the acts or states which conform to be\nobligatory,\u2014those which do not conform, to be forbidden. In other words,\nconscience judges: (1) This is right (or, wrong); (2) I ought (or, I ought\nnot). In connection with this latter judgment, there comes into view the\nemotional element of conscience,\u2014we feel the claim of duty; there is an\ninner sense that the wrong must not be done. Thus conscience is (1)\ndiscriminative, and (2) impulsive.\n\n\n Robinson, Principles and Practice of Morality, 173\u2014\u201cThe one\n distinctive function of conscience is that of authoritative\n self-judgments in the conscious presence of a supreme Personality\n to whom we as persons feel ourselves accountable. It is this\n twofold personal element in every judgment of conscience, _viz._,\n the conscious self-judgment in the presence of the all-judging\n Deity, which has led such writers as Bain and Spencer and Stephen\n to attempt the explanation of the origin and authority of\n conscience as the product of parental training and social\n environment.... Conscience is not prudential nor advisory nor\n executive, but solely judicial. Conscience is the moral reason,\n pronouncing upon moral actions. Consciousness furnishes law;\n conscience pronounces judgments; it says: Thou shalt, Thou shalt\n not. Every man must obey his conscience; if it is not enlightened,\n that is his look-out. The callousing of conscience in this life is\n already a penal infliction.\u201d S. S. Times, Apl. 5, 1902:185\u2014\u201cDoing\n as well as we know how is not enough, unless we know just what is\n right and then do that. God never tells us merely to do our best,\n or according to our knowledge. It is our duty to know what is\n right, and then to do it. Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. We\n have responsibility for knowing preliminary to doing.\u201d\n\n\nC. Conscience distinguished from other mental processes.\u2014The nature and\noffice of conscience will be still more clearly perceived if we\ndistinguish it from other processes and operations with which it is too\noften confounded. The term conscience has been used by various writers to\ndesignate either one or all of the following: 1. _Moral intuition_\u2014the\nintuitive perception of the difference between right and wrong, as\nopposite moral categories. 2. _Accepted law_\u2014the application of the\nintuitive idea to general classes of actions, and the declaration that\nthese classes of actions are right or wrong, apart from our individual\nrelation to them. This accepted law is the complex product of (_a_) the\nintuitive idea, (_b_) the logical intelligence, (_c_) experiences of\nutility, (_d_) influences of society and education, and (e) positive\ndivine revelation. 3. _Judgment_\u2014applying this accepted law to individual\nand concrete cases in our own experience, and pronouncing our own acts or\nstates either past, present, or prospective, to be right or wrong. 4.\n_Command_\u2014authoritative declaration of obligation to do the right, or\nforbear the wrong, together with an impulse of the sensibility away from\nthe one, and toward the other. 5. _Remorse_ or _approval_\u2014moral sentiments\neither of approbation or disapprobation, in view of past acts or states,\nregarded as wrong or right. 6. _Fear_ or _hope_\u2014instinctive disposition of\ndisobedience to expect punishment, and of obedience to expect reward.\n\n\n Ladd, Philos. of Conduct, 70\u2014\u201cThe feeling of the ought is primary,\n essential, unique; the judgments as to what one ought are the\n results of environment, education and reflection.\u201d The sentiment\n of justice is not an inheritance of civilized man alone. No Indian\n was ever robbed of his lands or had his government allowance\n stolen from him who was not as keenly conscious of the wrong as in\n like circumstances we could conceive that a philosopher would be.\n The _oughtness_ of the ought is certainly intuitive; the _whyness_\n of the ought (conformity to God) is possibly intuitive also; the\n _whatness_ of the ought is less certainly intuitive. Cutler,\n Beginnings of Ethics, 163, 164\u2014\u201cIntuition tells us _that_ we are\n obliged; _why_ we are obliged, and _what_ we are obliged to, we\n must learn elsewhere.\u201d _Obligation_\u2014that which is binding on a\n man; _ought_ is something owed; _duty_ is something due. The\n intuitive notion of duty (intellect) is matched by the sense of\n obligation (feeling).\n\n Bixby, Crisis in Morals, 203, 270\u2014\u201cAll men have a sense of\n right,\u2014of right to life, and contemporaneously perhaps, but\n certainly afterwards, of right to personal property. And my right\n implies duty in my neighbor to respect it. Then the sense of right\n becomes objective and impersonal. My neighbor\u2019s duty to me implies\n my duty to him. I put myself in his place.\u201d Bowne, Principles of\n Ethics, 156, 188\u2014\u201cFirst, the feeling of obligation, the idea of a\n right and a wrong with corresponding duties, is universal....\n Secondly, there is a very general agreement in the formal\n principles of action, and largely in the virtues also, such as\n benevolence, justice, gratitude.... Whether we owe anything to our\n neighbor has never been a real question. The practical trouble has\n always lain in the other question: Who is my neighbor? Thirdly,\n the specific contents of the moral ideal are not fixed, but the\n direction in which the ideal lies is generally discernible.... We\n have in ethics the same fact as in intellect\u2014a potentially\n infallible standard, with manifold errors in its apprehension and\n application. Lucretius held that degradation and paralysis of the\n moral nature result from religion. Many claim on the other hand\n that without religion morals would disappear from the earth.\u201d\n\n Robinson, Princ. and Prac. of Morality, 173\u2014\u201cFear of an omnipotent\n will is very different from remorse in view of the nature of the\n supreme Being whose law we have violated.\u201d A duty is to be settled\n in accordance with the standard of absolute right, not as public\n sentiment would dictate. A man must be ready to do right in spite\n of what everybody thinks. Just as the decisions of a judge are for\n the time binding on all good citizens, so the decisions of\n conscience, as relatively binding, must always be obeyed. They are\n presumptively right and they are the only present guide of action.\n Yet man\u2019s present state of sin makes it quite possible that the\n decisions which are relatively right may be absolutely wrong. It\n is not enough to take one\u2019s time from the watch; the watch may go\n wrong; there is a prior duty of regulating the watch by\n astronomical standards. Bishop Gore: \u201cMan\u2019s first duty is, not to\n _follow_ his conscience, but to _enlighten_ his conscience.\u201d\n Lowell says that the Scythians used to eat their grandfathers out\n of humanity. Paine, Ethnic Trinities, 300\u2014\u201cNothing is so stubborn\n or so fanatical as a wrongly instructed conscience, as Paul showed\n in his own case by his own confession\u201d (_Acts 26:9_\u2014\u201c_I verily\n thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the\n name of Jesus of Nazareth_\u201d).\n\n\nD. Conscience the moral judiciary of the soul.\u2014From what has been\npreviously said, it is evident that only 3. and 4. are properly included\nunder the term conscience. Conscience is the moral judiciary of the\nsoul\u2014the power within of judgment and command. Conscience must judge\naccording to the law given to it, and therefore, since the moral standard\naccepted by the reason may be imperfect, its decisions, while relatively\njust, may be absolutely unjust.\u20141. and 2. belong to the _moral reason_,\nbut not to conscience proper. Hence the duty of enlightening and\ncultivating the moral reason, so that conscience may have a proper\nstandard of judgment.\u20145. and 6. belong to the sphere of _moral sentiment_,\nand not to conscience proper. The office of conscience is to \u201cbear\nwitness\u201d (Rom. 2:15).\n\n\n In _Rom. 2:15_\u2014\u201c_they show the work of the law written in their\n hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their\n thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them_\u201d\u2014we have\n conscience clearly distinguished both from the law and the\n perception of law on the one hand, and from the moral sentiments\n of approbation and disapprobation on the other. Conscience does\n not furnish the law, but it bears witness with the law which is\n furnished by other sources. It is not \u201cthat power of mind by which\n moral law is discovered to each individual\u201d (Calderwood, Moral\n Philosophy, 77), nor can we speak of \u201cConscience, the Law\u201d (as\n Whewell does in his Elements of Morality, 1:259-266). Conscience\n is not the law-book, in the court room, but it is the judge,\u2014whose\n business is, not to make law, but to decide cases according to the\n law given to him.\n\n As conscience is not legislative, so it is not retributive; as it\n is not the law-book, so it is not the sheriff. We say, indeed, in\n popular language, that conscience scourges or chastises, but it is\n only in the sense in which we say that the judge punishes,\u2014_i.\n e._, through the sheriff. The moral sentiments are the\n sheriff,\u2014they carry out the decisions of conscience, the judge;\n but they are not themselves conscience, any more than the sheriff\n is the judge.\n\n Only this doctrine, that conscience does not discover law, can\n explain on the one hand the fact that men are bound to follow\n their consciences, and on the other hand the fact that their\n consciences so greatly differ as to what is right or wrong in\n particular cases. The truth is, that conscience is uniform and\n infallible, in the sense that it always decides rightly according\n to the law given it. Men\u2019s decisions vary, only because the moral\n reason has presented to the conscience different standards by\n which to judge.\n\n Conscience can be educated only in the sense of acquiring greater\n facility and quickness in making its decisions. Education has its\n chief effect, not upon the conscience, but upon the moral reason,\n in rectifying its erroneous, or imperfect standards of judgment.\n Give conscience a right law by which to judge, and its decisions\n will be uniform, and absolutely as well as relatively just. We are\n bound, not only to \u201cfollow our conscience,\u201d but to have a right\n conscience to follow,\u2014and to follow it, not as one follows the\n beast he drives, but as the soldier follows his commander. Robert\n J. Burdette: \u201cFollowing conscience as a guide is like following\n one\u2019s nose. It is important to get the nose pointed right before\n it is safe to follow it. A man can keep the approval of his own\n conscience in very much the same way that he can keep directly\n behind his nose, and go wrong all the time.\u201d\n\n Conscience is the con-knowing of a particular act or state, as\n coming under the law accepted by the reason as to right and wrong;\n and the judgment of conscience subsumes this act or state under\n that general standard. Conscience cannot _include_ the law\u2014cannot\n itself _be_ the law,\u2014because reason only knows, never _con_-knows.\n Reason says _scio_; only judgment says _conscio_.\n\n This view enables us to reconcile the intuitional and the\n empirical theories of morals. Each has its element of truth. The\n original sense of right and wrong is intuitive,\u2014no education could\n ever impart the idea of the difference between right and wrong to\n one who had it not. But what classes of things _are_ right or\n wrong, we learn by the exercise of our logical intelligence, in\n connection with experiences of utility, influences of society and\n tradition, and positive divine revelation. Thus our moral reason,\n through a combination of intuition and education, of internal and\n external information as to general principles of right and wrong,\n furnishes the standard according to which conscience may judge the\n particular cases which come before it.\n\n This moral reason may become depraved by sin, so that the light\n becomes darkness (_Mat. 6:22, 23_) and conscience has only a\n perverse standard by which to judge. The \u201c_weak_\u201d conscience (_1\n Cor. 8:12_) is one whose standard of judgment is yet imperfect;\n the conscience \u201c_branded_\u201d (Rev. Vers.) or \u201c_seared_\u201d (A. V.) \u201c_as\n with a hot iron_\u201d (_1 Tim. 4:2_) is one whose standard has been\n wholly perverted by practical disobedience. The word and the\n Spirit of God are the chief agencies in rectifying our standards\n of judgment, and so of enabling conscience to make absolutely\n right decisions. God can so unite the soul to Christ, that it\n becomes partaker on the one hand of his satisfaction to justice\n and is thus \u201c_sprinkled from an evil conscience_\u201d (_Heb. 10:22_),\n and on the other hand of his sanctifying power and is thus enabled\n in certain respects to obey God\u2019s command and to speak of a \u201c_good\n conscience_\u201d (_1 Pet. 3:16_\u2014of single act; _3:21_\u2014of state)\n instead of an \u201c_evil conscience_\u201d (_Heb. 10:22_) or a conscience\n \u201c_defiled_\u201d (_Tit. 1:15_) by sin. Here the \u201c_good conscience_\u201d is\n the conscience which has been obeyed by the will, and the \u201c_evil\n conscience_\u201d the conscience which has been disobeyed; with the\n result, in the first case, of approval from the moral sentiments,\n and, in the second case, of disapproval.\n\n\nE. Conscience in its relation to God as law-giver.\u2014Since conscience, in\nthe proper sense, gives uniform and infallible judgment that the right is\nsupremely obligatory, and that the wrong must be forborne at every cost,\nit can be called an echo of God\u2019s voice, and an indication in man of that\nwhich his own true being requires.\n\n\n Conscience has sometimes been described as the voice of God in the\n soul, or as the personal presence and influence of God himself.\n But we must not identify conscience with God. D. W. Faunce:\n \u201cConscience is not God,\u2014it is only a part of one\u2019s self. To build\n up a religion about one\u2019s own conscience, as if it were God, is\n only a refined selfishness\u2014a worship of one part of one\u2019s self by\n another part of one\u2019s self.\u201d In The Excursion, Wordsworth speaks\n of conscience as \u201cGod\u2019s most intimate presence in the soul And his\n most perfect image in the world.\u201d But in his Ode to Duty he more\n discreetly writes: \u201cStern daughter of the voice of God! O Duty! if\n that name thou love, Who art a light to guide, a rod To check the\n erring, and reprove, Thou who art victory and law When empty\n terrors overawe, From vain temptations dost set free And calmst\n the weary strife of frail humanity!\u201d Here is an allusion to the\n Hebrew Bath Kol. \u201cThe Jews say that the Holy Spirit spoke during\n the Tabernacle by Urim and Thummim, under the first Temple by the\n Prophets, and under the second Temple by the Bath Kol\u2014a divine\n intimation as inferior to the oracular voice proceeding from the\n mercy seat as a daughter is supposed to be inferior to her mother.\n It is also used in the sense of an approving conscience. In this\n case it is the echo of the voice of God in those who by obeying\n hear\u201d (Hershon\u2019s Talmudic Miscellany, 2, note). This phrase, \u201cthe\n echo of God\u2019s voice,\u201d is a correct description of conscience, and\n Wordsworth probably had it in mind when he spoke of duty as \u201cthe\n daughter of the voice of God.\u201d Robert Browning describes\n conscience as \u201cthe great beacon-light God sets in all.... The\n worst man upon earth ... knows in his conscience more Of what\n right is, than arrives at birth In the best man\u2019s acts that we bow\n before.\u201d Jackson, James Martineau, 154\u2014The sense of obligation is\n \u201ca piercing ray of the great Orb of souls.\u201d On Wordsworth\u2019s\n conception of conscience, see A. H. Strong, Great Poets, 365-368.\n\n Since the activity of the immanent God reveals itself in the\n normal operations of our own faculties, conscience might be also\n regarded as man\u2019s true self over against the false self which we\n have set up against it. Theodore Parker defines conscience as \u201cour\n consciousness of the conscience of God.\u201d In his fourth year, says\n Chadwick, his biographer (pages 12, 13, 185), young Theodore saw a\n little spotted tortoise and lifted his hand to strike. All at once\n something checked his arm, and a voice within said clear and loud:\n \u201cIt is wrong.\u201d He asked his mother what it was that told him it\n was wrong. She wiped a tear from her eye with her apron, and\n taking him in her arms said: \u201cSome men call it conscience, but I\n prefer to call it the voice of God in the soul of man. If you\n listen and obey it, then it will speak clearer and clearer, and\n will always guide you right; but if you turn a deaf ear and\n disobey, then it will fade out little by little, and will leave\n you all in the dark and without a guide. Your life depends on your\n hearing this little voice.\u201d R. T. Smith, Man\u2019s Knowledge of Man\n and of God, 87, 171\u2014\u201cMan has conscience, as he has talents.\n Conscience, no more than talent, makes him good. He is good, only\n as he follows conscience and uses talent.... The relation between\n the terms consciousness and conscience, which are in fact but\n forms of the same word, testifies to the fact that it is in the\n action of conscience that man\u2019s consciousness of himself is\n chiefly experienced.\u201d\n\n The conscience of the regenerate man may have such right\n standards, and its decisions may be followed by such uniformly\n right action, that its voice, though it is not itself God\u2019s voice,\n is yet the very echo of God\u2019s voice. The renewed conscience may\n take up into itself, and may express, the witness of the Holy\n Spirit (_Rom. 9:1_\u2014\u201c_I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my\n conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit_\u201d; _cf._\n _8:16_\u2014\u201c_the Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that\n we are children of God_\u201d). But even when conscience judges\n according to imperfect standards, and is imperfectly obeyed by the\n will, there is a spontaneity in its utterances and a sovereignty\n in its commands. It declares that whatever is right must be done.\n The imperative of conscience is a \u201ccategorical imperative\u201d (Kant).\n It is independent of the human will. Even when disobeyed, it still\n asserts its authority. Before conscience, every other impulse and\n affection of man\u2019s nature is called to bow.\n\n\nF. Conscience in its relation to God as holy.\u2014Conscience is not an\noriginal authority. It points to something higher than itself. The\n\u201cauthority of conscience\u201d is simply the authority of the moral law, or\nrather, the authority of the personal God, of whose nature the law is but\na transcript. Conscience, therefore, with its continual and supreme demand\nthat the right should be done, furnishes the best witness to man of the\nexistence of a personal God, and of the supremacy of holiness in him in\nwhose image we are made.\n\n\n In knowing self in connection with moral law, man not only gets\n his best knowledge of self, but his best knowledge of that other\n self opposite to him, namely, God. Gordon, Christ of To-day,\n 236\u2014\u201cThe conscience is the true Jacob\u2019s ladder, set in the heart\n of the individual and reaching unto heaven; and upon it the angels\n of self-reproach and self-approval ascend and descend.\u201d This is of\n course true if we confine our thoughts to the mandatory element in\n revelation. There is a higher knowledge of God which is given only\n in grace. Jacob\u2019s ladder symbolizes the Christ who publishes not\n only the gospel but the law, and not only the law but the gospel.\n Dewey, Psychology, 344\u2014\u201cConscience is intuitive, not in the sense\n that it enunciates universal laws and principles, for it lays down\n no laws. Conscience is a name for the experience of personality\n that any given act is in harmony or in discord with a truly\n realized personality.\u201d Because obedience to the dictates of\n conscience is always relatively right, Kant could say that \u201can\n erring conscience is a chim\u00e6ra.\u201d But because the law accepted by\n conscience may be absolutely wrong, conscience may in its\n decisions greatly err from the truth. S. S. Times: \u201cSaul before\n his conversion was a conscientious wrong doer. His spirit and\n character was commendable, while his conduct was reprehensible.\u201d\n We prefer to say that Saul\u2019s zeal for the law was a zeal to make\n the law subservient to his own pride and honor.\n\n Horace Bushnell said that the first requirement of a great\n ministry is a great conscience. He did not mean the punitive,\n inhibitory conscience merely, but rather the discovering,\n arousing, inspiring conscience, that sees at once the great things\n to be done, and moves toward them with a shout and a song. This\n unbiased and pure conscience is inseparable from the sense of its\n relation to God and to God\u2019s holiness. Shakespeare, Henry VI, 2d\n Part, 3:2\u2014\u201cWhat stronger breastplate than a heart untainted?\n Thrice is he armed that hath his quarrel just; And he but naked,\n though locked up in steel, Whose conscience with injustice is\n corrupted.\u201d Huxley, in his lecture at Oxford in 1893, admits and\n even insists that ethical practice must be and should be in\n opposition to evolution; that the methods of evolution do not\n account for ethical man and his ethical progress. Morality is not\n a product of the same methods by which lower orders have advanced\n in perfection of organization, namely, by the struggle for\n existence and survival of the fittest. Human progress is moral, is\n in freedom, is under the law of love, is different in kind from\n physical evolution. James Russell Lowell: \u201cIn vain we call old\n notions fudge, And bend our conscience to our dealing: The ten\n commandments will not budge, And stealing will continue stealing.\u201d\n\n R. T. Smith, Man\u2019s Knowledge of Man and of God, 161\u2014\u201cConscience\n lives in human nature like a rightful king, whose claim can never\n be forgotten by his people, even though they dethrone and misuse\n him, and whose presence on the seat of judgment can alone make the\n nation to be at peace with itself.\u201d Seth, Ethical Principles,\n 424\u2014\u201cThe Kantian theory of autonomy does not tell the whole story\n of the moral life. Its unyielding Ought, its categorical\n Imperative, issues not merely from the depths of our own nature,\n but from the heart of the universe itself. We are\n self-legislative; but we re\u00ebnact the law already enacted by God;\n we recognize, rather than constitute, the law of our own being.\n The moral law is an echo, within our own souls, of the voice of\n the Eternal, _\u2018__whose offspring we are__\u2019__ (Acts 17:28)_.\u201d\n\n Schenkel, Christliche Dogmatik, 1:135-155\u2014\u201cThe conscience is the\n organ by which the human spirit finds God in itself and so becomes\n aware of itself in him. Only in conscience is man conscious of\n himself as eternal, as distinct from God, yet as normally bound to\n be determined wholly by God. When we subject ourselves wholly to\n God, conscience gives us peace. When we surrender to the world the\n allegiance due only to God, conscience brings remorse. In this\n latter case we become aware that while God is in us, we are no\n longer in God. Religion is exchanged for ethics, the relation of\n communion for the relation of separation. In conscience alone man\n distinguishes himself absolutely from the brute. Man does not make\n conscience, but conscience makes man. Conscience feels every\n separation from God as an injury to self. Faith is the relating of\n the self-consciousness to the God-consciousness, the becoming sure\n of our own personality, in the absolute personality of God. Only\n in faith does conscience come to itself. But by sin this\n faith-consciousness may be turned into law-consciousness. Faith\n affirms God _in_ us; Law affirms God _outside_ of us.\u201d Schenkel\n differs from Schleiermacher in holding that religion is not\n feeling but conscience, and that it is not a sense of dependence\n on the world, but a sense of dependence on God. Conscience\n recognizes a God distinct from the universe, a moral God, and so\n makes an unmoral religion impossible.\n\n Hopkins, Outline Study of Man, 283-285, Moral Science, 49, Law of\n Love, 41\u2014\u201cConscience is the moral consciousness of man in view of\n his own actions as related to moral law. It is a double knowledge\n of self and of the law. Conscience is not the whole of the moral\n nature. It presupposes the moral reason, which recognizes the\n moral law and affirms its universal obligation for all moral\n beings. It is the office of conscience to bring man into personal\n relation to this law. It sets up a tribunal within him by which\n his own actions are judged. Not conscience, but the moral reason,\n judges of the conduct of others. This last is _science_, but not\n _conscience_.\u201d\n\n Peabody, Moral Philos., 41-60\u2014\u201cConscience not a source, but a\n means, of knowledge. Analogous to consciousness. A judicial\n faculty. Judges according to the law before it. Verdict (verum\n dictum) always relatively right, although, by the absolute\n standard of right, it may be wrong. Like all perceptive faculties,\n educated by use (not by increase of knowledge only, for man may\n act worse, the more knowledge he has). For absolutely right\n decisions, conscience is dependent upon knowledge. To recognize\n conscience as _legislator_ (as well as judge), is to fail to\n recognize any objective standard of right.\u201d The Two Consciences,\n 46, 47\u2014\u201cConscience the Law, and Conscience the Witness. The latter\n is the true and proper Conscience.\u201d\n\n H. B. Smith, System of Christ. Theology, 178-191\u2014\u201cThe unity of\n conscience is not in its being one faculty or in its performing\n one function, but in its having one _object_, its relation to one\n idea, viz., _right_.... The term \u2018conscience\u2019 no more designates a\n special faculty than the term \u2018religion\u2019 does (or than the\n \u2018\u00e6sthetic sense\u2019).... The existence of conscience proves a moral\n law above us; it leads logically to a Moral Governor; ... it\n implies an essential distinction between right and wrong, an\n immutable morality; ... yet needs to be enlightened; ... men may\n be conscientious in iniquity; ... conscience is not righteousness;\n ... this may only show the greatness of the depravity, having\n conscience, and yet ever disobeying it.\u201d\n\n On the New Testament passages with regard to conscience, see\n Hofmann, Lehre von dem Gewissen, 30-38; K\u00e4hler, Das Gewissen,\n 225-293. For the view that conscience is primarily the cognitive\n or intuitional power of the soul, see Calderwood, Moral\n Philosophy, 77; Alexander, Moral Science, 20; McCosh, Div. Govt.,\n 297-312; Talbot, Ethical Prolegomena, in Bap. Quar., July,\n 1877:257-274; Park, Discourses, 260-296; Whewell, Elements of\n Morality, 1:259-266. On the whole subject of conscience, see\n Mansel, Metaphysics, 158-170; Martineau, Religion and Materialism,\n 45\u2014\u201cThe discovery of duty is as distinctly relative to an\n objective Righteousness as the perception of form to an external\n space\u201d; also Types, 2:27-30\u2014\u201cWe first judge ourselves; then\n others\u201d; 53, 54, 74, 103\u2014\u201cSubjective morals are as absurd as\n subjective mathematics.\u201d The best brief treatment of the whole\n subject is that of E. G. Robinson, Principles and Practice of\n Morality, 26-78. See also Wayland, Moral Science, 49; Harless,\n Christian Ethics, 45, 60; H. N. Day, Science of Ethics, 17; Janet,\n Theory of Morals, 264, 348; Kant, Metaphysic of Ethics, 62; _cf._\n Schwegler, Hist. Philosophy, 233; Haven, Mor. Philos., 41;\n Fairchild, Mor. Philos., 75; Gregory, Christian Ethics, 71;\n Passavant, Das Gewissen; Wm. Schmid, Das Gewissen.\n\n\n2. Will.\n\n\nA. Will defined.\u2014Will is the soul\u2019s power to choose between motives and to\ndirect its subsequent activity according to the motive thus chosen,\u2014in\nother words, the soul\u2019s power to choose both an end and the means to\nattain it. The choice of an ultimate end we call immanent preference; the\nchoice of means we call executive volition.\n\n\n In this definition we part company with Jonathan Edwards, Freedom\n of the Will, in Works, vol. 2. He regards the will as the soul\u2019s\n power to act according to motive, _i. e._, to act out its nature,\n but he denies the soul\u2019s power to choose between motives, _i. e._,\n to initiate a course of action contrary to the motive which has\n been previously dominant. Hence he is unable to explain how a holy\n being, like Satan or Adam, could ever fall. If man has no power to\n change motives, to break with the past, to begin a new course of\n action, he has no more freedom than the brute. The younger Edwards\n (Works, 1:483) shows what his father\u2019s doctrine of the will\n implies, when he says: \u201cBeasts therefore, according to the measure\n of their intelligence, are as free as men. Intelligence, and not\n liberty, is the only thing wanting to constitute them moral\n agents.\u201d Yet Jonathan Edwards, determinist as he was, in his\n sermon on Pressing into the Kingdom of God (Works, 4:381), urges\n the use of means, and appeals to the sinner as if he had the power\n of choosing between the motives of self and of God. He was\n unconsciously making a powerful appeal to the will, and the human\n will responded in prolonged and mighty efforts; see Allen,\n Jonathan Edwards, 109.\n\n For references, and additional statements with regard to the will\n and its freedom, see chapter on Decrees, pages 361, 362, and\n article by A. H. Strong, in Baptist Review, 1883:219-242, and\n reprinted in Philosophy and Religion, 114-128. In the remarks upon\n the Decrees, we have intimated our rejection of the Arminian\n liberty of indifference, or the doctrine that the will can act\n without motive. See this doctrine advocated in Peabody, Moral\n Philosophy, 1-9. But we also reject the theory of determinism\n propounded by Jonathan Edwards (Freedom of the Will, in Works,\n vol. 2), which, as we have before remarked, identifies sensibility\n with the will, regards affections as the efficient causes of\n volitions, and speaks of the connection between motive and action\n as a necessary one. Hazard, Man a Creative First Cause, and The\n Will, 407\u2014\u201cEdwards gives to the controlling cause of volition in\n the past the name of motive. He treats the inclination as a\n motive, but he also makes inclination synonymous with choice and\n will, which would make will to be only the soul willing\u2014and\n therefore the cause of its own act.\u201d For objections to the\n Arminian theory, see H. B. Smith, Review of Whedon, in Faith and\n Philosophy, 359-399; McCosh, Divine Government, 263-318, esp. 312;\n E. G. Robinson, Principles and Practice of Morality, 109-137;\n Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:115-147.\n\n James, Psychology, 1:139\u2014\u201cConsciousness is primarily a selecting\n agency.\u201d 2:393\u2014\u201cMan possesses all the instincts of animals, and a\n great many more besides. Reason, _per se_, can inhibit no\n impulses; the only thing that can neutralize an impulse is an\n impulse the other way. Reason may however make an inference which\n will excite the imagination to let loose the impulse the other\n way.\u201d 549\u2014\u201cIdeal or moral action is action in the line of the\n greatest resistance.\u201d 562\u2014\u201cEffort of attention is the essential\n phenomenon of will.\u201d 567\u2014\u201cThe terminus of the psychological\n process is volition; the point to which the will is directly\n applied is always an idea.\u201d 568\u2014\u201cThough attention is the first\n thing in volition, express consent to the reality of what is\n attended to is an additional and distinct phenomenon. We say not\n only: It is a reality; but we also say: \u2018Let it be a reality.\u2019 \u201d\n 571\u2014\u201cAre the duration and intensity of this effort fixed functions\n of the object, or are they not? We answer, _No_, and so we\n maintain freedom of the will.\u201d 584\u2014\u201cThe soul presents nothing,\n creates nothing, is at the mercy of material forces for all\n possibilities, and, by reinforcing one and checking others, it\n figures not as an _epiphenomenon_, but as something from which the\n play gets moral support.\u201d Alexander, Theories of the Will,\n 201-214, finds in Reid\u2019s Active Powers of the Human Mind the most\n adequate empirical defense of indeterminism.\n\n\nB. Will and other faculties.\u2014(_a_) We accept the threefold division of\nhuman faculties into intellect, sensibility, and will. (_b_) Intellect is\nthe soul knowing; sensibility is the soul feeling (desires, affections);\nwill is the soul choosing (end or means). (_c_) In every act of the soul,\nall the faculties act. Knowing involves feeling and willing; feeling\ninvolves knowing and willing; willing involves knowing and feeling. (_d_)\nLogically, each latter faculty involves the preceding action of the\nformer; the soul must know before feeling; must know and feel before\nwilling. (_e_) Yet since knowing and feeling are activities, neither of\nthese is possible without willing.\n\n\n Socrates to The\u00e6tetus: \u201cIt would be a singular thing, my lad, if\n each of us was, as it were, a wooden horse, and within us were\n seated many separate senses. For manifestly these senses unite\n into one nature, call it the soul or what you will. And it is with\n this central form, through the organs of sense, that we perceive\n sensible objects.\u201d Dewey, Psychology, 21\u2014\u201cKnowledge and feeling\n are partial aspects of the self, and hence more or less abstract,\n while will is complete, comprehending both aspects.... While the\n universal element is knowledge, the individual element is feeling,\n and the relation which connects them into one concrete content is\n will.\u201d 364\u2014\u201cThere is conflict of desires or motives. Deliberation\n is the comparison of desires; choice is the decision in favor of\n one. This desire is then the strongest because the whole force of\n the self is thrown into it.\u201d 411\u2014\u201cThe man determines himself by\n setting up either good or evil as a motive to himself, and he sets\n up either, as he will have himself be. There is no thought without\n will, for thought implies inhibition.\u201d Ribot, Diseases of the\n Will, 73, cites the case of Coleridge, and his lack of power to\n inhibit scattering and useless ideas; 114\u2014\u201cVolition plunges its\n roots into the profoundest depths of the individual, and beyond\n the individual, into the species and into all species.\u201d\n\n As God is not mere nature but originating force, so man is chiefly\n will. Every other act of the soul has will as an element. Wundt:\n \u201cJedes Denken ist ein Wollen.\u201d There is no perception, and there\n is no thought, without attention, and attention is an act of the\n will. Hegelians and absolute idealists like Bradley, (see Mind,\n July, 1886), deny that attention is an active function of the\n self. They regard it as a necessary consequence of the more\n interesting character of preceding ideas. Thus all power to alter\n character is denied to the agent. This is an exact reversal of the\n facts of consciousness, and it would leave no will in God or man.\n T. H. Green says that the self makes the motives by identifying\n itself with one solicitation of desire rather than another, but\n that the self has no power of alternative choice in thus\n identifying itself with one solicitation of desire rather than\n another; see Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 310. James Seth, Freedom of\n Ethical Postulate: \u201cThe only hope of finding a place for real free\n will is in another than the Humian, empirical or psychological\n account of the moral person or self. Hegel and Green bring will\n again under the law of necessity. But personality is ultimate.\n Absolute uniformity is entirely unproved. We contend for a power\n of free and incalculable initiation in the self, and this it is\n necessary to maintain in the interests of morality.\u201d Without will\n to attend to pertinent material and to reject the impertinent, we\n can have no _science_; without will to select and combine the\n elements of imagination, we can have no _art_; without will to\n choose between evil and good, we can have no _morality_. \u00c6lfric,\n A. D. 900: \u201cThe verb \u2018to will\u2019 has no imperative, for that the\n will must be always free.\u201d\n\n\nC. Will and permanent states.\u2014(_a_) Though every act of the soul involves\nthe action of all the faculties, yet in any particular action one faculty\nmay be more prominent than the others. So we speak of acts of intellect,\nof affection, of will. (_b_) This predominant action of any single faculty\nproduces effects upon the other faculties associated with it. The action\nof will gives a direction to the intellect and to the affections, as well\nas a permanent bent to the will itself. (_c_) Each faculty, therefore, has\nits permanent states as well as its transient acts, and the will may\noriginate these states. Hence we speak of voluntary affections, and may\nwith equal propriety speak of voluntary opinions. These permanent\nvoluntary states we denominate character.\n\n\n I \u201cmake up\u201d my mind. Ladd, Philosophy of Conduct, 152\u2014\u201cI will the\n influential ideas, feelings and desires, rather than allow these\n ideas, feelings and desires to influence\u2014not to say, determine\n me.\u201d All men can say with Robert Browning\u2019s Paracelsus: \u201cI have\n subdued my life to the one purpose Whereto I ordained it.\u201d \u201cSow an\n act, and you reap a habit; sow a habit, and you reap a character;\n sow a character, and you reap a destiny.\u201d Tito, in George Eliot\u2019s\n Romola, and Markheim in R. L. Stevenson\u2019s story of that name, are\n instances of the gradual and almost imperceptible fixation in evil\n ways which results from seemingly slight original decisions of the\n will; see art. on Tito Melema, by Julia H. Gulliver, in New World,\n Dec. 1895:688\u2014\u201cSin lies in the choice of the ideas that shall\n frequent the moral life, rather than of the actions that shall\n form the outward life.... The pivotal point of the moral life is\n the intent involved in attention.... Sin consists, not only in the\n motive, but in the making of the motive.\u201d By every decision of the\n will in which we turn our thought either toward or away from an\n object of desire, we set nerve-tracts in operation, upon which\n thought may hereafter more or less easily travel. \u201cNothing makes\n an inroad, without making a road.\u201d By slight efforts of attention\n to truth which we know ought to influence us, we may \u201c_make level\n in the desert a highway for our God_\u201d (_Is. 40:3_), or render the\n soul a hard trodden ground impervious to \u201c_the word of the\n kingdom_\u201d (_Mat. 13:19_).\n\n The word \u201ccharacter\u201d meant originally the mark of the engraver\u2019s\n tool upon the metal or the stone. It came then to signify the\n collective result of the engraver\u2019s work. The use of the word in\n morals implies that every thought and act is chiseling itself into\n the imperishable substance of the soul. J. S. Mill: \u201cA character\n is a completely fashioned will.\u201d We may talk therefore of a\n \u201cgeneric volition\u201d (Dewey). There is a permanent bent of the will\n toward good or toward evil. Reputation is man\u2019s shadow, sometimes\n longer, sometimes shorter, than himself. Character, on the other\n hand, is the man\u2019s true self\u2014\u201cwhat a man is in the dark\u201d (Dwight\n L. Moody). In this sense, \u201cpurpose is the autograph of mind.\u201d Duke\n of Wellington: \u201cHabit a second nature? Habit is ten times nature!\u201d\n When Macbeth says: \u201cIf \u2019twere done when \u2019tis done, Then \u2019twere\n well \u2019twere done quickly,\u201d the trouble is that when \u2019tis done, it\n is only begun. Robert Dale Owen gives us the fundamental principle\n of socialism in the maxim: \u201cA man\u2019s character is made for him, not\n by him.\u201d Hence he would change man\u2019s diet or his environment, as a\n means of forming man\u2019s character. But Jesus teaches that what\n defiles comes not from without but from within (_Mat. 15:18_).\n Because character is the result of will, the maxim of Heraclitus\n is true: \u1f26\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u1ff3 \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\u2014man\u2019s character is his destiny. On\n habit, see James, Psychology, 1:122-127.\n\n\nD. Will and motives.\u2014(_a_) The permanent states just mentioned, when they\nhave been once determined, also influence the will. Internal views and\ndispositions, and not simply external presentations, constitute the\nstrength of motives. (_b_) These motives often conflict, and though the\nsoul never acts without motive, it does notwithstanding choose between\nmotives, and so determines the end toward which it will direct its\nactivities. (_c_) Motives are not _causes_, which compel the will, but\n_influences_, which persuade it. The power of these motives, however, is\nproportioned to the strength of will which has entered into them and has\nmade them what they are.\n\n\n \u201cIncentives come from the soul\u2019s self: the rest avail not.\u201d The\n same wind may drive two ships in opposite directions, according as\n they set their sails. The same external presentation may result in\n George Washington\u2019s refusing, and Benedict Arnold\u2019s accepting, the\n bribe to betray his country. Richard Lovelace of Canterbury:\n \u201cStone walls do not a prison make, Nor iron bars a cage; Minds\n innocent and quiet take That for a hermitage.\u201d Jonathan Edwards\n made motives to be _efficient_ causes, when they are only _final_\n causes. We must not interpret motive as if it were locomotive. It\n is always a man\u2019s fault when he becomes a drunkard: drink never\n takes to a man; the man takes to drink. Men who deny demerit are\n ready enough to claim merit. They hold others responsible, if not\n themselves. Bowne: \u201cPure arbitrariness and pure necessity are\n alike incompatible with reason. There must be a law of reason in\n the mind with which volition cannot tamper, and there must also be\n the power to determine ourselves accordingly.\u201d Bowne, Principles\n of Ethics, 135\u2014\u201cIf necessity is a universal thing, then the belief\n in freedom is also necessary. All grant freedom of thought, so\n that it is only executive freedom that is denied.\u201d Bowne, Theory\n of Thought and Knowledge, 239-244\u2014\u201cEvery system of philosophy must\n invoke freedom for the solution of the problem of error, or make\n shipwreck of reason itself.... Our faculties are made for truth,\n but they may be carelessly used, or wilfully misused, and thus\n error is born.... We need not only laws of thought, but\n self-control in accordance with them.\u201d\n\n The will, in choosing _between_ motives, chooses _with_ a motive,\n namely, the motive chosen. Fairbairn, Philos. Christian Religion,\n 76\u2014\u201cWhile motives may be necessary, they need not necessitate. The\n will selects motives; motives do not select the will. Heredity and\n environment do not cancel freedom, they only condition it. Thought\n is transcendence as regards the phenomena of space; will is\n transcendence as regards the phenomena of time; this double\n transcendence involves the complete supernatural character of\n man.\u201d New World, 1892:152\u2014\u201cIt is not the character, but the self\n that has the character, to which the ultimate moral decision is\n due.\u201d William Ernest Henly, Poems, 119\u2014\u201cIt matters not how strait\n the gate, How charged with punishments the scroll, I am the master\n of my fate, I am the captain of my soul.\u201d\n\n Julius M\u00fcller, Doctrine of Sin, 2:54\u2014\u201cA being is free, in so far\n as the inner centre of its life, from which it acts, is\n conditioned by self-determination. It is not enough that the\n deciding agent in an act be the man himself, his own nature, his\n distinctive character. In order to have accountability, we must\n have more than this; we must prove that this, his distinctive\n nature and character, springs from his own volition, and that it\n is itself the product of freedom in moral development. _Matt.\n 12:33_\u2014\u2018_make the tree good, and its fruit good_\u2019\u2014combines both.\n Acts depend upon nature; but nature again depends upon the primary\n decisions of the will (\u2018_make the tree good_\u2019). Some determinism\n is not denied; but it is partly limited [by the will\u2019s remaining\n power of choice] and partly traced back to a former\n self-determining.\u201d _Ibid._, 67\u2014\u201cIf freedom be the self-determining\n of the will from that which is undetermined, Determinism is found\n wanting,\u2014because in its most spiritual form, though it grants a\n self-determination of the will, it is only such a one as springs\n from a determinateness already present; and Indifferentism is\n found wanting too, because while it maintains indeterminateness as\n presupposed in every act of will, it does not recognize an actual\n self-determining on the part of the will, which, though it be a\n self-determining, yet begets determinateness of character.... We\n must, therefore, hold the doctrine of a _conditional_ and\n _limited_ freedom.\u201d\n\n\nE. Will and contrary choice.\u2014(_a_) Though no act of pure will is possible,\nthe soul may put forth single volitions in a direction opposed to its\nprevious ruling purpose, and thus far man has the power of a contrary\nchoice (Rom. 7:18\u2014\u201cto will is present with me\u201d). (_b_) But in so far as\nwill has entered into and revealed itself in permanent states of intellect\nand sensibility and in a settled bent of the will itself, man cannot by a\nsingle act reverse his moral state, and in this respect has not the power\nof a contrary choice. (_c_) In this latter case he can change his\ncharacter only indirectly, by turning his attention to considerations\nfitted to awaken opposite dispositions, and by thus summoning up motives\nto an opposite course.\n\n\n There is no such thing as an act of pure will. Peters,\n Willenswelt, 126\u2014\u201cJedes Wollen ist ein Etwas wollen\u201d\u2014\u201call willing\n is a willing of some thing\u201d; it has an object which the mind\n conceives, which awakens the sensibility, and which the will\n strives to realize. Cause without alternative is not true cause.\n J. F. Watts: \u201cWe know causality only as we know will, _i. e._,\n where of two possibles it makes one actual. A cause may therefore\n have more than one certain effect. In the external material world\n we cannot find _cause_, but only _antecedent_. To construct a\n theory of the will from a study of the material universe is to\n seek the living among the dead. Will is power to _make_ a\n decision, not to _be made_ by decisions, to decide between\n motives, and not to be determined by motives. Who conducts the\n trial between motives? Only the self.\u201d While we agree with the\n above in its assertion of the certainty of nature\u2019s sequences, we\n object to its attribution even to nature of anything like\n necessity. Since nature\u2019s laws are merely the habits of God, God\u2019s\n causality in nature is the regularity, not of necessity, but of\n freedom. We too are free at the strategic points. Automatic as\n most of our action is, there are times when we know ourselves to\n have power of initiative; when we put under our feet the motives\n which have dominated us in the past; when we mark out new courses\n of action. In these critical times we assert our manhood; but for\n them we would be no better than the beasts that perish. \u201cUnless\n above himself he can erect himself, How mean a thing is man!\u201d\n\n Will, with no remaining power of contrary choice, may be brute\n will, but it is not free will. We therefore deny the relevancy of\n Herbert Spencer\u2019s argument, in his Data of Ethics, and in his\n Psychology, 2:503\u2014\u201cPsychical changes either conform to law, or\n they do not. If they do not conform to law, no science of\n Psychology is possible. If they do conform to law, there cannot be\n any such thing as free will.\u201d Spinoza also, in his Ethics, holds\n that the stone, as it falls, would if it were conscious think\n itself free, and with as much justice as man; for it is doing that\n to which its constitution leads it; but no more can be said for\n him. Fisher, Nature and Method of Revelation, xiii\u2014\u201cTo try to\n collect the \u2018data of ethics\u2019 when there is no recognition of man\n as a personal agent, capable of freely originating the conduct and\n the states of will for which he is morally responsible, is labor\n lost.\u201d Fisher, chapter on the Personality of God, in Grounds of\n Theistic and Christian Belief\u2014\u201cSelf-determination, as the very\n term signifies, is attended with an irresistible conviction that\n the direction of the will is self-imparted.... That the will is\n free, that is, not constrained by causes exterior, which is\n _fatalism_\u2014and not a mere spontaneity, confined to one path by a\n force acting from within, which is _determinism_\u2014is immediately\n evident to every unsophisticated mind. We can initiate action by\n an efficiency which is neither irresistibly controlled by motives,\n nor determined, without any capacity of alternative action, by a\n proneness inherent in its nature.... Motives have an _influence_,\n but influence is not to be confounded with _causal_ efficiency.\u201d\n\n Talbot, on Will and Free Will, Bap. Rev., July, 1882\u2014\u201cWill is\n neither a power of unconditioned self-determination\u2014which is not\n freedom, but an aimless, irrational, fatalistic power; nor pure\n spontaneity\u2014which excludes from will all law but its own; but it\n is rather a power of originating action\u2014a power which is limited\n however by inborn dispositions, by acquired habits and\n convictions, by feelings and social relations.\u201d Ernest Naville, in\n Rev. Chr\u00e9tienne, Jan. 1878:7\u2014\u201cOur liberty does not consist in\n producing an action of which it is the only source. It consists in\n choosing between two pre\u00ebxistent impulses. It is _choice_, not\n _creation_, that is our destiny\u2014a drop of water that can choose\n whether it will go into the Rhine or the Rhone. Gravity carries it\n down,\u2014it chooses only its direction. Impulses do not come from the\n will, but from the sensibility; but free will chooses between\n these impulses.\u201d Bowne, Metaphysics, 169\u2014\u201cFreedom is not a power\n of acting without, or apart from, motives, but simply a power of\n choosing an end or law, and of governing one\u2019s self accordingly.\u201d\n Porter, Moral Science, 77-111\u2014Will is \u201cnot a power to choose\n without motive.\u201d It \u201cdoes not exclude motives to the contrary.\u201d\n Volition \u201csupposes two or more objects between which election is\n made. It is an act of preference, and to prefer implies that one\n motive is chosen to the exclusion of another.... To the conception\n and the act two motives at least are required.\u201d Lyall, Intellect,\n Emotions, and Moral Nature, 581, 592\u2014\u201cThe will follows reasons,\n inducements\u2014but it is not _caused_. It obeys or acts under\n inducement, but it does so sovereignly. It exhibits the phenomena\n of activity, in relation to the very motive it obeys. It obeys it,\n rather than another. It determines, in reference to it, that this\n is the very motive it will obey. There is undoubtedly this\n phenomenon exhibited: the will obeying\u2014but elective, active, in\n its obedience. If it be asked how this is possible\u2014how the will\n can be under the influence of motive, and yet possess an\n intellectual activity\u2014we reply that this is one of those ultimate\n phenomena which must be admitted, while they cannot be explained.\u201d\n\n\nF. Will and responsibility.\u2014(_a_) By repeated acts of will put forth in a\ngiven moral direction, the affections may become so confirmed in evil or\nin good as to make previously certain, though not necessary, the future\ngood or evil action of the man. Thus, while the will is free, the man may\nbe the \u201cbondservant of sin\u201d (John 8:31-36) or the \u201cservant of\nrighteousness\u201d (Rom. 6:15-23; _cf._ Heb. 12-23\u2014\u201cspirits of just men made\nperfect\u201d). (_b_) Man is responsible for all effects of will, as well as\nfor will itself; for voluntary affections, as well as for voluntary acts;\nfor the intellectual views into which will has entered, as well as for the\nacts of will by which these views have been formed in the past or are\nmaintained in the present (2 Pet. 3:5\u2014\u201cwilfully forget\u201d).\n\n\n Ladd, Philosophy of Knowledge, 415\u2014\u201cThe self stands between the\n two laws of Nature and of Conscience, and, under perpetual\n limitations from both, exercises its choice. Thus it becomes more\n and more enslaved by the one, or more and more free by habitually\n choosing to follow the other. Our conception of causality\n according to the laws of nature, and our conception of the other\n causality of freedom, are both derived from one and the same\n experience of the self. There arises a seeming antinomy only when\n we hypostatize each severally and apart from the other.\u201d R. T.\n Smith, Man\u2019s Knowledge of Man and of God, 69\u2014\u201cMaking a _will_ is\n significant. Here the action of will is limited by conditions: the\n amount of the testator\u2019s property, the number of his relatives,\n the nature of the objects of bounty within his knowledge.\u201d\n\n Harris, Philos. Basis of Theism, 349-407\u2014\u201cAction without motives,\n or contrary to all motives, would be irrational action. Instead of\n being free, it would be like the convulsions of epilepsy. Motives\n = sensibilities. Motive is not _cause_; does not determine; is\n only influence. Yet determination is always made under the\n influence of motives. Uniformity of action is not to be explained\n by any law of uniform influence of motives, but by _character_ in\n the will. By its choice, will forms in itself a character; by\n action in accordance with this choice, it confirms and develops\n the character. Choice modifies sensibilities, and so modifies\n motives. Volitional action expresses character, but also forms and\n modifies it. Man may change his choice; yet intellect,\n sensibility, motive, habit, remain. Evil choice, having formed\n intellect and sensibility into accord with itself, must be a\n powerful hindrance to fundamental change by new and contrary\n choice; and gives small ground to expect that man left to himself\n ever will make the change. After will has acquired character by\n choices, its determinations are not transitions from complete\n indeterminateness or indifference, but are more or less\n expressions of character already formed. The theory that\n indifference is essential to freedom implies that will never\n acquires character; that voluntary action is atomistic; that every\n act is disintegrated from every other; that character, if\n acquired, would be incompatible with freedom. Character is a\n choice, yet a choice which persists, which modifies sensibility\n and intellect, and which influences subsequent determinations.\u201d\n\n My freedom then is freedom within limitations. Heredity and\n environment, and above all the settled dispositions which are the\n product of past acts of will, render a large part of human action\n practically automatic. The deterministic theory is valid for\n perhaps nine-tenths of human activity. Mason, Faith of the Gospel,\n 118, 119\u2014\u201cWe naturally will with a bias toward evil. To act\n according to the perfection of nature would be true freedom. And\n this man has lost. He recognizes that he is not his true self. It\n is only with difficulty that he works toward his true self again.\n By the fall of Adam, the will, which before was conditioned but\n free, is now not only conditioned but enslaved. Nothing but the\n action of grace can free it.\u201d Tennyson, In Memoriam, Introduction:\n \u201cOur wills are ours, we know not how; Our wills are ours, to make\n them thine.\u201d Studying the action of the sinful will alone, one\n might conclude that there is no such thing as freedom. Christian\n ethics, in distinction from naturalistic ethics, reveals most\n clearly the degradation of our nature, at the same time that it\n discloses the remedy in Christ: \u201c_If therefore the Son shall make\n you free, ye shall be free indeed_\u201d (_John 8:36_).\n\n Mind, Oct. 1882:567\u2014\u201cKant seems to be in quest of the phantasmal\n freedom which is supposed to consist in the absence of\n determination by motives. The error of the determinists from which\n this idea is the recoil, involves an equal abstraction of the man\n from his thoughts, and interprets the relation between the two as\n an instance of the mechanical causality which exists between two\n things in nature. The point to be grasped in the controversy is\n that a man and his motives are one, and that consequently he is in\n every instance self-determined.... Indeterminism is tenable only\n if an ego can be found which is not an ego already determinate;\n but such an ego, though it may be logically distinguished and\n verbally expressed, is not a factor in psychology.\u201d Morell, Mental\n Philosophy, 390\u2014\u201cMotives determine the will, and so _far_ the will\n is not free; but the man governs the motives, allowing them a less\n or a greater power of influencing his life, and so _far_ the man\n is a free agent.\u201d Santayana: \u201cA free man, because he is free, may\n make himself a slave; but once a slave, because he is a slave, he\n cannot make himself free.\u201d Sidgwick, Method of Ethics, 51,\n 65\u2014\u201cThis almost overwhelming cumulative proof [of necessity]\n seems, however, more than balanced by a single argument on the\n other side: the immediate affirmation of consciousness in the\n moment of deliberate volition. It is impossible for me to think,\n at each moment, that my volition is completely determined by my\n formed character and the motives acting upon it. The opposite\n conviction is so strong as to be absolutely unshaken by the\n evidence brought against it. I cannot believe it to be illusory.\u201d\n\n\nG. Inferences from this view of the will.\u2014(_a_) We can be responsible for\nthe voluntary evil affections with which we are born, and for the will\u2019s\ninherited preference of selfishness, only upon the hypothesis that we\noriginated these states of the affections and will, or had a part in\noriginating them. Scripture furnishes this explanation, in its doctrine of\nOriginal Sin, or the doctrine of a common apostasy of the race in its\nfirst father, and our derivation of a corrupted nature by natural\ngeneration from him. (_b_) While there remains to man, even in his present\ncondition, a natural power of will by which he may put forth transient\nvolitions externally conformed to the divine law and so may to a limited\nextent modify his character, it still remains true that the sinful bent of\nhis affections is not directly under his control; and this bent\nconstitutes a motive to evil so constant, inveterate, and powerful, that\nit actually influences every member of the race to re\u00e4ffirm his evil\nchoice, and renders necessary a special working of God\u2019s Spirit upon his\nheart to ensure his salvation. Hence the Scripture doctrine of\nRegeneration.\n\n\n There is such a thing as \u201cpsychical automatism\u201d (Ladd, Philos.\n Mind, 169). Mother: \u201cOscar, why can\u2019t you be good?\u201d \u201cMamma, it\n makes me so tired!\u201d The wayward four-year-old is a type of\n universal humanity. Men are born morally tired, though they have\n energy enough of other sorts. The man who sins may lose all\n freedom, so that his soul becomes a seething mass of eructant\n evil. T. C. Chamberlain: \u201cConditions may make choices run rigidly\n in one direction and give as fixed uniformity as in physical\n phenomena. Put before a million typical Americans the choice\n between a quarter and a dime, and rigid uniformity of results can\n be safely predicted.\u201d Yet Dr. Chamberlain not only grants but\n claims liberty of choice. Romanes, Mind and Motion,\n 155-160\u2014\u201cThough volitions are largely determined by other and\n external causes, it does not follow that they are determined\n _necessarily_, and this makes all the difference between the\n theories of will as bond or free. Their intrinsic character as\n first causes protects them from being coerced by these causes and\n therefore from becoming only the mere effects of them. The\n condition to the effective operation of a _motive_\u2014as\n distinguished from a _motor_\u2014is the acquiescence of the first\n cause upon whom that motive is operating.\u201d Fichte: \u201cIf any one\n adopting the dogma of necessity should remain virtuous, we must\n seek the cause of his goodness elsewhere than in the innocuousness\n of his doctrine. Upon the supposition of free will alone can duty,\n virtue, and morality have any existence.\u201d Lessing: \u201cKein Mensch\n muss m\u00fcssen.\u201d Delitzsch: \u201cDer Mensch, wie er jetzt ist, ist\n wahlfrei, aber nicht machtfrei.\u201d\n\n Kant regarded freedom as an exception to the law of natural\n causality. But this freedom is not phenomenal but noumenal, for\n causality is not a category of noumena. From this freedom we get\n our whole idea of personality, for personality is freedom of the\n whole soul from the mechanism of nature. Kant treated scornfully\n the determinism of Leibnitz. He said it was the freedom of a\n turnspit, which when once wound up directed its own movements, _i.\n e._, was merely automatic. Compare with this the view of Baldwin,\n Psychology, Feeling and Will, 373\u2014\u201cFree choice is a synthesis, the\n outcome of which is in every case conditioned upon its elements,\n but in no case caused by them. A logical inference is conditioned\n upon its premises, but it is not caused by them. Both inference\n and choice express the nature of the conscious principle and the\n unique method of its life.... The motives do not grow into\n volitions, nor does the volition stand apart from the motives. The\n motives are partial expressions, the volition is a total\n expression, of the same existence.... Freedom is the expression of\n one\u2019s self conditioned by past choices and present environment.\u201d\n Shakespeare, Hamlet, 3:4\u2014\u201cRefrain to-night, And that shall lend a\n kind of easiness To the next abstinence: the next more easy: For\n use can almost change the stamp of nature, And either curb the\n devil or throw him out With wondrous potency.\u201d 3:2\u2014\u201cPurpose is but\n the slave to memory; Of violent birth but poor validity.\u201d\n 4:7\u2014\u201cThat we would do, We should do when we would; for this\n _would_ changes And hath abatements and delays as many As there\n are tongues, are hands, are accidents.\u201d Goethe: \u201cVon der Gewalt\n die alle Wesen bindet, Befreit der Mensch sich der sich\n \u00fcberwindet.\u201d\n\n Scotus Novanticus (Prof. Laurie of Edinburgh), Ethica, 287\u2014\u201cThe\n chief good is fulness of life achieved through law by the action\n of will as reason on sensibility.... Immorality is the letting\n loose of feeling, in opposition to the idea and the law in it; it\n is individuality in opposition to personality.... In immorality,\n will is defeated, the personality overcome, and the subject\n volitionizes just as a dog volitionizes. The subject takes\n possession of the personality and uses it for its natural\n desires.\u201d Maudsley, Physiology of Mind, 456, quotes Ribot,\n Diseases of the Will, 133\u2014\u201cWill is not the cause of anything. It\n is like the verdict of a jury, which is an effect, without being a\n cause. It is the highest force which nature has yet developed\u2014the\n last consummate blossom of all her marvellous works.\u201d Yet Maudsley\n argues that the mind itself has power to prevent insanity. This\n implies that there is an owner of the instrument endowed with\n power and responsibility to keep it in order. Man can do much, but\n God can do more.\n\n\nH. Special objections to the deterministic theory of the will.\u2014Determinism\nholds that man\u2019s actions are uniformly determined by motives acting upon\nhis character, and that he has no power to change these motives or to act\ncontrary to them. This denial that the will is free has serious and\npernicious consequences in theology. On the one hand, it weakens even if\nit does not destroy man\u2019s conviction with regard to responsibility, sin,\nguilt and retribution, and so obscures the need of atonement; on the other\nhand, it weakens if it does not destroy man\u2019s faith in his own power as\nwell as in God\u2019s power of initiating action, and so obscures the\npossibility of atonement.\n\n\n Determinism is exemplified in Omar Kh\u00e1yy\u00e1m\u2019s Rub\u00e1iy\u00e1t: \u201cWith\n earth\u2019s first clay they did the last man knead, And there of the\n last harvest sowed the seed; And the first morning of creation\n wrote What the last dawn of reckoning shall read.\u201d William James,\n Will to Believe, 145-183, shows that determinism involves\n pessimism or subjectivism\u2014good and evil are merely means of\n increasing knowledge. The result of subjectivism is in theology\n antinomianism; in literature romanticism; in practical life\n sensuality or sensualism, as in Rousseau, Renan and Zola. Hutton,\n review of Clifford in Contemp. Thoughts and Thinkers, 1:254\u2014\u201cThe\n determinist says there would be no moral quality in actions that\n did not express previous tendency, _i. e._, a man is responsible\n only for what he cannot help doing. No effort against the grain\n will be made by him who believes that his interior mechanism\n settles for him whether he shall make it or no.\u201d Royce, World and\n Individual, 2:342\u2014\u201cYour unique voices in the divine symphony are\n no more the voices of moral agents than are the stones of a\n mosaic.\u201d The French monarch announced that all his subjects should\n be free to choose their own religion, but he added that nobody\n should choose a different religion from the king\u2019s. \u201cJohnny, did\n you give your little sister the choice between those two apples?\u201d\n \u201cYes, Mamma; I told her she could have the little one or none, and\n she chose the little one.\u201d Hobson\u2019s choice was always the choice\n of the last horse in the row. The bartender with revolver in hand\n met all criticisms upon the quality of his liquor with the remark:\n \u201cYou\u2019ll drink that whisky, and you\u2019ll like it too!\u201d\n\n Balfour, Foundations of Belief, 22\u2014\u201cThere must be implicitly\n present to primitive man the sense of freedom, since his fetichism\n largely consists in attributing to inanimate objects the\n spontaneity which he finds in himself.\u201d Freedom does not\n contradict conservation of energy. Professor Lodge, in Nature,\n March 26, 1891\u2014\u201cAlthough expenditure of energy is needed to\n increase the speed of matter, none is needed to alter its\n direction.... The rails that guide a train do not propel it, nor\n do they retard it; they have no essential effect upon its energy\n but a guiding effect.\u201d J. J. Murphy, Nat. Selection and Spir.\n Freedom, 170-203\u2014\u201cWill does not create force but directs it. A\n very small force is able to guide the action of a great one, as in\n the steering of a modern steamship.\u201d James Seth, in Philos. Rev.,\n 3:285, 286\u2014\u201cAs life is not energy but a determiner of the paths of\n energy, so the will is a cause, in the sense that it controls and\n directs the channels which activity shall take.\u201d See also James\n Seth, Ethical Principles, 345-388, and Freedom as Ethical\n Postulate, 9\u2014\u201cThe philosophical proof of freedom must be the\n demonstration of the inadequacy of the categories of science: its\n philosophical disproof must be the demonstration of the adequacy\n of such scientific categories.\u201d Shadworth Hodgson: \u201cEither liberty\n is true, and then the categories are insufficient, or the\n categories are sufficient, and then liberty is a delusion.\u201d Wagner\n is the composer of determinism; there is no freedom or guilt;\n action is the result of influence and environment; a mysterious\n fate rules all. Life: \u201cThe views upon heredity Of scientists\n remind one That, shape one\u2019s conduct as one may, One\u2019s future is\n behind one.\u201d\n\n We trace willing in God back, not to motives and antecedents, but\n to his infinite personality. If man is made in God\u2019s image, why we\n may not trace man\u2019s willing also back, not to motives and\n antecedents, but to his finite personality? We speak of God\u2019s\n fiat, but we may speak of man\u2019s fiat also. Napoleon: \u201cThere shall\n be no Alps!\u201d Dutch William III: \u201cI may fall, but shall fight every\n ditch, and die in the last one!\u201d When God energizes the will, it\n becomes indomitable. _Phil. 4:13_\u2014\u201c_I can do all things in him\n that strengtheneth me._\u201d Dr. E. G. Robinson was theoretically a\n determinist, and wrongly held that the highest conceivable freedom\n is to act out one\u2019s own nature. He regarded the will as only the\n nature in movement. Will is self-determining, not in the sense\n that will determines the self, but in the sense that self\n determines the will. The will cannot be compelled, for unless\n self-determined it is no longer will. Observation, history and\n logic, he thought, lead to necessitarianism. But consciousness, he\n conceded, testifies to freedom. Consciousness must be trusted,\n though we cannot reconcile the two. The will is as great a mystery\n as is the doctrine of the Trinity. Single volitions, he says, are\n often directly in the face of the current of a man\u2019s life. Yet he\n held that we have no consciousness of the power of a contrary\n choice. Consciousness can testify only to what springs out of the\n moral nature, not to the moral nature itself.\n\n Lotze, Religionsphilosophie, section 61\u2014\u201cAn indeterminate choice\n is of course incomprehensible and inexplicable, for if it were\n comprehensible and explicable by the human intellect, if, that is,\n it could be seen to follow necessarily from the pre\u00ebxisting\n conditions, it from the nature of the case could not be a morally\n free choice at all.... But we cannot comprehend any more how the\n mind can move the muscles, nor how a moving stone can set another\n stone in motion, nor how the Absolute calls into existence our\n individual selves.\u201d Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 308-327, gives an\n able expos\u00e9 of the deterministic fallacies. He cites Martineau and\n Balfour in England, Renouvier and Fonsegrive in France, Edward\n Zeller, Kuno Fischer and Saarschmidt in Germany, and William James\n in America, as recent advocates of free will.\n\n Martineau, Study, 2:227\u2014\u201cIs there not a Causal Self, over and\n above the Caused Self, or rather the Caused State and contents of\n the self left as a deposit from previous behavior? Absolute\n idealism, like Green\u2019s, will not recognize the existence of this\n Causal Self\u201d; Study of Religion, 2:195-324, and especially\n 240\u2014\u201cWhere two or more rival preconceptions enter the field\n together, they cannot compare themselves _inter se_: they need and\n meet a superior: it rests with the mind itself to decide. The\n decision will not be _unmotived_, for it will have its reasons. It\n will not be unconformable to the characteristics of the mind, for\n it will express its preferences. But none the less is it issued by\n a free cause that elects among the conditions, and is not elected\n by them.\u201d 241\u2014\u201cSo far from admitting that different effects cannot\n come from the same cause. I even venture on the paradox that\n nothing is a proper cause which is limited to one effect.\u201d\n 309\u2014\u201cFreedom, in the sense of option, and will, as the power of\n deciding an alternative, have no place in the doctrines of the\n German schools.\u201d 311\u2014\u201cThe whole illusion of Necessity springs from\n the attempt to fling out, for contemplation in the field of\n Nature, the creative new beginnings centered in personal subjects\n that transcend it.\u201d\n\n See also H. B. Smith, System of Christ. Theol., 236-251; Mansel,\n Proleg. Log., 113-155, 270-278, and Metaphysics, 366; Gregory,\n Christian Ethics, 60; Abp. Manning, in Contem. Rev., Jan.\n 1871:468; Ward, Philos. of Theism, 1:287-352; 2:1-79, 274-349; Bp.\n Temple, Bampton Lect., 1884:69-96; Row, Man not a Machine, in\n Present Day Tracts, 5: no. 30; Richards, Lectures on Theology,\n 97-153; Solly, The Will, 167-203; William James, The Dilemma of\n Determinism, in Unitarian Review, Sept. 1884, and in The Will to\n Believe, 145-183; T. H. Green, Prolegomena to Ethics, 90-159;\n Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 310; Bradley, in Mind, July, 1886;\n Bradford, Heredity and Christian Problems, 70-101; Illingworth,\n Divine Immanence, 229-254; Ladd, Philos. of Conduct, 133-188. For\n Lotze\u2019s view of the Will, see his Philos. of Religion, 95-106, and\n his Practical Philosophy, 35-50.\n\n\n\n\nChapter II. The Original State Of Man.\n\n\nIn determining man\u2019s original state, we are wholly dependent upon\nScripture. This represents human nature as coming from God\u2019s hand, and\ntherefore \u201cvery good\u201d (Gen. 1:31). It moreover draws a parallel between\nman\u2019s first state and that of his restoration (Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24). In\ninterpreting these passages, however, we are to remember the twofold\ndanger, on the one hand of putting man so high that no progress is\nconceivable, on the other hand of putting him so low that he could not\nfall. We shall the more easily avoid these dangers by distinguishing\nbetween the essentials and the incidents of man\u2019s original state.\n\n\n _Gen. 1:31_\u2014\u201c_And God saw everything that he had made, and,\n behold, it was very good_\u201d; _Col. 3:10_\u2014\u201c_the new man, that is\n being renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created\n him_\u201d; _Eph. 4:24_\u2014\u201c_the new man that after God hath been created\n in righteousness and holiness of truth._\u201d\n\n Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 2:337-399\u2014\u201cThe original state must be (1)\n a contrast to sin; (2) a parallel to the state of restoration.\n Difficulties in the way of understanding it: (1) What lives in\n regeneration is something foreign to our present nature (\u2018_it is\n no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me_\u2019\u2014_Gal. 2:20_); but\n the original state was something native. (2) It was a state of\n childhood. We cannot fully enter into childhood, though we see it\n about us, and have ourselves been through it. The original state\n is yet more difficult to reproduce to reason. (3) Man\u2019s external\n circumstances and his organization have suffered great changes, so\n that the present is no sign of the past. We must recur to the\n Scriptures, therefore, as well-nigh our only guide.\u201d John Caird,\n Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 1:164-195, points out that ideal\n perfection is to be looked for, not at the outset, but at the\n final stage of the spiritual life. If man were wholly finite, he\n would not know his finitude.\n\n Lord Bacon: \u201cThe sparkle of the purity of man\u2019s first estate.\u201d\n Calvin: \u201cIt was monstrous impiety that a son of the earth should\n not be satisfied with being made after the similitude of God,\n unless he could also be equal with him.\u201d Prof. Hastings: \u201cThe\n truly natural is not the real, but the ideal. Made in the image of\n God\u2014between that beginning and the end stands God made in the\n image of man.\u201d On the general subject of man\u2019s original state, see\n Z\u00f6ckler, 3:283-290; Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, 1:215-243;\n Ebrard, Dogmatik, 1:267-276; Van Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 374-375;\n Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:92-116.\n\n\n\nI. Essentials of Man\u2019s Original State.\n\n\nThese are summed up in the phrase \u201cthe image of God.\u201d In God\u2019s image man\nis said to have been created (Gen. 1:26, 27). In what did this image of\nGod consist? We reply that it consisted in 1. Natural likeness to God, or\npersonality; 2. Moral likeness to God, or holiness.\n\n\n _Gen. 1:26, 27_\u2014\u201c_And God said, Let us make man in our image,\n after our likeness.... And God created man in his own image, in\n the image of God created he him._\u201d It is of great importance to\n distinguish clearly between the two elements embraced in this\n image of God, the natural and the moral. By virtue of the first,\n man possessed certain _faculties_ (intellect, affection, will); by\n virtue of the second, he had _right tendencies_ (bent, proclivity,\n disposition). By virtue of the first, he was invested with certain\n _powers_; by virtue of the second, a certain _direction_ was\n imparted to these powers. As created in the natural image of God,\n man had a moral _nature_; as created in the moral image of God,\n man had a holy _character_. The first gave him _natural_ ability;\n the second gave him _moral_ ability. The Greek Fathers emphasized\n the first element, or _personality_; the Latin Fathers emphasized\n the second element, or _holiness_. See Orr, God\u2019s Image in Man.\n\n As the Logos, or divine Reason, Christ Jesus, dwells in humanity\n and constitutes the principle of its being, humanity shares with\n Christ in the image of God. That image is never wholly lost. It is\n completely restored in sinners when the Spirit of Christ gains\n control of their wills and they merge their life in his. To those\n who accused Jesus of blasphemy, he replied by quoting the words of\n _Psalm 82:6_\u2014\u201c_I said, Ye are gods_\u201d\u2014words spoken of imperfect\n earthly rulers. Thus, in _John 10:34-36_, Jesus, who constitutes\n the very essence of humanity, justifies his own claim to divinity\n by showing that even men who represent God are also in a minor\n sense \u201c_partakers of the divine nature_\u201d (_2 Pet. 1:4_). Hence the\n many legends, in heathen religions, of the divine descent of man.\n _1 Cor. 11:3_\u2014\u201c_the head of every man is Christ._\u201d In every man,\n even the most degraded, there is an image of God to be brought\n out, as Michael Angelo saw the angel in the rough block of marble.\n This natural _worth_ does not imply _worthiness_; it implies only\n capacity for redemption. \u201cThe abysmal depths of personality,\u201d\n which Tennyson speaks of, are sounded, as man goes down in thought\n successively from individual sins to sin of the heart and to\n race-sin. But \u201cthe deeper depth is out of reach To all, O God, but\n thee.\u201d From this deeper depth, where man is rooted and grounded in\n God, rise aspirations for a better life. These are not due to the\n man himself, but to Christ, the immanent God, who ever works\n within him. Fanny J. Crosby: \u201cRescue the perishing, Care for the\n dying.... Down in the human heart, crushed by the tempter,\n Feelings lie buried that grace can restore; Touched by a loving\n heart, wakened by kindness, Chords that were broken will vibrate\n once more.\u201d\n\n\n1. Natural likeness to God, or personality.\n\n\nMan was created a personal being, and was by this personality\ndistinguished from the brute. By personality we mean the twofold power to\nknow self as related to the world and to God, and to determine self in\nview of moral ends. By virtue of this personality, man could at his\ncreation choose which of the objects of his knowledge\u2014self, the world, or\nGod\u2014should be the norm and centre of his development. This natural\nlikeness to God is inalienable, and as constituting a capacity for\nredemption gives value to the life even of the unregenerate (Gen. 9:6; 1\nCor. 11:7; James 3:9).\n\n\n For definitions of personality, see notes on the Anthropological\n Argument, page 82; on Pantheism, pages 104, 105; on the\n Attributes, pages 252-254; and on the Person of Christ, in Part\n VI. Here we may content ourselves with the formula: Personality =\n self-consciousness + self-determination. _Self_-consciousness and\n _self_-determination, as distinguished from the consciousness and\n determination of the brute, involve all the higher mental and\n moral powers which constitute us men. Conscience is but a mode of\n their activity. Notice that the term \u201cimage\u201d does not, in man,\n imply _perfect_ representation. Only Christ is the \u201c_very image_\u201d\n of God (_Heb. 1:3_), the \u201c_image of the invisible God_\u201d (_Col.\n 1:15_\u2014on which see Lightfoot). Christ is the image of God\n absolutely and archetypally; man, only relatively and\n derivatively. But notice also that, since God is Spirit, man made\n in God\u2019s image cannot be a material thing. By virtue of his\n possession of this first element of the image of God, namely,\n personality, materialism is excluded.\n\n This first element of the divine image man can never lose until he\n ceases to be man. Even insanity can only obscure this natural\n image,\u2014it cannot destroy it. St. Bernard well said that it could\n not be burned out, even in hell. The lost piece of money (_Luke\n 15:8_) still bore the image and superscription of the king, even\n though it did not know it, and did not even know that it was lost.\n Human nature is therefore to be reverenced, and he who destroys\n human life is to be put to death: _Gen. 9:6_\u2014\u201c_for in the image of\n God made he man_\u201d; _1 Cor. 11:7_\u2014\u201c_a man indeed ought not to have\n his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God_\u201d;\n _James 3:9_\u2014even men whom we curse \u201c_are made after the likeness\n of God_\u201d; _cf._ _Ps. 8:5_\u2014\u201c_thou hast made him but little lower\n than God_\u201d; _1 Pet. 2:17_\u2014\u201c_Honor all men._\u201d In the being of every\n man are continents which no Columbus has ever yet discovered,\n depths of possible joy or sorrow which no plummet has ever yet\n sounded. A whole heaven, a whole hell, may lie within the compass\n of his single soul. If we could see the meanest real Christian as\n he will be in the great hereafter, we should bow before him as\n John bowed before the angel in the Apocalypse, for we should not\n be able to distinguish him from God (_Rev. 22:8, 9_).\n\n Sir William Hamilton: \u201cOn earth there is nothing great but man; In\n man there is nothing great but mind.\u201d We accept this dictum only\n if \u201cmind\u201d can be understood to include man\u2019s moral powers together\n with the right direction of those powers. Shakespeare, Hamlet,\n 2:2\u2014\u201cWhat a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! how\n infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable!\n in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god!\u201d\n Pascal: \u201cMan is greater than the universe; the universe may crush\n him, but it does not know that it crushes him.\u201d Whiton, Gloria\n Patri, 94\u2014\u201cGod is not only the Giver but the Sharer of my life. My\n natural powers are that part of God\u2019s power which is lodged with\n me in trust to keep and use.\u201d Man can be an _instrument_ of God,\n without being an _agent_ of God. \u201cEach man has his place and value\n as a reflection of God and of Christ. Like a letter in a word, or\n a word in a sentence, he gets his meaning from his context; but\n the sentence is meaningless without him; rays from the whole\n universe converge in him.\u201d John Howe\u2019s Living Temple shows the\n greatness of human nature in its first construction and even in\n its ruin. Only a noble ship could make so great a wreck.\n Aristotle, Problem, sec. 30\u2014\u201cNo excellent soul is exempt from a\n mixture of madness.\u201d Seneca, De Tranquillitate Animi, 15\u2014\u201cThere is\n no great genius without a tincture of madness.\u201d\n\n Kant: \u201cSo act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or\n in that of any other, in every case as an _end_, and never as a\n _means_ only.\u201d If there is a divine element in every man, then we\n have no right to _use_ a human being merely for our own pleasure\n or profit. In receiving him we receive Christ, and in receiving\n Christ we receive him who sent Christ (_Mat. 10:40_). Christ is\n the vine and all men are his natural branches, cutting themselves\n off only when they refuse to bear fruit, and condemning themselves\n to the burning only because they destroy, so far as they can\n destroy, God\u2019s image in them, all that makes them worth preserving\n (_John 15:1-6_). Cicero: \u201cHomo mortalis deus.\u201d This possession of\n natural likeness to God, or personality, involves boundless\n possibilities of good or ill, and it constitutes the natural\n foundation of the love for man which is required of us by the law.\n Indeed it constitutes the reason why Christ should die. Man was\n worth redeeming. The woman whose ring slipped from her finger and\n fell into the heap of mud in the gutter, bared her white arm and\n thrust her hand into the slimy mass until she found her ring; but\n she would not have done this if the ring had not contained a\n costly diamond. The lost piece of money, the lost sheep, the lost\n son, were worth effort to seek and to save (_Luke 15_). But, on\n the other hand, it is folly when man, made in the image of God,\n \u201cblinds himself with clay.\u201d The man on shipboard, who playfully\n tossed up the diamond ring which contained his whole fortune, at\n last to his distress tossed it overboard. There is a \u201c_merchandise\n of souls_\u201d (_Rev. 18:13_) and we must not juggle with them.\n\n Christ\u2019s death for man, by showing the worth of humanity, has\n recreated ethics. \u201cPlato defended infanticide as under certain\n circumstances permissible. Aristotle viewed slavery as founded in\n the nature of things. The reason assigned was the essential\n inferiority of nature on the part of the enslaved.\u201d But the divine\n image in man makes these barbarities no longer possible to us.\n Christ sometimes looked upon men with anger, but he never looked\n upon them with contempt. He taught the woman, he blessed the\n child, he cleansed the leper, he raised the dead. His own death\n revealed the infinite worth of the meanest human soul, and taught\n us to count all men as brethren for whose salvation we may well\n lay down our lives. George Washington answered the salute of his\n slave. Abraham Lincoln took off his hat to a negro who gave him\n his blessing as he entered Richmond; but a lady who had been\n brought up under the old regime looked from a window upon the\n scene with unspeakable horror. Robert Burns, walking with a\n nobleman in Edinburgh, met an old townsfellow from Ayr and stopped\n to talk with him. The nobleman, kept waiting, grew restive, and\n afterward reproved Burns for talking to a man with so bad a coat.\n Burns replied: \u201cI was not talking to the coat,\u2014I was talking to\n the man.\u201d Jean Ingelow: \u201cThe street and market place Grow holy\n ground: each face\u2014Pale faces marked with care, Dark, toilworn\n brows\u2014grows fair. King\u2019s children are all these, though want and\n sin Have marred their beauty, glorious within. We may not pass\n them but with reverent eye.\u201d See Porter, Human Intellect, 393,\n 394, 401; Wuttke, Christian Ethics, 2:42; Philippi, Glaubenslehre,\n 2:343.\n\n\n2. Moral likeness to God, or holiness.\n\n\nIn addition to the powers of self-consciousness and self-determination\njust mentioned, man was created with such a direction of the affections\nand the will, as constituted God the supreme end of man\u2019s being, and\nconstituted man a finite reflection of God\u2019s moral attributes. Since\nholiness is the fundamental attribute of God, this must of necessity be\nthe chief attribute of his image in the moral beings whom he creates. That\noriginal righteousness was essential to this image, is also distinctly\ntaught in Scripture (Eccl. 7:29; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10).\n\n\n Besides the possession of natural powers, the image of God\n involves the possession of right moral tendencies. It is not\n enough to say that man was created in a state of innocence. The\n Scripture asserts that man had a righteousness like God\u2019s: _Eccl.\n 7:29_\u2014\u201c_God made man upright_\u201d; _Eph. 4:24_\u2014\u201c_the new man, that\n after God hath been created in righteousness and holiness of\n truth_\u201d\u2014here Meyer says: \u201c\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd, \u2018_after God_,\u2019 _i. e._, _ad\n exemplum Dei_, after the pattern of God (_Gal. 4:28_\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f38\u03c3\u03b1\u03ac\u03ba,\n \u2018after Isaac\u2019 = as Isaac was). This phrase makes the creation of\n the new man a parallel to that of our first parents, who were\n created after God\u2019s image; they too, before sin came into\n existence through Adam, were sinless\u2014\u2018_in righteousness and\n holiness of truth_.\u2019 \u201d On N. T. \u201ctruth\u201d = rectitude, see Wendt,\n Teaching of Jesus, 1:257-260.\n\n Meyer refers also, as a parallel passage, to _Col. 3:10_\u2014\u201c_the new\n man, that is being renewed unto knowledge after the image of him\n that created him._\u201d Here the \u201c_knowledge_\u201d referred to is that\n knowledge of God which is the source of all virtue, and which is\n inseparable from holiness of heart. \u201cHoliness has two sides or\n phases: (1) it is perception and knowledge; (2) it is inclination\n and feeling\u201d (Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:97). On _Eph. 4:24_ and _Col.\n 3:10_, the classical passages with regard to man\u2019s original state,\n see also the Commentaries of DeWette, R\u00fcckert, Ellicott, and\n compare _Gen. 5:3_\u2014\u201c_And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years,\n and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image,_\u201d _i. e._,\n in his own sinful likeness, which is evidently contrasted with the\n \u201c_likeness of God_\u201d (_verse 1_) in which he himself had been\n created (An. Par. Bible). _2 Cor. 4:4_\u2014\u201c_Christ, who is the image\n of God_\u201d\u2014where the phrase \u201c_image of God_\u201d is not simply the\n _natural_, but also the _moral_, image. Since Christ is the image\n of God primarily in his holiness, man\u2019s creation in the image of\n God must have involved a holiness like Christ\u2019s, so far as such\n holiness could belong to a being yet untried, that is, so far as\n respects man\u2019s tastes and dispositions prior to moral action.\n\n \u201cCouldst thou in vision see Thyself the man God meant, Thou\n nevermore couldst be The man thou art\u2014content.\u201d Newly created man\n had right moral tendencies, as well as freedom from actual fault.\n Otherwise the communion with God described in Genesis would not\n have been possible. Goethe: \u201cUnless the eye were sunlike, how\n could it see the sun?\u201d Because a holy disposition accompanied\n man\u2019s innocence, he was capable of obedience, and was guilty when\n he sinned. The loss of this moral likeness to God was the chief\n calamity of the Fall. Man is now \u201cthe glory and the scandal of the\n universe.\u201d He has defaced the image of God in his nature, even\n though that image, in its natural aspect, is ineffaceable (E. H.\n Johnson).\n\n The dignity of human nature consists, not so much in what man is,\n as in what God meant him to be, and in what God means him yet to\n become, when the lost image of God is restored by the union of\n man\u2019s soul with Christ. Because of his future possibilities, the\n meanest of mankind is sacred. The great sin of the second table of\n the decalogue is the sin of despising our fellow man. To cherish\n contempt for others can have its root only in idolatry of self and\n rebellion against God. Abraham Lincoln said well that \u201cGod must\n have liked common people,\u2014else he would not have made so many of\n them.\u201d Regard for the image of God in man leads also to kind and\n reverent treatment even of those lower animals in which so many\n human characteristics are foreshadowed. Bradford, Heredity and\n Christian Problems, 166\u2014\u201cThe current philosophy says: The fittest\n will survive; let the rest die. The religion of Christ says: That\n maxim as applied to men is just, only as regards their\n characteristics, of which indeed only the fittest should survive.\n It does not and cannot apply to the men themselves, since all men,\n being children of God, are supremely fit. The very fact that a\n human being is sick, weak, poor, an outcast, and a vagabond, is\n the strongest possible appeal for effort toward his salvation. Let\n individuals look upon humanity from the point of view of Christ,\n and they will not be long in finding ways in which environment can\n be caused to work for righteousness.\u201d\n\n\nThis original righteousness, in which the image of God chiefly consisted,\nis to be viewed:\n\n(_a_) Not as constituting the substance or essence of human nature,\u2014for in\nthis case human nature would have ceased to exist as soon as man sinned.\n\n\n Men every day change their tastes and loves, without changing the\n essence or substance of their being. When sin is called a\n \u201cnature,\u201d therefore (as by Shedd, in his Essay on \u201cSin a Nature,\n and that Nature Guilt\u201d), it is only in the sense of being\n something inborn (_natura_, from _nascor_). Hereditary tastes may\n just as properly be denominated a \u201cnature\u201d as may the substance of\n one\u2019s being. Moehler, the greatest modern Roman Catholic critic of\n Protestant doctrine, in his Symbolism, 58, 59, absurdly holds\n Luther to have taught that by the Fall man lost his essential\n nature, and that another essence was substituted in its room.\n Luther, however, is only rhetorical when he says: \u201cIt is the\n nature of man to sin; sin constitutes the essence of man; the\n nature of man since the Fall has become quite changed; original\n sin is that very thing which is born of father and mother; the\n clay out of which we are formed is damnable; the f\u0153tus in the\n maternal womb is sin; man as born of his father and mother,\n together with his whole essence and nature, is not only a sinner\n but sin itself.\u201d\n\n\n(_b_) Nor as a _gift_ from without, foreign to human nature, and added to\nit after man\u2019s creation,\u2014for man is said to have possessed the divine\nimage by the fact of creation, and not by subsequent bestowal.\n\n\n As men, since Adam, are born with a sinful nature, that is, with\n tendencies away from God, so Adam was created with a holy nature,\n that is, with tendencies toward God. Moehler says: \u201cGod cannot\n give a man actions.\u201d We reply: \u201cNo, but God can give man\n dispositions; and he does this at the first creation, as well as\n at the new creation (regeneration).\u201d\n\n\n(_c_) But rather, as an original direction or tendency of man\u2019s affections\nand will, still accompanied by the power of evil choice, and so, differing\nfrom the perfected holiness of the saints, as instinctive affection and\nchild-like innocence differ from the holiness that has been developed and\nconfirmed by experience of temptation.\n\n\n Man\u2019s original righteousness was not immutable or indefectible;\n there was still the possibility of sinning. Though the first man\n was fundamentally good, he still had the power of choosing evil.\n There was a bent of the affections and will toward God, but man\n was not yet confirmed in holiness. Man\u2019s love for God was like the\n germinal filial affection in the child, not developed, yet\n sincere\u2014\u201ccaritas puerilis, non virilis.\u201d\n\n\n(_d_) As a moral disposition, moreover, which was propagable to Adam\u2019s\ndescendants, if it continued, and which, though lost to him and to them,\nif Adam sinned, would still leave man possessed of a natural likeness to\nGod which made him susceptible of God\u2019s redeeming grace.\n\n\n Hooker (Works, ed. Keble, 2:683) distinguishes between aptness and\n ableness. The latter, men have lost; the former, they retain,\u2014else\n grace could not work in us, more than in the brutes. Hase: \u201cOnly\n enough likeness to God remained to remind man of what he had lost,\n and enable him to feel the hell of God\u2019s forsaking.\u201d The moral\n likeness to God can be restored, but only by God himself. God\n secures this to men by making \u201c_the light of the gospel of the\n glory of Christ, who is the image of God, ... dawn upon them_\u201d (_2\n Cor. 4:4_). Pusey made _Ps. 72:6_\u2014\u201c_He will come down like rain\n upon the mown grass_\u201d\u2014the image of a world hopelessly dead, but\n with a hidden capacity for receiving life. Dr. Daggett: \u201cMan is a\n \u2018_son of the morning_\u2019 (_Is. 14:12_), fallen, yet arrested midway\n between heaven and hell, a prize between the powers of light and\n darkness.\u201d See Edwards, Works, 2:19, 20, 381-390; Hopkins, Works,\n 1:162; Shedd, Hist. Doctrine, 2:50-66; Augustine, De Civitate Dei,\n 14:11.\n\n\nIn the light of the preceding investigation, we may properly estimate two\ntheories of man\u2019s original state which claim to be more Scriptural and\nreasonable:\n\n\nA. The image of God as including only personality.\n\n\nThis theory denies that any positive determination to virtue inhered\noriginally in man\u2019s nature, and regards man at the beginning as simply\npossessed of spiritual powers, perfectly adjusted to each other. This is\nthe view of Schleiermacher, who is followed by Nitzsch, Julius M\u00fcller, and\nHofmann.\n\n\n For the view here combated, see Schleiermacher, Christl. Glaube,\n sec. 60; Nitzsch, System of Christian Doctrine, 201; Julius\n M\u00fcller, Doct. of Sin, 2:113-133, 350-357; Hofmann, Schriftbeweis,\n 1:287-291; Bib. Sac., 7:409-425. Julius M\u00fcller\u2019s theory of the\n Fall in a pre\u00ebxistent state makes it impossible for him to hold\n here that Adam was possessed of moral likeness to God. The origin\n of his view of the image of God renders it liable to suspicion.\n Pfleiderer, Grundriss, 113\u2014\u201cThe original state of man was that of\n child-like innocence or morally indifferent naturalness, which had\n in itself indeed the possibility (_Anlage_) of ideal development,\n but in such a way that its realization could be reached only by\n struggle with its natural opposite. The image of God was already\n present in the original state, but only as the possibility\n (_Anlage_) of real likeness to God\u2014the endowment of reason which\n belonged to human personality. The _reality_ of a spirit like that\n of God has appeared first in the _second_ Adam, and has become the\n principle of the kingdom of God.\u201d\n\n Raymond (Theology, 2:43, 132) is an American representative of the\n view that the image of God consists in mere personality: \u201cThe\n image of God in which man was created did not consist in an\n inclination and determination of the will to holiness.\u201d This is\n maintained upon the ground that such a moral likeness to God would\n have rendered it impossible for man to fall,\u2014to which we reply\n that Adam\u2019s righteousness was not immutable, and the bias of his\n will toward God did not render it impossible for him to sin.\n Motives do not compel the will, and Adam at least had a certain\n power of contrary choice. E. G. Robinson, Christ. Theology,\n 119-122, also maintains that the image of God signified only that\n personality which distinguished man from the brute. Christ, he\n says, carries forward human nature to a higher point, instead of\n merely restoring what is lost. \u201c_Very good_\u201d (_Gen. 1:31_) does\n not imply moral perfection,\u2014this cannot be the result of creation,\n but only of discipline and will. Man\u2019s original state was only one\n of untried innocence. Dr. Robinson is combating the view that the\n first man was at his creation possessed of a developed character.\n He distinguishes between character and the germs of character.\n These germs he grants that man possessed. And so he defines the\n image of God as a constitutional predisposition toward a course of\n right conduct. This is all the perfection which we claim for the\n first man. We hold that this predisposition toward the good can\n properly be called character, since it is the germ from which all\n holy action springs.\n\n\nIn addition to what has already been said in support of the opposite view,\nwe may urge against this theory the following objections:\n\n(_a_) It is contrary to analogy, in making man the author of his own\nholiness; our sinful condition is not the product of our individual wills,\nnor is our subsequent condition of holiness the product of anything but\nGod\u2019s regenerating power.\n\n\n To hold that Adam was created undecided, would make man, as\n Philippi says, in the highest sense his own creator. But morally,\n as well as physically, man is God\u2019s creature. In regeneration it\n is not sufficient for God to give _power_ to decide for good; God\n must give new _love_ also. If this be so in the new creation, God\n could give love in the first creation also. Holiness therefore is\n creatable. \u201c_Underived_ holiness is possible only in God; in its\n origin, it is _given_ both to angels and men.\u201d Therefore we pray:\n \u201c_Create in me a clean heart_\u201d (_Ps. 51:10_); \u201c_Incline my heart\n unto thy testimonies_\u201d (_Ps. 119:36_). See Edwards, Eff. Grace,\n sec. 43-51; Kaftan, Dogmatik, 290\u2014\u201cIf Adam\u2019s perfection was not a\n moral perfection, then his sin was no real moral corruption.\u201d The\n _animus_ of the theory we are combating seems to be an\n unwillingness to grant that man, either in his first creation or\n in his new creation, owes his holiness to God.\n\n\n(_b_) The knowledge of God in which man was originally created logically\npresupposes a direction toward God of man\u2019s affections and will, since\nonly the holy heart can have any proper understanding of the God of\nholiness.\n\n\n \u201cUbi caritas, ibi claritas.\u201d Man\u2019s heart was originally filled\n with divine love, and out of this came the knowledge of God. We\n know God only as we love him, and this love comes not from our own\n single volition. No one loves by command, because no one can give\n himself love. In Adam love was an inborn impulse, which he could\n affirm or deny. Compare _1 Cor. 8:3_\u2014\u201c_if any man loveth God, the\n same_ [God] _is known by him_\u201d; _1 John 4:8_\u2014\u201c_He that loveth not\n knoweth not God._\u201d See other Scripture references on pages 3, 4.\n\n\n(_c_) A likeness to God in mere personality, such as Satan also possesses,\ncomes far short of answering the demands of the Scripture, in which the\nethical conception of the divine nature so overshadows the merely natural.\nThe image of God must be, not simply ability to be like God, but actual\nlikeness.\n\n\n God could never create an intelligent being evenly balanced\n between good and evil\u2014\u201con the razor\u2019s edge\u201d\u2014\u201con the fence.\u201d The\n preacher who took for his text \u201c_Adam, where art thou?_\u201d had for\n his first head: \u201cIt is every man\u2019s business to be somewhere;\u201d for\n his second: \u201cSome of you are where you ought not to be;\u201d and for\n his third: \u201cGet where you ought to be, as soon as possible.\u201d A\n simple capacity for good or evil is, as Augustine says, already\n sinful. A man who is neutral between good and evil is already a\n violator of that law, which requires likeness to God in the bent\n of his nature. Delitzsch, Bib. Psychol., 45-84\u2014\u201cPersonality is\n only the basis of the divine image,\u2014it is not the image itself.\u201d\n Bledsoe says there can be no created virtue or viciousness. Whedon\n (On the Will, 388) objects to this, and says rather: \u201cThere can be\n no created moral desert, good or evil. Adam\u2019s nature as created\n was pure and excellent, but there was nothing meritorious until he\n had freely and rightly exercised his will with full power to the\n contrary.\u201d We add: There was nothing meritorious even then. For\n substance of these objections, see Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 2:346.\n Lessing said that the character of the Germans was to have no\n character. Goethe partook of this cosmopolitan characterlessness\n (Prof. Seely). Tennyson had Goethe in view when he wrote in The\n Palace of Art: \u201cI sit apart, holding no form of creed, but\n contemplating all.\u201d And Goethe is probably still alluded to in the\n words: \u201cA glorious devil, large in heart and brain, That did love\n beauty only, Or if good, good only for its beauty\u201d; see A. H.\n Strong, The Great Poets and their Theology, 331; Robert Browning,\n Christmas Eve: \u201cThe truth in God\u2019s breast Lies trace for trace\n upon ours impressed: Though he is so bright, and we so dim, We are\n made in his image to witness him.\u201d\n\n\nB. The image of God as consisting simply in man\u2019s natural capacity for\nreligion.\n\n\nThis view, first elaborated by the scholastics, is the doctrine of the\nRoman Catholic Church. It distinguishes between the image and the likeness\nof God. The former (\u05e6\u05dc\u05dd\u2014Gen. 1:26) alone belonged to man\u2019s nature at its\ncreation. The latter (\u05d3\u05de\u05d5\u05ea) was the product of his own acts of obedience.\nIn order that this obedience might be made easier and the consequent\nlikeness to God more sure, a third element was added\u2014an element not\nbelonging to man\u2019s nature\u2014namely, a supernatural gift of special grace,\nwhich acted as a curb upon the sensuous impulses, and brought them under\nthe control of reason. Original righteousness was therefore not a natural\nendowment, but a joint product of man\u2019s obedience and of God\u2019s\nsupernatural grace.\n\n\n Roman Catholicism holds that the white paper of man\u2019s soul\n received two impressions instead of one. Protestantism sees no\n reason why both impressions should not have been given at the\n beginning. Kaftan, in Am. Jour. Theology, 4:708, gives a good\n statement of the Roman Catholic view. It holds that the supreme\n good transcends the finite mind and its powers of comprehension.\n Even at the first it was beyond man\u2019s created nature. The _donum\n superadditum_ did not inwardly and personally belong to him. Now\n that he has lost it, he is entirely dependent on the church for\n truth and grace. He does not receive the truth because it is this\n and no other, but because the church tells him that it is the\n truth.\n\n The Roman Catholic doctrine may be roughly and pictorially stated\n as follows: As created, man was morally naked, or devoid of\n positive righteousness (_pura naturalia_, or _in puris\n naturalibus_). By obedience he obtained as a reward from God\n (_donum supernaturale_, or _superadditum_) a suit of clothes or\n robe of righteousness to protect him, so that he became clothed\n (_vestitus_). This suit of clothes, however, was a sort of magic\n spell of which he could be divested. The adversary attacked him\n and stripped him of his suit. After his sin he was one despoiled\n (_spoliatus_). But his condition after differed from his condition\n before this attack, only as a stripped man differs from a naked\n man (_spoliatus a nudo_). He was now only in the same state in\n which he was created, with the single exception of the weakness he\n might feel as the result of losing his customary clothing. He\n could still earn himself another suit,\u2014in fact, he could earn two\n or more, so as to sell, or give away, what he did not need for\n himself. The phrase _in puris naturalibus_ describes the original\n state, as the phrase _spoliatus a nudo_ describes the difference\n resulting from man\u2019s sin.\n\n\nMany of the considerations already adduced apply equally as arguments\nagainst this view. We may say, however, with reference to certain features\npeculiar to the theory:\n\n(_a_) No such distinction can justly be drawn between the words \u05e6\u05dc\u05dd and\n\u05d3\u05dd\u05d5\u05ea. The addition of the synonym simply strengthens the expression, and\nboth together signify \u201cthe very image.\u201d\n\n(_b_) Whatever is denoted by either or both of these words was bestowed\nupon man in and by the fact of creation, and the additional hypothesis of\na supernatural gift not originally belonging to man\u2019s nature, but\nsubsequently conferred, has no foundation either here or elsewhere in\nScripture. Man is said to have been created in the image and likeness of\nGod, not to have been afterwards endowed with either of them.\n\n(_c_) The concreated opposition between sense and reason which this theory\nsupposes is inconsistent with the Scripture declaration that the work of\nGod\u2019s hands \u201cwas very good\u201d (Gen. 1:31), and transfers the blame of\ntemptation and sin from man to God. To hold to a merely negative\ninnocence, in which evil desire was only slumbering, is to make God author\nof sin by making him author of the constitution which rendered sin\ninevitable.\n\n(_d_) This theory directly contradicts Scripture by making the effect of\nthe first sin to have been a weakening but not a perversion of human\nnature, and the work of regeneration to be not a renewal of the affections\nbut merely a strengthening of the natural powers. The theory regards that\nfirst sin as simply despoiling man of a special gift of grace and as\nputting him where he was when first created\u2014still able to obey God and to\nco\u00f6perate with God for his own salvation,\u2014whereas the Scripture represents\nman since the fall as \u201cdead through ... trespasses and sins\u201d (Eph. 2:1),\nas incapable of true obedience (Rom. 8:7\u2014\u201cnot subject to the law of God,\nneither indeed can it be\u201d), and as needing to be \u201ccreated in Christ Jesus\nfor good works\u201d (Eph. 2:10).\n\n\n At few points in Christian doctrine do we see more clearly than\n here the large results of error which may ultimately spring from\n what might at first sight seem to be only a slight divergence from\n the truth. Augustine had rightly taught that in Adam the _posse\n non peccare_ was accompanied by a _posse peccare_, and that for\n this reason man\u2019s holy disposition needed the help of divine grace\n to preserve its integrity. But the scholastics wrongly added that\n this original disposition to righteousness was not the outflow of\n man\u2019s nature as originally created, but was the gift of grace. As\n this later teaching, however, was by some disputed, the Council of\n Trent (sess. 5, cap. 1) left the matter more indefinite, simply\n declaring man: \u201cSanctitatem et justitiam in qua _constitutus\n fuerat_, amisisse.\u201d The Roman Catechism, however (1:2:19),\n explained the phrase \u201cconstitutus fuerat\u201d by the words: \u201cTum\n originalis justiti\u00e6 admirabile donum _addidit_.\u201d And Bellarmine\n (De Gratia, 2) says plainly: \u201cImago, qu\u00e6 est ipsa natura mentis et\n voluntatis, a solo Deo fieri potuit; similitudo autem, qu\u00e6 in\n virtute et probitate consistit, _a nobis quoque_ Deo adjuvante\n perficitur.\u201d... (5) \u201cIntegritas illa ... non fuit naturalis ejus\n conditio, sed supernaturalis evectio.... Addidisse homini donum\n quoddam insigne, justitiam videlicet originalem, qua veluti aureo\n quodam fr\u00e6no pars inferior parti superiori subjecta contineretur.\u201d\n\n Moehler (Symbolism, 21-35) holds that the religious faculty\u2014the\n \u201cimage of God\u201d; the pious exertion of this faculty\u2014the \u201clikeness\n of God.\u201d He seems to favor the view that Adam received \u201cthis\n supernatural gift of a holy and blessed communion with God at a\n later period than his creation, _i. e._, only when he had prepared\n himself for its reception and by his own efforts had rendered\n himself worthy of it.\u201d He was created \u201cjust\u201d and acceptable to\n God, even without communion with God or help from God. He became\n \u201choly\u201d and enjoyed communion with God, only when God rewarded his\n obedience and bestowed the _supernaturale donum_. Although Moehler\n favors this view and claims that it is permitted by the standards,\n he also says that it is not definitely taught. The quotations from\n Bellarmine and the Roman Catechism above make it clear that it is\n the prevailing doctrine of the Roman Catholic church.\n\n So, to quote the words of Shedd, \u201cthe Tridentine theology starts\n with Pelagianism and ends with Augustinianism. Created without\n character, God subsequently endows man with character.... The\n Papal idea of creation differs from the Augustinian in that it\n involves imperfection. There is a disease and languor which\n require a subsequent and supernatural act to remedy.\u201d The\n Augustinian and Protestant conception of man\u2019s original state is\n far nobler than this. The ethical element is not a later addition,\n but is man\u2019s true nature\u2014essential to God\u2019s idea of him. The\n normal and original condition of man (_pura naturalia_) is one of\n grace and of the Spirit\u2019s indwelling\u2014hence, of direction toward\n God.\n\n From this original difference between Roman Catholic and\n Protestant doctrine with regard to man\u2019s original state result\n diverging views as to sin and as to regeneration. The Protestant\n holds that, as man was possessed by creation of moral likeness to\n God, or holiness, so his sin robbed his nature of its integrity,\n deprived it of essential and concreated advantages and powers, and\n substituted for these a positive corruption and tendency to evil.\n Unpremeditated evil desire, or concupiscence, is original sin; as\n concreated love for God constituted man\u2019s original righteousness.\n No man since the fall has original righteousness, and it is man\u2019s\n sin that he has it not. Since without love to God no act, emotion,\n or thought of man can answer the demands of God\u2019s law, the\n Scripture denies to fallen man all power of himself to know,\n think, feel, or do aright. His nature therefore needs a\n new-creation, a resurrection from death, such as God only, by his\n mighty Spirit, can work; and to this work of God man can\n contribute nothing, except as power is first given him by God\n himself.\n\n According to the Roman Catholic view, however, since the image of\n God in which man was created included only man\u2019s religious\n faculty, his sin can rob him only of what became subsequently and\n adventitiously his. Fallen man differs from unfallen only as\n _spoliatus a nudo_. He loses only a sort of magic spell, which\n leaves him still in possession of all his essential powers.\n Unpremeditated evil desire, or concupiscence, is not sin; for this\n belonged to his nature even before he fell. His sin has therefore\n only put him back into the natural state of conflict and\n concupiscence, ordered by God in the concreated opposition of\n sense and reason. The sole qualification is this, that, having\n made an evil decision, his will is weakened. \u201cMan does not need\n resurrection from death, but rather a crutch to help his lameness,\n a tonic to reinforce his feebleness, a medicine to cure his\n sickness.\u201d He is still able to turn to God; and in regeneration\n the Holy Spirit simply awakens and strengthens the natural ability\n slumbering in the natural man. But even here, man must yield to\n the influence of the Holy Spirit; and regeneration is effected by\n uniting his power to the divine. In baptism the guilt of original\n sin is remitted, and everything called sin is taken away. No\n baptized person has any further process of regeneration to\n undergo. Man has not only strength to co\u00f6perate with God for his\n own salvation, but he may even go beyond the demands of the law\n and perform works of supererogation. And the whole sacramental\n system of the Roman Catholic Church, with its salvation by works,\n its purgatorial fires, and its invocation of the saints, connects\n itself logically with this erroneous theory of man\u2019s original\n state.\n\n See Dorner\u2019s Augustinus, 116; Perrone, Pr\u00e6lectiones Theologic\u00e6,\n 1:737-748; Winer, Confessions, 79, 80; Dorner, History Protestant\n Theology, 38, 39, and Glaubenslehre, 1:51; Van Oosterzee,\n Dogmatics, 376; Cunningham, Historical Theology, 1:516-586; Shedd,\n Hist. Doctrine, 2:140-149.\n\n\n\nII. Incidents of Man\u2019s Original State.\n\n\n1. Results of man\u2019s possession of the divine image.\n\n\n(_a_) Reflection of this divine image in man\u2019s physical form.\u2014Even in\nman\u2019s body were typified those higher attributes which chiefly constituted\nhis likeness to God. A gross perversion of this truth, however, is the\nview which holds, upon the ground of Gen. 2:7, and 3:8, that the image of\nGod consists in bodily resemblance to the Creator. In the first of these\npassages, it is not the divine image, but the body, that is formed of\ndust, and into this body the soul that possesses the divine image is\nbreathed. The second of these passages is to be interpreted by those other\nportions of the Pentateuch in which God is represented as free from all\nlimitations of matter (Gen. 11:5; 18:15).\n\n\n The spirit presents the divine image immediately: the body,\n mediately. The scholastics called the soul the image of God\n _proprie_; the body they called the image of God _significative_.\n Soul is the direct reflection of God; body is the reflection of\n that reflection. The _os sublime_ manifests the dignity of the\n endowments within. Hence the word \u201cupright,\u201d as applied to moral\n condition; one of the first impulses of the renewed man is to\n physical purity. Compare Ovid, Metaph., bk. 1, Dryden\u2019s transl.:\n \u201cThus while the mute creation downward bend Their sight, and to\n their earthly mother tend, Man looks aloft, and with erected eyes\n Beholds his own hereditary skies.\u201d (\u1f0c\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, from \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac, \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9,\n suffix _tra_, and \u1f62\u03c8, with reference to the upright posture.)\n Milton speaks of \u201cthe human face divine.\u201d S. S. Times, July 28,\n 1900\u2014\u201cMan is the only erect being among living creatures. He alone\n looks up naturally and without effort. He foregoes his birthright\n when he looks only at what is on a level with his eyes and\n occupies himself only with what lies in the plane of his own\n existence.\u201d\n\n Bretschneider (Dogmatik, 1:682) regards the Scripture as teaching\n that the image of God consists in bodily resemblance to the\n Creator, but considers this as only the imperfect method of\n representation belonging to an early age. So Strauss,\n Glaubenslehre, 1:687. They refer to _Gen. 2:7_\u2014\u201c_And Jehovah God\n formed man of the dust of the ground_\u201d; _3:8_\u2014\u201c_Jehovah God\n walking in the garden._\u201d But see _Gen. 11:5_\u2014\u201c_And Jehovah came\n down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men\n builded_\u201d; _Is. 66:1_\u2014\u201c_Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my\n footstool_\u201d; _1 K. 8:27_\u2014\u201c_behold, heaven and the heaven of\n heavens cannot contain thee._\u201d On the Anthropomorphites, see\n Hagenbach, Hist. Doct., 1:103, 308, 491. For answers to\n Bretschneider and Strauss, see Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 2:364.\n\n\n(_b_) Subjection of the sensuous impulses to the control of the\nspirit.\u2014Here we are to hold a middle ground between two extremes. On the\none hand, the first man possessed a body and a spirit so fitted to each\nother that no conflict was felt between their several claims. On the other\nhand, this physical perfection was not final and absolute, but relative\nand provisional. There was still room for progress to a higher state of\nbeing (Gen. 3:22).\n\n\n Sir Henry Watton\u2019s Happy Life: \u201cThat man was free from servile\n bands Of hope to rise or fear to fall, Lord of himself if not of\n lands, And having nothing yet had all.\u201d Here we hold to the\n _\u00e6quale temperamentum_. There was no disease, but rather the joy\n of abounding health. Labor was only a happy activity. God\u2019s\n infinite creatorship and fountainhead of being was typified in\n man\u2019s powers of generation. But there was no concreated opposition\n of sense and reason, nor an imperfect physical nature with whose\n impulses reason was at war. With this moderate Scriptural\n doctrine, contrast the exaggerations of the Fathers and of the\n scholastics. Augustine says that Adam\u2019s reason was to ours what\n the bird\u2019s is to that of the tortoise; propagation in the unfallen\n state would have been without concupiscence, and the new-born\n child would have attained perfection at birth. Albertus Magnus\n thought the first man would have felt no pain, even though he had\n been stoned with heavy stones. Scotus Erigena held that the male\n and female elements were yet undistinguished. Others called\n sexuality the first sin. Jacob Boehme regarded the intestinal\n canal, and all connected with it, as the consequence of the Fall;\n he had the fancy that the earth was transparent at the first and\n cast no shadow,\u2014sin, he thought, had made it opaque and dark;\n redemption would restore it to its first estate and make night a\n thing of the past. South, Sermons, 1:24, 25\u2014\u201cMan came into the\n world a philosopher.... Aristotle was but the rubbish of an Adam.\u201d\n Lyman Abbott tells us of a minister who assured his congregation\n that Adam was acquainted with the telephone. But God educates his\n children, as chemists educate their pupils, by putting them into\n the laboratory and letting them work. Scripture does not represent\n Adam as a walking encyclop\u00e6dia, but as a being yet inexperienced;\n see _Gen. 3:22_\u2014\u201c_Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know\n good and evil_\u201d; _1 Cor. 15:46_\u2014\u201c_that is not first which is\n spiritual, but that which is natural; then that which is\n spiritual._\u201d On this last text, see Expositor\u2019s Greek Testament.\n\n\n(_c_) Dominion over the lower creation.\u2014Adam possessed an insight into\nnature analogous to that of susceptible childhood, and therefore was able\nto name and to rule the brute creation (Gen. 2:19). Yet this native\ninsight was capable of development into the higher knowledge of culture\nand science. From Gen. 1:26 (_cf._ Ps. 8:5-8), it has been erroneously\ninferred that the image of God in man consists in dominion over the brute\ncreation and the natural world. But, in this verse, the words \u201clet them\nhave dominion\u201d do not define the image of God, but indicate the result of\npossessing that image. To make the image of God consist in this dominion,\nwould imply that only the divine omnipotence was shadowed forth in man.\n\n\n _Gen. 2:19_\u2014\u201c_Jehovah God formed every beast of the field, and\n every bird of the heavens; and brought them unto the man to see\n what he would call them_\u201d; _20_\u2014\u201c_And the man gave names to all\n cattle_\u201d; _Gen. 1:26_\u2014\u201c_Let us make man in our image, after our\n likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and\n over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle_\u201d; _cf._ _Ps.\n 8:5-8_\u2014\u201c_thou hast made him but little lower than God, And\n crownest him with glory and honor. Thou makest him to have\n dominion over the works of thy hands; Thou hast put all things\n under his feet: All sheep and oxen, Yea, and the beasts of the\n field._\u201d Adam\u2019s naming the animals implied insight into their\n nature; see Porter, Hum. Intellect, 393, 394, 401. On man\u2019s\n original dominion over (1) self, (2) nature, (3) fellow-man, see\n Hopkins, Scriptural Idea of Man, 105.\n\n Courage and a good conscience have a power over the brute\n creation, and unfallen man can well be supposed to have dominated\n creatures which had no experience of human cruelty. Rarey tamed\n the wildest horses by his steadfast and fearless eye. In Paris a\n young woman was hypnotized and put into a den of lions. She had no\n fear of the lions and the lions paid not the slightest attention\n to her. The little daughter of an English officer in South Africa\n wandered away from camp and spent the night among lions.\n \u201cKatrina,\u201d her father said when he found her, \u201cwere you not afraid\n to be alone here?\u201d \u201cNo, papa,\u201d she replied, \u201cthe big dogs played\n with me and one of them lay here and kept me warm.\u201d MacLaren, in\n S. S. Times, Dec. 23, 1893\u2014\u201cThe dominion over all creatures\n results from likeness to God. It is not then a mere right to use\n them for one\u2019s own material advantage, but a viceroy\u2019s authority,\n which the holder is bound to employ for the honor of the true\n King.\u201d This principle gives the warrant and the limit to\n vivisection and to the killing of the lower animals for food\n (_Gen. 9:2, 3._).\n\n Socinian writers generally hold the view that the image of God\n consisted simply in this dominion. Holding a low view of the\n nature of sin, they are naturally disinclined to believe that the\n fall has wrought any profound change in human nature. See their\n view stated in the Racovian Catechism, 21. It is held also by the\n Arminian Limborch, Theol. Christ., ii, 24:2, 3, 11. Upon the basis\n of this interpretation of Scripture, the Encratites held, with\n Peter Martyr, that women do not possess the divine image at all.\n\n\n(_d_) Communion with God.\u2014Our first parents enjoyed the divine presence\nand teaching (Gen. 2:16). It would seem that God manifested himself to\nthem in visible form (Gen. 3:8). This companionship was both in kind and\ndegree suited to their spiritual capacity, and by no means necessarily\ninvolved that perfected vision of God which is possible to beings of\nconfirmed and unchangeable holiness (Mat. 5:8; 1 John 3:2).\n\n\n _Gen. 2:16_\u2014\u201c_And Jehovah God commanded the man_\u201d; _3:8_\u2014\u201c_And\n they heard the voice of Jehovah God walking in the garden in the\n cool of the day_\u201d; _Mat. 5:8_\u2014\u201c_Blessed are the pure in heart: for\n they shall see God_\u201d; _1 John 3:2_\u2014\u201c_We know that, if he shall be\n manifested, we shall be like him; for we shall see him even as he\n is_\u201d; _Rev. 22:4_\u2014\u201c_and they shall see his his face._\u201d\n\n\n2. Concomitants of man\u2019s possession of the divine image.\n\n\n(_a_) Surroundings and society fitted to yield happiness and to assist a\nholy development of human nature (Eden and Eve). We append some recent\ntheories with regard to the creation of Eve and the nature of Eden.\n\n\n Eden\u2014pleasure, delight. Tennyson: \u201cWhen high in Paradise By the\n four rivers the first roses blew.\u201d Streams were necessary to the\n very existence of an oriental garden. Hopkins, Script. Idea of\n Man, 107\u2014\u201cMan includes woman. Creation of _a_ man without a woman\n would not have been the creation of man. Adam called her name Eve\n but God called their name Adam.\u201d Mat. Henry: \u201cNot out of his head\n to top him, nor out of his feet to be trampled on by him; but out\n of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected by\n him, and near his heart to be beloved.\u201d Robert Burns says of\n nature: \u201cHer \u2019prentice hand she tried on man, And then she made\n the lasses, O!\u201d Stevens, Pauline Theology, 329\u2014\u201cIn the natural\n relations of the sexes there is a certain reciprocal dependence,\n since it is not only true that woman was made from man, but that\n man is born of woman (_1 Cor. 11:11, 12_).\u201d Of the Elgin marbles\n Boswell asked: \u201cDon\u2019t you think them indecent?\u201d Dr. Johnson\n replied: \u201cNo, sir; but your question is.\u201d Man, who in the adult\n state possesses twelve pairs of ribs, is found in the embryonic\n state to have thirteen or fourteen. Dawson, Modern Ideas of\n Evolution, 148\u2014\u201cWhy does not the male man lack one rib? Because\n only the individual skeleton of Adam was affected by the taking of\n the rib.... The unfinished vertebral arches of the skin-fibrous\n layer may have produced a new individual by a process of budding\n or gemmation.\u201d\n\n H. H. Bawden suggests that the account of Eve\u2019s creation may be\n the \u201cpictorial summary\u201d of an actual phylogenetic evolutionary\n process by which the sexes were separated or isolated from a\n common hermaphroditic ancestor or ancestry. The mesodermic portion\n of the organism in which the urinogenital system has its origin\n develops later than the ectodermic or the endodermic portions. The\n word \u201crib\u201d may designate this mesodermic portion. Bayard Taylor,\n John Godfrey\u2019s Fortunes, 392, suggests that a genius is\n hermaphroditic, adding a male element to the woman, and a female\n element to the man. Professor Loeb, Am. Journ. Physiology, Vol.\n III, no. 3, has found that in certain chemical solutions prepared\n in the laboratory, approximately the concentration of sea-water,\n the unfertilized eggs of the sea-urchin will mature without the\n intervention of the spermatozo\u00f6n. Perfect embryos and normal\n individuals are produced under these conditions. He thinks it\n probable that similar parthenogenesis may be produced in higher\n types of being. In 1900 he achieved successful results on\n Annelids, though it is doubtful whether he produced anything more\n than normal _larv\u00e6_. These results have been criticized by a\n European investigator who is also a Roman priest. Prof. Loeb wrote\n a rejoinder in which he expressed surprise that a representative\n of the Roman church did not heartily endorse his conclusions,\n since they afford a vindication of the doctrine of the immaculate\n conception.\n\n H. H. Bawden has reviewed Prof. Loeb\u2019s work in the Psychological\n Review, Jan. 1900. Jan\u00f3sik has found segmentation in the\n unfertilized eggs of mammalians. Prof. Loeb considers it possible\n that only the ions of the blood prevent the parthenogenetic origin\n of embryos in mammals, and thinks it not improbable that by a\n transitory change in these ions it will be possible to produce\n complete parthenogenesis in these higher types. Dr. Bawden goes on\n to say that \u201cboth parent and child are dependent upon a common\n source of energy. The universe is one great organism, and there is\n no inorganic or non-organic matter, but differences only in\n degrees of organization. Sex is designed only secondarily for the\n perpetuation of species; primarily it is the bond or medium for\n the connection and interaction of the various parts of this great\n organism, for maintaining that degree of heterogeneity which is\n the prerequisite of a high degree of organization. By means of the\n growth of a lifetime I have become an essential part in a great\n organic system. What I call my individual personality represents\n simply the focusing, the flowering of the universe at one finite\n concrete point or centre. Must not then my personality continue as\n long as that universal system continues? And is immortality\n conceivable if the soul is something shut up within itself,\n unshareable and unique? Are not the many foci mutually\n interdependent, instead of mutually exclusive? We must not then\n conceive of an immortality which means the continued existence of\n an individual cut off from that social context which is really\n essential to his very nature.\u201d\n\n J. H. Richardson suggests in the Standard, Sept. 10, 1901, that\n the first chapter of Genesis describes the creation of the\n spiritual part of man only\u2014that part which was made in the image\n of God\u2014while the second chapter describes the creation of man\u2019s\n body, the animal part, which may have been originated by a process\n of evolution. S. W. Howland, in Bib. Sac., Jan. 1903:121-128,\n supposes Adam and Eve to have been twins, joined by the ensiform\n cartilage or breast-bone, as were the Siamese Chang and Eng. By\n violence or accident this cartilage was broken before it hardened\n into bone, and the two were separated until puberty. Then Adam saw\n Eve coming to him with a bone projecting from her side\n corresponding to the hollow in his own side, and said: \u201cShe is\n bone of my bone; she must have been taken from my side when I\n slept.\u201d This tradition was handed down to his posterity. The Jews\n have a tradition that Adam was created double-sexed, and that the\n two sexes were afterwards separated. The Hindus say that man was\n at first of both sexes and divided himself in order to people the\n earth. In the Zodiac of Dendera, Castor and Pollux appear as man\n and woman, and these twins, some say, were called Adam and Eve.\n The Coptic name for this sign is _Pi Mahi_, \u201cthe United.\u201d Darwin,\n in the postscript to a letter to Lyell, written as early as July,\n 1850, tells his friend that he has \u201ca pleasant genealogy for\n mankind,\u201d and describes our remotest ancestor as \u201can animal which\n breathed water, had a swim-bladder, a great swimming tail, an\n imperfect skull, and was undoubtedly a hermaphrodite.\u201d\n\n Matthew Arnold speaks of \u201cthe freshness of the early world.\u201d\n Novalis says that \u201call philosophy begins in homesickness.\u201d\n Shelley, Skylark: \u201cWe look before and after, And pine for what is\n not; Our sincerest laughter With some pain is fraught; Our\n sweetest songs are those That tell of saddest thought.\u201d\u2014\u201cThe\n golden conception of a Paradise is the poet\u2019s guiding thought.\u201d\n There is a universal feeling that we are not now in our natural\n state; that we are far away from home; that we are exiles from our\n true habitation. Keble, Groans of Nature: \u201cSuch thoughts, the\n wreck of Paradise, Through many a dreary age, Upbore whate\u2019er of\n good or wise Yet lived in bard or sage.\u201d Poetry and music echo the\n longing for some possession lost. Jessica in Shakespeare\u2019s\n Merchant of Venice: \u201cI am never merry when I hear sweet music.\u201d\n All true poetry is forward-looking or backward-looking prophecy,\n as sculpture sets before us the original or the resurrection body.\n See Isaac Taylor, Hebrew Poetry, 94-101; Tyler, Theol. of Greek\n Poets, 225, 226.\n\n Wellhausen, on the legend of a golden age, says: \u201cIt is the\n yearning song which goes through all the peoples: having attained\n the historical civilization, they feel the worth of the goods\n which they have sacrificed for it.\u201d He regards the golden age as\n only an ideal image, like the millennial kingdom at the end. Man\n differs from the beast in this power to form ideals. His\n destination _to_ God shows his descent _from_ God. Hegel in a\n similar manner claimed that the Paradisaic condition is only an\n ideal conception underlying human development. But may not the\n traditions of the gardens of Brahma and of the Hesperides embody\n the world\u2019s recollection of an historical fact, when man was free\n from external evil and possessed all that could minister to\n innocent joy? The \u201cgolden age\u201d of the heathen was connected with\n the hope of restoration. So the use of the doctrine of man\u2019s\n original state is to convince men of the high ideal once realized,\n properly belonging to man, now lost, and recoverable, not by man\u2019s\n own powers, but only through God\u2019s provision in Christ. For\n references in classic writers to a golden age, see Luthardt,\n Compendium, 115. He mentions the following: Hesiod, Works and\n Days, 109-208; Aratus, Phenom., 100-184; Plato, Tim., 233; Vergil,\n Ec., 4, Georgics, 1:135, \u00c6neid, 8:314.\n\n\n(_b_) Provisions for the trying of man\u2019s virtue.\u2014Since man was not yet in\na state of confirmed holiness, but rather of simple childlike innocence,\nhe could be made perfect only through temptation. Hence the \u201ctree of the\nknowledge of good and evil\u201d (Gen 2:9). The one slight command best tested\nthe spirit of obedience. Temptation did not necessitate a fall, If\nresisted, it would strengthen virtue. In that case, the _posse non\npeccare_ would have become the _non posse peccare_.\n\n\n Thomasius: \u201cThat evil is a necessary transition-point to good, is\n Satan\u2019s doctrine and philosophy.\u201d The tree was mainly a tree of\n probation. It is right for a father to make his son\u2019s title to his\n estate depend upon the performance of some filial duty, as\n Thaddeus Stevens made his son\u2019s possession of property conditional\n upon his keeping the temperance-pledge. Whether, besides this, the\n tree of knowledge was naturally hurtful or poisonous, we do not\n know.\n\n\n(_c_) Opportunity of securing physical immortality.\u2014The body of the first\nman was in itself mortal (1 Cor. 15:45). Science shows that physical life\ninvolves decay and loss. But means were apparently provided for checking\nthis decay and preserving the body\u2019s youth. This means was the \u201ctree of\nlife\u201d (Gen. 2:9). If Adam had maintained his integrity, the body might\nhave been developed and transfigured, without intervention of death. In\nother words, the _posse non mori_ might have become a _non posse mori_.\n\n\n The tree of life was symbolic of communion with God and of man\u2019s\n dependence upon him. But this, only because it had a physical\n efficacy. It was sacramental and memorial to the soul, because it\n sustained the life of the body. Natural immortality without\n holiness would have been unending misery. Sinful man was therefore\n shut out from the tree of life, till he could be prepared for it\n by God\u2019s righteousness. Redemption and resurrection not only\n restore that which was lost, but give what man was originally\n created to attain: _1 Cor. 15:45_\u2014\u201c_The first man Adam became a\n living soul. The last man Adam became a life-giving spirit_\u201d;\n _Rev. 22:14_\u2014\u201c_Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they\n may have the right to come to the tree of life._\u201d\n\n\nThe conclusions we have thus reached with regard to the incidents of man\u2019s\noriginal state are combated upon two distinct grounds:\n\n1st. The facts bearing upon man\u2019s prehistoric condition point to a\ndevelopment from primitive savagery to civilization. Among these facts may\nbe mentioned the succession of implements and weapons from stone to bronze\nand iron; the polyandry and communal marriage systems of the lowest\ntribes; the relics of barbarous customs still prevailing among the most\ncivilized.\n\n\n For the theory of an originally savage condition of man, see Sir\n John Lubbock, Prehistoric Times, and Origin of Civilization: \u201cThe\n primitive condition of mankind was one of utter barbarism\u201d; but\n especially L. H. Morgan, Ancient Society, who divides human\n progress into three great periods, the savage, the barbarian, and\n the civilized. Each of the two former has three states, as\n follows: I. Savage: 1. Lowest state, marked by attainment of\n speech and subsistence upon roots. 2. Middle state, marked by\n fish-food and fire. 3. Upper state, marked by use of the bow and\n hunting. II. Barbarian: 1. Lower state, marked by invention and\n use of pottery. 2. Middle state, marked by use of domestic\n animals, maize, and building stone. 3. Upper state, marked by\n invention and use of iron tools. III. Civilized man next appears,\n with the introduction of the phonetic alphabet and writing. J. S.\n Stuart-Glennie, Contemp. Rev., Dec. 1892:844, defines civilization\n as \u201cenforced social organization, with written records, and hence\n intellectual development and social progress.\u201d\n\n\nWith regard to this view we remark:\n\n(_a_) It is based upon an insufficient induction of facts.\u2014History shows a\nlaw of degeneration supplementing and often counteracting the tendency to\ndevelopment. In the earliest times of which we have any record, we find\nnations in a high state of civilization; but in the case of every nation\nwhose history runs back of the Christian era\u2014as for example, the Romans,\nthe Greeks, the Egyptians\u2014the subsequent progress has been downward, and\nno nation is known to have recovered from barbarism except as the result\nof influence from without.\n\n\n Lubbock seems to admit that cannibalism was not primeval; yet he\n shows a general tendency to take every brutal custom as a sample\n of man\u2019s first state. And this, in spite of the fact that many\n such customs have been the result of corruption. Bride-catching,\n for example, could not possibly have been primeval, in the strict\n sense of that term. Tylor, Primitive Culture, 1:48, presents a far\n more moderate view. He favors a theory of development, but with\n degeneration \u201cas a secondary action largely and deeply affecting\n the development of civilization.\u201d So the Duke of Argyll, Unity of\n Nature: \u201cCivilization and savagery are both the results of\n evolutionary development; but the one is a development in the\n upward, the latter in the downward direction; and for this reason,\n neither civilization nor savagery can rationally be looked upon as\n the primitive condition of man.\u201d Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 1:467\u2014\u201cAs\n plausible an argument might be constructed out of the\n deterioration and degradation of some of the human family to prove\n that man may have evolved downward into an anthropoid ape, as that\n which has been constructed to prove that he has been evolved\n upward from one.\u201d\n\n Modern nations fall far short of the old Greek perception and\n expression of beauty. Modern Egyptians, Bushmen, Australians, are\n unquestionably degenerate races. See Lankester, Degeneration. The\n same is true of Italians and Spaniards, as well as of Turks.\n Abyssinians are now polygamists, though their ancestors were\n Christians and monogamists. The physical degeneration of portions\n of the population of Ireland is well known. See Mivart, Lessons\n from Nature, 146-160, who applies to the savage-theory the tests\n of language, morals, and religion, and who quotes Herbert Spencer\n as saying: \u201cProbably most of them [savages], if not all of them,\n had ancestors in higher states, and among their beliefs remain\n some which were evolved during those higher states.... It is quite\n possible, and I believe highly probable, that retrogression has\n been as frequent as progression.\u201d Spencer, however, denies that\n savagery is always caused by lapse from civilization.\n\n Bib. Sac., 6:715; 29:282\u2014\u201cMan as a moral being does not tend to\n rise but to fall, and that with a geometric progress, except he be\n elevated and sustained by some force from without and above\n himself. While man once civilized may advance, yet moral ideas are\n apparently never developed from within.\u201d Had savagery been man\u2019s\n primitive condition, he never could have emerged. See Whately,\n Origin of Civilization, who maintains that man needed not only a\n divine Creator, but a divine Instructor. Seelye, Introd. to A\n Century of Dishonor, 3\u2014\u201cThe first missionaries to the Indians in\n Canada took with them skilled laborers to teach the savages how to\n till their fields, to provide them with comfortable homes,\n clothing, and food. But the Indians preferred their wigwams,\n skins, raw flesh, and filth. Only as Christian influences taught\n the Indian his inner need, and how this was to be supplied, was he\n led to wish and work for the improvement of his outward condition\n and habits. Civilization does not reproduce itself. It must first\n be kindled, and it can then be kept alive only by a power\n genuinely Christian.\u201d So Wallace, in Nature, Sept. 7, 1876, vol.\n 14:408-412.\n\n Griffith-Jones, Ascent through Christ, 149-168, shows that\n evolution does not necessarily involve development as regards\n particular races. There is degeneration in all the organic orders.\n As regards man, he may be evolving in some directions, while in\n others he has degenerated. Lidgett, Spir. Principle of the\n Atonement, 245, speaks of \u201cProf. Clifford as pointing to the\n history of human progress and declaring that mankind is a risen\n and not a fallen race. There is no real contradiction between\n these two views. God has not let man go because man has rebelled\n against him. Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.\u201d The\n humanity which was created in Christ and which is upheld by his\n power has ever received reinforcements of its physical and mental\n life, in spite of its moral and spiritual deterioration. \u201cSome\n shrimps, by the adjustment of their bodily parts, go onward to the\n higher structure of the lobsters and crabs; while others, taking\n up the habit of dwelling in the gills of fishes, sink downward\n into a state closely resembling that of the worms.\u201d Drummond,\n Ascent of Man: \u201cWhen a boy\u2019s kite comes down in our garden, we do\n not hold that it originally came from the clouds. So nations went\n up, before they came down. There is a national gravitation. The\n stick age preceded the stone age, but has been lost.\u201d Tennyson:\n \u201cEvolution ever climbing after some ideal good, And Reversion ever\n dragging Evolution in the mud.\u201d Evolution often becomes\n devolution, if not devilution. A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the\n Spirit, 104\u2014\u201cThe Jordan is the fitting symbol of our natural life,\n rising in a lofty elevation, and from pure springs, but plunging\n steadily down till it pours itself into that Dead Sea from which\n there is no outlet.\u201d\n\n\n(_b_) Later investigations have rendered it probable that the stone age of\nsome localities was contemporaneous with the bronze and iron ages of\nothers, while certain tribes and nations, instead of making progress from\none to the other, were never, so far back as we can trace them, without\nthe knowledge and use of the metals. It is to be observed, moreover, that\neven without such knowledge and use man is not necessarily a barbarian,\nthough he may be a child.\n\n\n On the question whether the arts of civilization can be lost, see\n Arthur Mitchell, Past in the Present, 219: Rude art is often the\n debasement of a higher, instead of being the earlier; the rudest\n art in a nation may co\u00ebxist with the highest; cave-life may\n accompany high civilization. Illustrations from modern Scotland,\n where burial of a cock for epilepsy, and sacrifice of a bull, were\n until very recently extant. Certain arts have unquestionably been\n lost, as glass-making and iron-working in Assyria (see Mivart,\n referred to above). The most ancient men do not appear to have\n been inferior to the latest, either physically or intellectually.\n Rawlinson: \u201cThe explorers who have dug deep into the Mesopotamian\n mounds, and have ransacked the tombs of Egypt, have come upon no\n certain traces of savage man in those regions which a wide-spread\n tradition makes the cradle of the human race.\u201d The Tyrolese\n peasants show that a rude people may be moral, and a very simple\n people may be highly intelligent. See Southall, Recent Origin of\n Man, 386-449; Schliemann, Troy and her Remains, 274.\n\n Mason, Origins of Invention, 110, 124, 128\u2014\u201cThere is no evidence\n that a stone age ever existed in some regions. In Africa, Canada,\n and perhaps Michigan, the metal age was as old as the stone age.\u201d\n An illustration of the mathematical powers of the savage is given\n by Rev. A. E. Hunt in an account of the native arithmetic of\n Murray Islands, Torres Straits. \u201cNetat\u201d (one) and \u201cneis\u201d (two) are\n the only numerals, higher numbers being described by combinations\n of these, as \u201cneis-netat\u201d for three, \u201cneis-i-neis\u201d for four, etc.,\n or by reference to one of the fingers, elbows or other parts of\n the body. A total of thirty-one could be counted by the latter\n method. Beyond this all numbers were \u201cmany,\u201d as this was the limit\n reached in counting before the introduction of English numerals,\n now in general use in the islands.\n\n Shaler, Interpretation of Nature, 171\u2014\u201cIt is commonly supposed\n that the direction of the movement [in the variation of species]\n is ever upward. The fact is on the contrary that in a large number\n of cases, perhaps in the aggregate in more than half, the change\n gives rise to a form which, by all the canons by which we\n determine relative rank, is to be regarded as regressive or\n degradational.... Species, genera, families, and orders have all,\n like the individuals of which they are composed, a period of decay\n in which the gain won by infinite toil and pains is altogether\n lost in the old age of the group.\u201d Shaler goes on to say that in\n the matter of variation successes are to failures as 1 to 100,000,\n and if man be counted the solitary distinguished success, then the\n proportion is something like 1 to 100,000,000. No species that\n passes away is ever reinstated. If man were now to disappear,\n there is no reason to believe that by any process of change a\n similar creature would be evolved, however long the animal kingdom\n continued to exist. The use of these successive chances to produce\n man is inexplicable except upon the hypothesis of an infinite\n designing Wisdom.\n\n\n(_c_) The barbarous customs to which this view looks for support may\nbetter be explained as marks of broken-down civilization than as relics of\na primitive and universal savagery. Even if they indicated a former state\nof barbarism, that state might have been itself preceded by a condition of\ncomparative culture.\n\n\n Mark Hopkins, in Princeton Rev. Sept., 1882:194\u2014\u201cThere is no cruel\n treatment of females among animals. If man came from the lower\n animals, then he cannot have been originally savage; for you find\n the most of this cruel treatment among savages.\u201d Tylor instances\n \u201cstreet Arabs.\u201d He compares street Arabs to a ruined house, but\n savage tribes to a builder\u2019s yard. See Duke of Argyll, Primeval\n Man, 129, 133; Bushnell, Nature and the Supernatural, 223;\n McLennan, Studies in Ancient History. Gulick, in Bib. Sac., July,\n 1892:517\u2014\u201cCannibalism and infanticide are unknown among the\n anthropoid apes. These must be the results of degradation. Pirates\n and slavetraders are not men of low and abortive intelligence, but\n men of education who deliberately throw off all restraint, and who\n use their powers for the destruction of society.\u201d\n\n Keane, Man, Past and Present, 40, quotes Sir H. H. Johnston, an\n administrator who has had a wider experience of the natives of\n Africa than any man living, as saying that \u201cthe tendency of the\n negro for several centuries past has been an actual retrograde\n one\u2014return toward the savage and even the brute. If he had been\n cut off from the immigration of the Arab and the European, the\n purely Negroid races, left to themselves, so far from advancing\n towards a higher type of humanity, might have actually reverted by\n degrees to a type no longer human.\u201d Ratzel\u2019s History of Mankind:\n \u201cWe assign no great antiquity to Polynesian civilization. In New\n Zealand it is a matter of only some centuries back. In newly\n occupied territories, the development of the population began upon\n a higher level and then fell off. The Maoris\u2019 decadence resulted\n in the rapid impoverishment of culture, and the character of the\n people became more savage and cruel. Captain Cook found objects of\n art worshiped by the descendants of those who produced them.\u201d\n\n Recent researches have entirely discredited L. H. Morgan\u2019s theory\n of an original brutal promiscuity of the human race. Ritchie,\n Darwin and Hegel, 6, note\u2014\u201cThe theory of an original promiscuity\n is rendered extremely doubtful by the habits of many of the higher\n animals.\u201d E. B. Tylor, in 19th Century, July, 1906\u2014\u201cA sort of\n family life, lasting for the sake of the young, beyond a single\n pairing season, exists among the higher manlike apes. The male\n gorilla keeps watch and ward over his progeny. He is the antetype\n of the house-father. The matriarchal system is a later device for\n political reasons, to bind together in peace and alliance tribes\n that would otherwise be hostile. But it is an artificial system\n introduced as a substitute for and in opposition to the natural\n paternal system. When the social pressure is removed, the\n maternalized husband emancipates himself, and paternalism begins.\u201d\n Westermarck, History of Human Marriage: \u201cMarriage and the family\n are thus intimately connected with one another; it is for the\n benefit of the young that male and female continue to live\n together. Marriage is therefore rooted in the family, rather than\n the family in marriage.... There is not a shred of genuine\n evidence for the notion that promiscuity ever formed a general\n stage in the social history of mankind. The hypothesis of\n promiscuity, instead of belonging to the class of hypotheses which\n are scientifically permissible, has no real foundation, and is\n essentially unscientific.\u201d Howard, History of Matrimonial\n Institutions: \u201cMarriage or pairing between one man and one woman,\n though the union be often transitory and the rule often violated,\n is the typical form of sexual union from the infancy of the human\n race.\u201d\n\n\n(_d_) The well-nigh universal tradition of a golden age of virtue and\nhappiness may be most easily explained upon the Scripture view of an\nactual creation of the race in holiness and its subsequent apostasy.\n\n\n For references in classic writers to a golden age, see Luthardt,\n Compendium der Dogmatik, 115; Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion,\n 1:205\u2014\u201cIn Hesiod we have the legend of a golden age under the\n lordship of Chronos, when man was free from cares and toils, in\n untroubled youth and cheerfulness, with a superabundance of the\n gifts which the earth furnished of itself; the race was indeed not\n immortal, but it experienced death even as a soft sleep.\u201d We may\n add that capacity for religious truth depends upon moral\n conditions. Very early races therefore have a purer faith than the\n later ones. Increasing depravity makes it harder for the later\n generations to exercise faith. The wisdom-literature may have been\n very early instead of very late, just as monotheistic ideas are\n clearer the further we go back. Bixby, Crisis in Morals,\n 171\u2014\u201cPrecisely because such tribes [Australian and African\n savages] have been deficient in average moral quality, have they\n failed to march upward on the road of civilization with the rest\n of mankind, and have fallen into these bog holes of savage\n degradation.\u201d On petrified civilizations, see Henry George,\n Progress and Poverty, 433-439\u2014\u201cThe law of human progress, what is\n it but the moral law?\u201d On retrogressive development in nature, see\n Weismann, Heredity, 2:1-30. But see also Mary E. Case, \u201cDid the\n Romans Degenerate?\u201d in Internat. Journ. Ethics. Jan. 1893:165-182,\n in which it is maintained that the Romans made constant advances\n rather. Henry Sumner Maine calls the Bible the most important\n single document in the history of sociology, because it exhibits\n authentically the early development of society from the family,\n through the tribe, into the nation,\u2014a progress learned only by\n glimpses, intervals, and survivals of old usages in the literature\n of other nations.\n\n\n2nd. That the religious history of mankind warrants us in inferring a\nnecessary and universal law of progress, in accordance with which man\npasses from fetichism to polytheism and monotheism,\u2014this first theological\nstage, of which fetichism, polytheism, and monotheism are parts, being\nsucceeded by the metaphysical stage, and that in turn by the positive.\n\n\n This theory is propounded by Comte, in his Positive Philosophy,\n English transl., 25, 26, 515-636\u2014\u201cEach branch of our knowledge\n passes successively through three different theoretical\n conditions: the Theological, or fictitious; the Metaphysical, or\n abstract; and the Scientific, or positive.... The first is the\n necessary point of departure of the human understanding; and the\n third is its fixed and definite state. The second is merely a\n state of transition. In the theological state, the human mind,\n seeking the essential nature of beings, the first and final\n causes, the origin and purpose, of all effects\u2014in short, absolute\n knowledge\u2014supposes all phenomena to be produced by the immediate\n action of supernatural beings. In the metaphysical state, which is\n only a modification of the first, the mind supposes, instead of\n supernatural beings, abstract forces, veritable entities, that is,\n personified abstractions, inherent in all beings, and capable of\n producing all phenomena. What is called the explanation of\n phenomena is, in this stage, a mere reference of each to its\n proper entity. In the final, the positive state, the mind has\n given over the vain search after absolute notions, the origin and\n destination of the universe, and the causes of phenomena, and\n applies itself to the study of their laws\u2014that is, their\n invariable relations of succession and resemblance.... The\n theological system arrived at its highest perfection when it\n substituted the providential action of a single Being for the\n varied operations of numerous divinities. In the last stage of the\n metaphysical system, men substituted one great entity, Nature, as\n the cause of all phenomena, instead of the multitude of entities\n at first supposed. In the same way the ultimate perfection of the\n positive system would be to represent all phenomena as particular\n aspects of a single general fact\u2014such as Gravitation, for\n instance.\u201d\n\n\nThis assumed law of progress, however, is contradicted by the following\nfacts:\n\n(_a_) Not only did the monotheism of the Hebrews precede the great\npolytheistic systems of antiquity, but even these heathen religions are\npurer from polytheistic elements, the further back we trace them; so that\nthe facts point to an original monotheistic basis for them all.\n\n\n The gradual deterioration of all religions, apart from special\n revelation and influence from God, is proof that the purely\n evolutionary theory is defective. The most natural supposition is\n that of a primitive revelation, which little by little receded\n from human memory. In Japan, Shinto was originally the worship of\n Heaven. The worship of the dead, the deification of the Mikado,\n etc., were a corruption and aftergrowth. The Mikado\u2019s ancestors,\n instead of coming from heaven, came from Korea. Shinto was\n originally a form of monotheism. Not one of the first emperors was\n deified after death. Apotheosis of the Mikados dated from the\n corruption of Shinto through the importation of Buddhism. Andrew\n Lang, in his Making of Religion, advocates primitive monotheism.\n T. G. Pinches, of the British Museum, 1894, declares that, as in\n the earliest Egyptian, so in the early Babylonian records, there\n is evidence of a primitive monotheism. Nevins, Demon-Possession,\n 170-173, quotes W. A. P. Martin, President of the Peking\n University, as follows: \u201cChina, India, Egypt and Greece all agree\n in the monotheistic type of their early religion. The Orphic\n Hymns, long before the advent of the popular divinities,\n celebrated the _Pantheos_, the universal God. The odes compiled by\n Confucius testify to the early worship of Shangte, the Supreme\n Ruler. The Vedas speak of \u2018one unknown true Being, all-present,\n all-powerful, the Creator, Preserver and Destroyer of the\n Universe.\u2019 And in Egypt, as late as the time of Plutarch, there\n were still vestiges of a monotheistic worship.\u201d\n\n On the evidences of an original monotheism, see Max M\u00fcller, Chips,\n 1:337; Rawlinson, in Present Day Tracts, 2: no. 11; Legge,\n Religions of China, 8, 11; Diestel, in Jahrbuch f\u00fcr deutsche\n Theologie, 1860, and vol. 5:669; Philip Smith, Anc. Hist. of East,\n 65, 195; Warren, on the Earliest Creed of Mankind, in the Meth.\n Quar. Rev., Jan. 1884.\n\n\n(_b_) \u201cThere is no proof that the Indo-Germanic or Semitic stocks ever\npracticed fetich worship, or were ever enslaved by the lowest types of\nmythological religion, or ascended from them to somewhat higher\u201d (Fisher).\n\n\n See Fisher, Essays on Supernat. Origin of Christianity, 545;\n Bartlett, Sources of History in the Pentateuch, 36-115. Herbert\n Spencer once held that fetichism was primordial. But he afterwards\n changed his mind, and said that the facts proved to be exactly the\n opposite when he had become better acquainted with the ideas of\n savages; see his Principles of Sociology, 1:343. Mr. Spencer\n finally traced the beginnings of religion to the worship of\n ancestors. But in China no ancestor has ever become a god; see\n Hill, Genetic Philosophy, 304-313. And unless man had an inborn\n sense of divinity, he could deify neither ancestors nor ghosts.\n Professor Hilprecht of Philadelphia says: \u201cAs the attempt has\n recently been made to trace the pure monotheism of Israel to\n Babylonian sources, I am bound to declare this an absolute\n impossibility, on the basis of my fourteen years\u2019 researches in\n Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions. The faith of Israel\u2019s chosen\n people is: \u2018Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord.\u2019 And\n this faith could never have proceeded from the Babylonian mountain\n of gods, that charnel-house full of corruption and dead men\u2019s\n bones.\u201d\n\n\n(_c_) Some of the earliest remains of man yet found show, by the burial of\nfood and weapons with the dead, that there already existed the idea of\nspiritual beings and of a future state, and therefore a religion of a\nhigher sort than fetichism.\n\n\n Idolatry proper regards the idol as the symbol and representative\n of a spiritual being who exists apart from the material object,\n though he manifests himself through it. Fetichism, however,\n identifies the divinity with the material thing, and worships the\n stock or stone; spirit is not conceived of as existing apart from\n body. Belief in spiritual beings and a future state is therefore\n proof of a religion higher in kind than fetichism. See Lyell,\n Antiquity of Man, quoted in Dawson, Story of Earth and Man, 384;\n see also 368, 372, 386\u2014\u201cMan\u2019s capacities for degradation are\n commensurate with his capacities for improvement\u201d (Dawson). Lyell,\n in his last edition, however, admits the evidence from the\n Aurignac cave to be doubtful. See art. by Dawkins, in Nature,\n 4:208.\n\n\n(_d_) The theory in question, in making theological thought a merely\ntransient stage of mental evolution, ignores the fact that religion has\nits root in the intuitions and yearnings of the human soul, and that\ntherefore no philosophical or scientific progress can ever abolish it.\nWhile the terms theological, metaphysical, and positive may properly mark\nthe order in which the ideas of the individual and the race are acquired,\npositivism errs in holding that these three phases of thought are mutually\nexclusive, and that upon the rise of the later the earlier must of\nnecessity become extinct.\n\n\n John Stuart Mill suggests that \u201cpersonifying\u201d would be a much\n better term than \u201ctheological\u201d to designate the earliest efforts\n to explain physical phenomena. On the fundamental principles of\n Positivism, see New Englander, 1873:323-386; Diman, Theistic\n Argument, 338\u2014\u201cThree co\u00ebxistent states are here confounded with\n three successive stages of human thought; three aspects of things\n with three epochs of time. Theology, metaphysics, and science must\n always exist side by side, for all positive science rests on\n metaphysical principles, and theology lies behind both. All are as\n permanent as human reason itself.\u201d Martineau, Types, 1:487\u2014\u201cComte\n sets up medi\u00e6val Christianity as the typical example of evolved\n monotheism, and develops it out of the Greek and Roman polytheism\n which it overthrew and dissipated. But the religion of modern\n Europe notoriously does not descend from the same source as its\n civilization and is no continuation of the ancient culture,\u201d\u2014it\n comes rather from Hebrew sources; Essays, Philos. and Theol.,\n 1:24, 62\u2014\u201cThe Jews were always a disobliging people; what business\n had they to be up so early in the morning, disturbing the house\n ever so long before M. Comte\u2019s bell rang to prayers?\u201d See also\n Gillett, God in Human Thought, 1:17-23; Rawlinson, in Journ.\n Christ. Philos., April, 1883:353; Nineteenth Century, Oct.\n 1886:473-490.\n\n\n\n\nChapter III. Sin, Or Man\u2019s State Of Apostasy.\n\n\n\nSection I.\u2014The Law Of God.\n\n\nAs preliminary to a treatment of man\u2019s state of apostasy, it becomes\nnecessary to consider the nature of that law of God, the transgression of\nwhich is sin. We may best approach the subject by inquiring what is the\ntrue conception of\n\n\nI. Law in General.\n\n\n1. Law is an expression of _will_.\n\nThe essential idea of law is that of a general expression of will enforced\nby power. It implies: (_a_) A lawgiver, or authoritative will. (_b_)\nSubjects, or beings upon whom this will terminates. (_c_) A general\ncommand, or expression of this will. (_d_) A power, enforcing the command.\n\nThese elements are found even in what we call natural law. The phrase \u201claw\nof nature\u201d involves a self-contradiction, when used to denote a mode of\naction or an order of sequence behind which there is conceived to be no\nintelligent and ordaining will. Physics derives the term \u201claw\u201d from\njurisprudence, instead of jurisprudence deriving it from physics. It is\nfirst used of the relations of voluntary agents. Causation in our own\nwills enables us to see something besides mere antecedence and consequence\nin the world about us. Physical science, in her very use of the word\n\u201claw,\u201d implicitly confesses that a supreme Will has set general rules\nwhich control the processes of the universe.\n\n\n Wayland, Moral Science, 1, unwisely defines law as \u201ca mode of\n existence or order of sequence,\u201d thus leaving out of his\n definition all reference to an ordaining will. He subsequently\n says that law presupposes an establisher, but in his definition\n there is nothing to indicate this. We insist, on the other hand,\n that the term \u201claw\u201d itself includes the idea of force and cause.\n The word \u201claw\u201d is from \u201clay\u201d (German _legen_),\u2014something laid\n down; German _Gesetz_, from _setzen_,\u2014something set or\n established; Greek \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, from \u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03c9,\u2014something assigned or\n apportioned; Latin _lex_, from _lego_,\u2014something said or spoken.\n\n All these derivations show that man\u2019s original conception of law\n is that of something proceeding from volition. Lewes, in his\n Problems of Life and Mind, says that the term \u201claw\u201d is so\n suggestive of a giver and impresser of law, that it ought to be\n dropped, and the word \u201cmethod\u201d substituted. The merit of Austin\u2019s\n treatment of the subject is that he \u201crigorously limits the term\n \u2018law\u2019 to the commands of a superior\u201d; see John Austin, Province of\n Jurisprudence, 1:88-93, 220-223. The defects of his treatment we\n shall note further on.\n\n J. S. Mill: \u201cIt is the custom, wherever they [scientific men] can\n trace regularity of any kind, to call the general proposition\n which expresses the nature of that regularity, a law; as when in\n mathematics we speak of the law of the successive terms of a\n converging series. But the expression \u2018law of nature\u2019 is generally\n employed by scientific men with a sort of tacit reference to the\n original sense of the word \u2018law,\u2019 namely, the expression of the\n will of a superior\u2014the superior in this case being the Ruler of\n the universe.\u201d Paley, Nat. Theology, chap. 1\u2014\u201cIt is a perversion\n of language to assign any _law_ as the efficient operative cause\n of anything. A law presupposes an agent; this is only the mode\n according to which an agent proceeds; it implies a power, for it\n is the order according to which that power acts. Without this\n agent, without this power, which are both distinct from itself,\n the law does nothing.\u201d \u201cQuis custodiet ipsos custodes?\u201d \u201cRules do\n not fulfill themselves, any more than a statute-book can quell a\n riot\u201d (Martineau, Types, 1:367).\n\n Charles Darwin got the suggestion of natural selection, not from\n the study of lower plants and animals, but from Malthus on\n Population; see his Life and Letters, Vol. I, autobiographical\n chapter. Ward, Naturalism and Agnosticism, 2:248-252\u2014\u201cThe\n conception of natural law rests upon the analogy of civil law.\u201d\n Ladd, Philosophy of Knowledge, 333\u2014\u201cLaws are only the more or less\n frequently repeated and uniform modes of the behavior of things\u201d;\n Philosophy of Mind, 122\u2014\u201cTo be, to stand in relation, to be\n self-active, to act upon other being, to obey law, to be a cause,\n to be a permanent subject of states, to be the same to-day as\n yesterday, to be identical, to be one,\u2014all these and all similar\n conceptions, together with the proofs that they are valid for real\n beings, are affirmed of physical realities, or projected into\n them, only on a basis of self-knowledge, envisaging and affirming\n the reality of mind. Without psychological insight and\n philosophical training, such terms or their equivalents are\n meaningless in physics. And because writers on physics do not in\n general have this insight and this training, in spite of their\n utmost endeavors to treat physics as an empirical science without\n metaphysics, they flounder and blunder and contradict themselves\n hopelessly whenever they touch upon fundamental matters.\u201d See\n President McGarvey\u2019s Criticism on James Lane Allen\u2019s Reign of Law:\n \u201cIt is not in the nature of law to reign. To reign is an act which\n can be literally affirmed only of persons. A man may reign; a God\n may reign; a devil may reign; but a law cannot reign. If a law\n could reign, we should have no gambling in New York and no open\n saloons on Sunday. There would be no false swearing in courts of\n justice, and no dishonesty in politics. It is men who reign in\n these matters\u2014the judges, the grand jury, the sheriff and the\n police. They may reign according to law. Law cannot reign even\n over those who are appointed to execute the law.\u201d\n\n\n2. Law is a _general_ expression of will.\n\nThe characteristic of law is generality. It is addressed to substances or\npersons in classes. Special legislation is contrary to the true theory of\nlaw.\n\n\n When the Sultan of Zanzibar orders his barber to be beheaded\n because the latter has cut his master, this order is not properly\n a law. To be a law it must read: \u201cEvery barber who cuts his\n majesty shall thereupon be decapitated.\u201d _Einmal ist keinmal_ =\n \u201cOnce is no custom.\u201d Dr. Schurman suggests that the word _meal_\n (Mahl) means originally _time_ (_mal_ in _einmal_). The\n measurement of time among ourselves is astronomical; among our\n earliest ancestors it was gastronomical, and the reduplication\n _mealtime_ = the ding-dong of the dinner bell. The Shah of Persia\n once asked the Prince of Wales to have a man put to death in order\n that he might see the English method of execution. When the Prince\n told him that this was beyond his power, the Shah wished to know\n what was the use of being a king if he could not kill people at\n his pleasure. Peter the Great suggested a way out of the\n difficulty. He desired to see keelhauling. When informed that\n there was no sailor liable to that penalty, he replied: \u201cThat does\n not matter,\u2014take one of my suite.\u201d Amos, Science of Law, 33,\n 34\u2014\u201cLaw eminently deals in general rules.\u201d It knows not persons or\n personality. It must apply to more than one case. \u201cThe\n characteristic of law is generality, as that of morality is\n individual application.\u201d Special legislation is the bane of good\n government; it does not properly fall within the province of the\n law-making power; it savors of the caprice of despotism, which\n gives commands to each subject at will. Hence our more advanced\n political constitutions check lobby influence and bribery, by\n prohibiting special legislation in all cases where general laws\n already exist.\n\n\n3. Law implies _power to enforce_.\n\nIt is essential to the existence of law, that there be power to enforce.\nOtherwise law becomes the expression of mere wish or advice. Since\nphysical substances and forces have no intelligence and no power to\nresist, the four elements already mentioned exhaust the implications of\nthe term \u201claw\u201d as applied to nature. In the case of rational and free\nagents, however, law implies in addition: (_e_) Duty or obligation to\nobey; and (_f_) Sanctions, or pains and penalties for disobedience.\n\n\n \u201cLaw that has no penalty is not law but advice, and the government\n in which infliction does not follow transgression is the reign of\n rogues or demons.\u201d On the question whether any of the punishments\n of civil law are legal sanctions, except the punishment of death,\n see N. W. Taylor, Moral Govt., 2:367-387. Rewards are motives, but\n they are not sanctions. Since public opinion may be conceived of\n as inflicting penalties for violation of her will, we speak\n figuratively of the laws of society, of fashion, of etiquette, of\n honor. Only so far as the community of nations can and does by\n sanctions compel obedience, can we with propriety assert the\n existence of international law. Even among nations, however, there\n may be moral as well as physical sanctions. The decision of an\n international tribunal has the same sanction as a treaty, and if\n the former is impotent, the latter also is. Fines and imprisonment\n do not deter decent people from violations of law half so\n effectively as do the social penalties of ostracism and disgrace,\n and it will be the same with the findings of an international\n tribunal. Diplomacy without ships and armies has been said to be\n law without penalty. But exclusion from civilized society is\n penalty. \u201cIn the unquestioning obedience to fashion\u2019s decrees, to\n which we all quietly submit, we are simply yielding to the\n pressure of the persons about us. No one adopts a style of dress\n because it is reasonable, for the styles are often most\n unreasonable; but we meekly yield to the most absurd of them\n rather than resist this force and be called eccentric. So what we\n call public opinion is the most mighty power to-day known, whether\n in society or in politics.\u201d\n\n\n4. Law expresses and demands _nature_.\n\nThe will which thus binds its subjects by commands and penalties is an\nexpression of the nature of the governing power, and reveals the normal\nrelations of the subjects to that power. Finally, therefore, law (_g_) Is\nan expression of the nature of the lawgiver; and (_h_) Sets forth the\ncondition or conduct in the subjects which is requisite for harmony with\nthat nature. Any so-called law which fails to represent the nature of the\ngoverning power soon becomes obsolete. All law that is permanent is a\ntranscript of the facts of being, a discovery of what is and must be, in\norder to harmony between the governing and the governed; in short,\npositive law is just and lasting only as it is an expression and\nrepublication of the law of nature.\n\n\n Diman, Theistic Argument, 106, 107: John Austin, although he\n \u201crigorously limited the term law to the commands of a superior,\u201d\n yet \u201crejected Ulpian\u2019s explanation of the law of nature, and\n ridiculed as fustian the celebrated description in Hooker.\u201d This\n we conceive to be the radical defect of Austin\u2019s conception. The\n Will from which natural law proceeds is conceived of after a\n deistic fashion, instead of being immanent in the universe.\n Lightwood, in his Nature of Positive Law, 78-90, criticizes\n Austin\u2019s definition of law as command, and substitutes the idea of\n law as custom. Sir Henry Maine\u2019s Ancient Law has shown us that the\n early village communities had customs which only gradually took\n form as definite laws. But we reply that custom is not the\n ultimate source of anything. Repeated acts of will are necessary\n to constitute custom. The first customs are due to the commanding\n will of the father in the patriarchal family. So Austin\u2019s\n definition is justified. Collective morals (_mores_) come from\n individual duty (_due_); law originates in will; Martineau, Types,\n 2:18, 19. Behind this will, however, is something which Austin\n does not take account of, namely, the nature of things as\n constituted by God, as revealing the universal Reason, and as\n furnishing the standard to which all positive law, if it would be\n permanent, must conform.\n\n See Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws, book 1, sec. 14\u2014\u201cLaws are the\n necessary relations arising from the nature of things.... There is\n a primitive Reason, and laws are the relations subsisting between\n it and different beings, and the relations of these to one\n another.... These rules are a fixed and invariable relation....\n Particular intelligent beings may have laws of their own making,\n but they have some likewise that they never made.... To say that\n there is nothing just or unjust but what is commanded or forbidden\n by positive laws, is the same as saying that before the describing\n of a circle all the radii were not equal. We must therefore\n acknowledge relations antecedent to the positive law by which they\n were established.\u201d Kant, Metaphysic of Ethics, 169-172\u2014\u201cBy the\n science of law is meant systematic knowledge of the principles of\n the law of nature\u2014from which positive law takes its rise\u2014which is\n forever the same, and carries its sure and unchanging obligations\n over all nations and throughout all ages.\u201d\n\n It is true even of a despot\u2019s law, that it reveals his nature, and\n shows what is requisite in the subject to constitute him in\n harmony with that nature. A law which does not represent the\n nature of things, or the real relations of the governor and the\n governed, has only a nominal existence, and cannot be permanent.\n On the definition and nature of law, see also Pomeroy, in\n Johnson\u2019s Encyclop\u00e6dia, art.: Law; Ahrens, Cours de Droit Naturel,\n book 1, sec. 14; Lorimer, Institutes of Law, 256, who quotes from\n Burke: \u201cAll human laws are, properly speaking, only declaratory.\n They may alter the mode and application, but have no power over\n the substance of original justice\u201d; Lord Bacon: \u201cRegula enim legem\n (ut acus nautica polos) indicat, non statuit.\u201d Duke of Argyll,\n Reign of Law, 64; H. C. Carey, Unity of Law.\n\n Fairbairn, in Contemp. Rev., Apl. 1895:473\u2014\u201cThe Roman jurists draw\n a distinction between _jus naturale_ and _jus civile_, and they\n used the former to affect the latter. The _jus civile_ was\n statutory, established and fixed law, as it were, the actual legal\n environment; the _jus naturale_ was ideal, the principle of\n justice and equity immanent in man, yet with the progress of his\n ethical culture growing ever more articulate.\u201d We add the fact\n that _jus_ in Latin and _Recht_ in German have ceased to mean\n merely abstract right, and have come to denote the legal system in\n which that abstract right is embodied and expressed. Here we have\n a proof that Christ is gradually moralizing the world and\n translating law into life. E. G. Robinson: \u201cNever a government on\n earth made its own laws. Even constitutions simply declare laws\n already and actually existing. Where society falls into anarchy,\n the _lex talionis_ becomes the prevailing principle.\u201d\n\n\nII. The Law of God in Particular.\n\n\nThe law of God is a general expression of the divine will enforced by\npower. It has two forms: Elemental Law and Positive Enactment.\n\n1. _Elemental Law_, or law inwrought into the elements, substances, and\nforces of the rational and irrational creation. This is twofold:\n\nA. The expression of the divine will in the constitution of the material\nuniverse;\u2014this we call physical, or natural law. Physical law is not\nnecessary. Another order of things is conceivable. Physical order is not\nan end in itself; it exists for the sake of moral order. Physical order\nhas therefore only a relative constancy, and God supplements it at times\nby miracle.\n\n\n Bowne, Theory of Thought and Knowledge, 210\u2014\u201cThe laws of nature\n represent no necessity, but are only the orderly forms of\n procedure of some Being back of them.... Cosmic uniformities are\n God\u2019s methods in freedom.\u201d Philos. of Theism, 73\u2014\u201cAny of the\n cosmic laws, from gravitation on, might conceivably have been\n lacking or altogether different.... No trace of necessity can be\n found in the Cosmos or in its laws.\u201d Seth, Hegelianism and\n Personality: \u201cNature is not necessary. Why put an island where it\n is, and not a mile east or west? Why connect the smell and shape\n of the rose, or the taste and color of the orange? Why do H2O form\n water? No one knows.\u201d William James: \u201cThe parts seem shot at us\n out of a pistol.\u201d Rather, we would say, out of a shotgun.\n Martineau, Seat of Authority, 33\u2014\u201cWhy undulations in one medium\n should produce sound, and in another light; why one speed of\n vibration should give red color, and another blue, can be\n explained by no reason of necessity. Here is selecting will.\u201d\n\n Brooks, Foundations of Zo\u00f6logy, 126\u2014\u201cSo far as the philosophy of\n evolution involves belief that nature is determinate, or due to a\n necessary law of universal progress or evolution, it seems to me\n to be utterly unsupported by evidence and totally unscientific.\u201d\n There is no power to deduce anything whatever from homogeneity.\n Press the button and law does the rest? Yes, but what presses the\n button? The solution crystalises when shaken? Yes, but what shakes\n it? Ladd, Philos. of Knowledge, 310\u2014\u201cThe directions and velocities\n of the stars fall under no common principles that astronomy can\n discover. One of the stars\u2014\u20181830 Groombridge\u2019\u2014is flying through\n space at a rate many times as great as it could attain if it had\n fallen through infinite space through all eternity toward the\n entire physical universe.... Fluids contract when cooled and\n expand when heated,\u2014yet there is the well known exception of water\n at the degree of freezing.\u201d 263\u2014\u201cThings do not appear to be\n mathematical all the way through. The system of things may be a\n Life, changing its modes of manifestation according to immanent\n ideas, rather than a collection of rigid entities, blindly subject\n in a mechanical way to unchanging laws.\u201d\n\n Augustine: \u201cDei voluntas rerum natura est.\u201d Joseph Cook: \u201cThe laws\n of nature are the habits of God.\u201d But Campbell, Atonement,\n Introd., xxvi, says there is this difference between the laws of\n the moral universe and those of the physical, namely, that we do\n not trace the existence of the former to an act of will, as we do\n the latter. \u201cTo say that God has given existence to goodness, as\n he has to the laws of nature, would be equivalent to saying that\n he has given existence to himself.\u201d Pepper, Outlines of Syst.\n Theol., 91\u2014\u201cMoral law, unlike natural law, is a standard of action\n to be adopted or rejected in the exercise of rational freedom, _i.\n e._, of moral agency.\u201d See also Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 1:531.\n\n Mark Hopkins, in Princeton Rev., Sept. 1882:190\u2014\u201cIn moral law\n there is enforcement by punishment only\u2014never by power, for this\n would confound moral law with physical, and obedience can never be\n produced or secured by power. In physical law, on the contrary,\n enforcement is wholly by power, and punishment is impossible. So\n far as man is free, he is not subject to law at all, in its\n physical sense. Our wills are free _from_ law, as enforced by\n _power_; but are free _under_ law, as enforced by _punishment_.\n Where law prevails in the same sense as in the material world,\n there can be no freedom. Law does not prevail when we reach the\n region of choice. We hold to a power in the mind of man\n originating a free choice. Two objects or courses of action,\n between which choice is to be made, are presupposed: (1) A\n uniformity or set of uniformities implying a force by which the\n uniformity is produced [physical or natural law]; (2) A command,\n addressed to free and intelligent beings, that can be obeyed or\n disobeyed, and that has connected with it rewards or punishments\u201d\n [moral law]. See also Wm. Arthur, Difference between Physical and\n Moral Law.\n\n\nB. The expression of the divine will in the constitution of rational and\nfree agents;\u2014this we call moral law. This elemental law of our moral\nnature, with which only we are now concerned, has all the characteristics\nmentioned as belonging to law in general. It implies: (_a_) A divine\nLaw-giver, or ordaining Will. (_b_) Subjects, or moral beings upon whom\nthe law terminates. (_c_) General command, or expression of this will in\nthe moral constitution of the subjects. (_d_) Power, enforcing the\ncommand. (_e_) Duty, or obligation to obey. (_f_) Sanctions, or pains and\npenalties for disobedience.\n\nAll these are of a loftier sort than are found in human law. But we need\nespecially to emphasize the fact that this law (_g_) Is an expression of\nthe moral nature of God, and therefore of God\u2019s holiness, the fundamental\nattribute of that nature; and that it (_h_) Sets forth absolute conformity\nto that holiness, as the normal condition of man. This law is inwrought\ninto man\u2019s rational and moral being. Man fulfills it, only when in his\nmoral as well as his rational being he is the image of God.\n\n\n Although the will from which the moral law springs is an\n expression of the nature of God, and a necessary expression of\n that nature in view of the existence of moral beings, it is none\n the less a personal will. We should be careful not to attribute to\n law a personality of its own. When Plutarch says: \u201cLaw is king\n both of mortal and immortal beings,\u201d and when we say: \u201cThe law\n will take hold of you,\u201d \u201cThe criminal is in danger of the law,\u201d we\n are simply substituting the name of the agent for that of the\n principal. God is not subject to law; God is the source of law;\n and we may say: \u201cIf Jehovah be God, worship him; but if Law,\n worship it.\u201d\n\n Since moral law merely reflects God, it is not a thing _made_. Men\n _discover_ laws, but they do not _make_ them, any more than the\n chemist makes the laws by which the elements combine. Instance the\n solidification of hydrogen at Geneva. Utility does not constitute\n law, although we test law by utility; see Murphy, Scientific Bases\n of Faith, 58-71. The true nature of the moral law is set forth in\n the noble though rhetorical description of Hooker (Eccl. Pol.,\n 1:194)\u2014\u201cOf law there can be no less acknowledged than that her\n seat is in the bosom of God; her voice the harmony of the world;\n all things in heaven and earth do her homage, the very least as\n feeling her care, and the greatest as not exempted from her power;\n both angels and men, and creatures of what condition soever,\n though each in a different sort and manner, yet all with uniform\n consent admiring her as the mother of their peace and joy.\u201d See\n also Martineau, Types, 2:119, and Study, 1:35.\n\n Curtis, Primitive Semitic Religions, 66, 101\u2014\u201cThe Oriental\n believes that God makes right by edict. Saladin demonstrated to\n Henry of Champagne the loyalty of his Assassins, by commanding two\n of them to throw themselves down from a lofty tower to certain and\n violent death.\u201d H. B. Smith, System, 192\u2014\u201cWill implies\n personality, and personality adds to abstract truth and duty the\n element of authority. Law therefore has the force that a person\n has over and above that of an idea.\u201d Human law forbids only those\n offences which constitute a breach of public order or of private\n right. God\u2019s law forbids all that is an offence against the divine\n order, that is, all that is unlike God. The whole law may be\n summed up in the words: \u201cBe like God.\u201d Salter, First Steps in\n Philosophy, 101-126\u2014\u201cThe realization of the nature of each being\n is the end to be striven for. Self-realization is an ideal end,\n not of one being, but of each being, with due regard to the value\n of each in the proper scale of worth. The beast can be sacrificed\n for man. All men are sacred as capable of unlimited progress. It\n is our duty to realize the capacities of our nature so far as they\n are consistent with one another and go to make up one whole.\u201d This\n means that man fulfills the law only as he realizes the divine\n idea in his character and life, or, in other words, as he becomes\n a finite image of God\u2019s infinite perfections.\n\n Bixby, Crisis in Morals, 191, 201, 285, 286\u2014\u201cMorality is rooted in\n the nature of things. There is a universe. We are all parts of an\n infinite organism. Man is inseparably bound to man [and to God].\n All rights and duties arise out of this common life. In the\n solidarity of social life lies the ground of Kant\u2019s law: So will,\n that the maxim of thy conduct may apply to all. The planet cannot\n safely fly away from the sun, and the hand cannot safely separate\n itself from the heart. It is from the fundamental unity of life\n that our duties flow.... The infinite world-organism is the body\n and manifestation of God. And when we recognize the solidarity of\n our vital being with this divine life and embodiment, we begin to\n see into the heart of the mystery, the unquestionable authority\n and supreme sanction of duty. Our moral intuitions are simply the\n unchanging laws of the universe that have emerged to consciousness\n in the human heart.... The inherent principles of the universal\n Reason reflect themselves in the mirror of the moral nature....\n The enlightened conscience is the expression in the human soul of\n the divine Consciousness.... Morality is the victory of the divine\n Life in us.... Solidarity of our life with the universal Life\n gives it unconditional sacredness and transcendental authority....\n The microcosm must bring itself _en rapport_ with the Macrocosm.\n Man must bring his spirit into resemblance to the World-essence,\n and into union with it.\u201d\n\n\nThe law of God, then, is simply an expression of the nature of God in the\nform of moral requirement, and a necessary expression of that nature in\nview of the existence of moral beings (Ps. 19:7; _cf._ 1). To the\nexistence of this law all men bear witness. The consciences even of the\nheathen testify to it (Rom. 2:14, 15). Those who have the written law\nrecognize this elemental law as of greater compass and penetration (Rom.\n7:14; 8:4). The perfect embodiment and fulfillment of this law is seen\nonly in Christ (Rom. 10:4; Phil. 3:8, 9).\n\n\n _Ps. 19:7_\u2014\u201c_The law of Jehovah is perfect, restoring the soul_\u201d;\n _cf._ _verse 1_\u2014\u201c_The heavens declare the glory of God_\u201d\u2014two\n revelations of God\u2014one in nature, the other in the moral law.\n _Rom. 2:14, 15_\u2014\u201c_for when Gentiles that have not the law do by\n nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the\n law unto themselves; in that they show the work of the law written\n in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and\n their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing\n them_\u201d\u2014here the \u201c_work of the law_\u201d\u2014, not the ten commandments,\n for of these the heathen were ignorant, but rather the work\n corresponding to them, _i. e._, the substance of them. _Rom.\n 7:14_\u2014\u201c_For we know that the law is spiritual_\u201d\u2014this, says Meyer,\n is equivalent to saying \u201cits essence is divine, of like nature\n with the Holy Spirit who gave it, a holy self-revelation of God.\u201d\n _Rom. 8:4_\u2014\u201c_that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in\n us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit_\u201d;\n _10:4_\u2014\u201c_For Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to\n every one that believeth_\u201d; _Phil. 3:8, 9_\u2014\u201c_that I may gain\n Christ, and be found in him, not having a righteousness of mine\n own, even that which is of the law, but that which is through\n faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith_\u201d;\n _Heb. 10:9_\u2014\u201c_Lo, I am come to do thy will._\u201d In Christ \u201cthe law\n appears Drawn out in living characters.\u201d Just such as he was and\n is, we feel that we ought to be. Hence the character of Christ\n convicts us of sin, as does no other manifestation of God. See, on\n the passages from Romans, the Commentary of Philippi.\n\n Fleming, Vocab. Philos., 286\u2014\u201cMoral laws are derived from the\n nature and will of God, and the character and condition of man.\u201d\n God\u2019s nature is reflected in the laws of our nature. Since law is\n inwrought into man\u2019s nature, man is a law unto himself. To conform\n to his own nature, in which conscience is supreme, is to conform\n to the nature of God. The law is only the revelation of the\n constitutive principles of being, the declaration of what must be,\n so long as man is man and God is God. It says in effect: \u201cBe like\n God, or you cannot be truly man.\u201d So moral law is not simply a\n test of obedience, but is also a revelation of eternal reality.\n Man cannot be lost to God, without being lost to himself. \u201cThe\n \u2018_hands of the living God_\u2019 (_Heb. 10:31_) into which we fall, are\n the laws of nature.\u201d In the spiritual world \u201cthe same wheels\n revolve, only there is no iron\u201d (Drummond, Natural Law in the\n Spiritual World, 27). Wuttke, Christian Ethics, 2:82-92\u2014\u201cThe\n totality of created being is to be in harmony with God and with\n itself. The idea of this harmony, as active in God under the form\n of will, is God\u2019s law.\u201d A manuscript of the U. S. Constitution was\n so written that when held at a little distance the shading of the\n letters and their position showed the countenance of George\n Washington. So the law of God is only God\u2019s face disclosed to\n human sight.\n\n R. W. Emerson, Woodnotes, 57\u2014\u201cConscious Law is King of kings.\u201d Two\n centuries ago John Norton wrote a book entitled The Orthodox\n Evangelist, \u201cdesigned for the begetting and establishing of the\n faith which is in Jesus,\u201d in which we find the following: \u201cGod\n doth not will things because they are just, but things are\n therefore just because God so willeth them. What reasonable man\n but will yield that the being of the moral law hath no necessary\n connection with the being of God? That the actions of men not\n conformable to this law should be sin, that death should be the\n punishment of sin, these are the constitutions of God, proceeding\n from him not by way of necessity of nature, but freely, as effects\n and products of his eternal good pleasure.\u201d This is to make God an\n arbitrary despot. We should not say that God _makes_ law, nor on\n the other hand that God _is subject to_ law, but rather that God\n _is_ law and _the source_ of law.\n\n Bowne, Philos. of Theism, 161\u2014\u201cGod\u2019s law is organic\u2014inwrought into\n the constitution of men and things. The chart however does not\n make the channel.... A law of nature is never the antecedent but\n the consequence of reality. What right has this consequence of\n reality to be personalized and made the ruler and source of\n reality? Law is only the fixed mode in which reality works. Law\n therefore can explain nothing. Only God, from whom reality\n springs, can explain reality.\u201d In other words, law is never an\n agent but always a method\u2014the method of God, or rather of Christ\n who is the only Revealer of God. Christ\u2019s life in the flesh is the\n clearest manifestation of him who is the principle of law in the\n physical and moral universe. Christ is the Reason of God in\n expression. It was he who gave the law on Mount Sinai as well as\n in the Sermon on the Mount. For fuller treatment of the subject,\n see Bowen, Metaph. and Ethics, 321-344; Talbot, Ethical\n Prolegomena, in Bap. Quar., July, 1877:257-274; Whewell, Elements\n of Morality, 2:35; and especially E. G. Robinson, Principles and\n Practice of Morality, 79-108.\n\n\nEach of the two last-mentioned characteristics of God\u2019s law is important\nin its implications. We treat of these in their order.\n\nFirst, the law of God as a transcript of the divine nature.\u2014If this be the\nnature of the law, then certain common misconceptions of it are excluded.\nThe law of God is\n\n(_a_) Not arbitrary, or the product of arbitrary will. Since the will from\nwhich the law springs is a revelation of God\u2019s nature, there can be no\nrashness or unwisdom in the law itself.\n\n\n E. G. Robinson, Christ. Theology, 193\u2014\u201cNo law of God seems ever to\n have been arbitrarily enacted, or simply with a view to certain\n ends to be accomplished; it always represented some reality of\n life which it was inexorably necessary that those who were to be\n regulated should carefully observe.\u201d The theory that law\n originates in arbitrary will results in an effeminate type of\n piety, just as the theory that legislation has for its sole end\n the greatest happiness results in all manner of compromises of\n justice. Jones, Robert Browning, 43\u2014\u201cHe who cheats his neighbor\n believes in tortuosity, and, as Carlyle says, has the supreme\n Quack for his god.\u201d\n\n\n(b) Not temporary, or ordained simply to meet an exigency. The law is a\nmanifestation, not of temporary moods or desires, but of the essential\nnature of God.\n\n\n The great speech of Sophocles\u2019 Antigone gives us this conception\n of law: \u201cThe ordinances of the gods are unwritten, but sure. Not\n one of them is for to-day or for yesterday alone, but they live\n forever.\u201d Moses might break the tables of stone upon which the law\n was inscribed, and Jehoiakim might cut up the scroll and cast it\n into the fire (_Ex. 32:19_; _Jer. 36:23_), but the law remained\n eternal as before in the nature of God and in the constitution of\n man. Prof. Walter Rauschenbusch: \u201cThe moral laws are just as\n stable as the law of gravitation. Every fuzzy human chicken that\n is hatched into this world tries to fool with those laws. Some\n grow wiser in the process and some do not. We talk about breaking\n God\u2019s laws. But after those laws have been broken several billion\n times since Adam first tried to play with them, those laws are\n still intact and no seam or fracture is visible in them,\u2014not even\n a scratch on the enamel. But the lawbreakers\u2014that is another\n story. If you want to find their fragments, go to the ruins of\n Egypt, of Babylon, of Jerusalem; study statistics; read faces;\n keep your eyes open; visit Blackwell\u2019s Island; walk through the\n graveyard and read the invisible inscriptions left by the Angel of\n Judgment, for instance: \u2018Here lie the fragments of John Smith, who\n contradicted his Maker, played football with the ten commandments,\n and departed this life at the age of thirty-five. His mother and\n wife weep for him. Nobody else does. May he rest in peace!\u2019 \u201d\n\n\n(_c_) Not merely negative, or a law of mere prohibition,\u2014since positive\nconformity to God is the inmost requisition of law.\n\nThe negative form of the commandments in the decalogue merely takes for\ngranted the evil inclination in men\u2019s hearts and practically opposes its\ngratification. In the case of each commandment a whole province of the\nmoral life is taken into the account, although the act expressly forbidden\nis the acme of evil in that one province. So the decalogue makes itself\nintelligible: it crosses man\u2019s path just where he most feels inclined to\nwander. But back of the negative and specific expression in each case lies\nthe whole mass of moral requirement: the thin edge of the wedge has the\npositive demand of holiness behind it, without obedience to which even the\nprohibition cannot in spirit be obeyed. Thus \u201c_the law is spiritual_\u201d\n(_Rom. 7:14_), and requires likeness in character and life to the\nspiritual God; _John 4:24_\u2014\u201c_God is spirit, and they that worship him must\nworship in spirit and truth._\u201d\n\n(_d_) Not partial, or addressed to one part only of man\u2019s being,\u2014since\nlikeness to God requires purity of substance in man\u2019s soul and body, as\nwell as purity in all the thoughts and acts that proceed therefrom. As law\nproceeds from the nature of God, so it requires conformity to that nature\nin the nature of man.\n\n\n Whatever God gave to man at the beginning he requires of man with\n interest; _cf._ _Mat. 25:27_\u2014\u201c_thou oughtest therefore to have put\n my money to the bankers, and at my coming I should have received\n back mine own with interest._\u201d Whatever comes short of perfect\n purity in soul or perfect health in body is non-conformity to God\n and contradicts his law, it being understood that only that\n perfection is demanded which answers to the creature\u2019s stage of\n growth and progress, so that of the child there is required only\n the perfection of the child, of the youth only the perfection of\n the youth, of the man only the perfection of the man. See Julius\n M\u00fcller, Doctrine of Sin, chapter 1.\n\n\n(_e_) Not outwardly published,\u2014since all positive enactment is only the\nimperfect expression of this underlying and unwritten law of being.\n\n\n Much misunderstanding of God\u2019s law results from confounding it\n with published enactment. Paul takes the larger view that the law\n is independent of such expression; see _Rom. 2:14, 15_\u2014\u201c_for when\n Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law,\n these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves; in that\n they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their\n conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with\n another accusing or else excusing them:_\u201d see Expositor\u2019s Greek\n Testament, _in loco_: \u201c \u2018_written on their hearts_,\u2019 when\n contrasted with the law written on the tables of stone, is equal\n to \u2018unwritten\u2019; the Apostle refers to what the Greeks called\n \u1f04\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2.\u201d\n\n\n(_f_) Not inwardly conscious, or limited in its scope by men\u2019s\nconsciousness of it. Like the laws of our physical being, the moral law\nexists whether we recognize it or not.\n\n\n Overeating brings its penalty in dyspepsia, whether we are\n conscious of our fault or not. We cannot by ignorance or by vote\n repeal the laws of our physical system. Self-will does not secure\n independence, any more than the stars can by combination abolish\n gravitation. Man cannot get rid of God\u2019s dominion by denying its\n existence, nor by refusing submission to it. _Psalm 2:1-4_\u2014\u201c_Why\n do the nations rage ... against Jehovah ... saying, Let us break\n their bonds asunder.... He that sitteth in the heavens will\n laugh._\u201d Salter, First Steps in Philosophy, 94\u2014\u201cThe fact that one\n is not aware of obligation no more affects its reality than\n ignorance of what is at the centre of the earth affects the nature\n of what is really discoverable there. We discover obligation, and\n do not create it by thinking of it, any more than we create the\n sensible world by thinking of it.\u201d\n\n\n(_g_) Not local, or confined to place,\u2014since no moral creature can escape\nfrom God, from his own being, or from the natural necessity that\nunlikeness to God should involve misery and ruin.\n\n\n \u201cThe Dutch auction\u201d was the public offer of property at a price\n beyond its value, followed by the lowering of the price until some\n one accepted it as a purchaser. There is no such local exception\n to the full validity of God\u2019s demands. The moral law has even more\n necessary and universal sway than the law of gravitation in the\n physical universe. It is inwrought into the very constitution of\n man, and of every other moral being. The man who offended the\n Roman Emperor found the whole empire a prison.\n\n\n(_h_) Not changeable, or capable of modification. Since law represents the\nunchangeable nature of God, it is not a sliding scale of requirements\nwhich adapts itself to the ability of the subjects. God himself cannot\nchange it without ceasing to be God.\n\n\n The law, then, has a deeper foundation than that God merely \u201csaid\n so.\u201d God\u2019s word and God\u2019s will are revelations of his inmost\n being; every transgression of the law is a stab at the heart of\n God. Simon, Reconciliation, 141, 142\u2014\u201cGod continues to demand\n loyalty even after man has proved disloyal. Sin changes man, and\n man\u2019s change involves a change in God. Man now regards God as a\n ruler and exactor, and God must regard man as a defaulter and a\n rebel.\u201d God\u2019s requirement is not lessened because man is unable to\n meet it. This inability is itself non-conformity to law, and is no\n excuse for sin; see Dr. Bushnell\u2019s sermon on \u201cDuty not measured by\n Ability.\u201d The man with the withered hand would not have been\n justified in refusing to stretch it forth at Jesus\u2019 command (_Mat.\n 12:10-13_).\n\n The obligation to obey this law and to be conformed to God\u2019s\n perfect moral character is based upon man\u2019s original ability and\n the gifts which God bestowed upon him at the beginning. Created in\n the image of God, it is man\u2019s duty to render back to God that\n which God first gave, enlarged and improved by growth and culture\n (_Luke 19:23_\u2014\u201c_wherefore gavest thou not my money into the bank,\n and I at my coming should have required it with interest_\u201d). This\n obligation is not impaired by sin and the weakening of man\u2019s\n powers. To let down the standard would be to misrepresent God.\n Adolphe Monod would not save himself from shame and remorse by\n lowering the claims of the law: \u201cSave first the holy law of my\n God,\u201d he says, \u201cafter that you shall save me!\u201d\n\n Even salvation is not through violation of law. The moral law is\n immutable, because it is a transcript of the nature of the\n immutable God. Shall nature conform to me, or I to nature? If I\n attempt to resist even physical laws, I am crushed. I can use\n nature only by obeying her laws. Lord Bacon: \u201cNatura enim non nisi\n parendo vincitur.\u201d So in the moral realm. We cannot buy off nor\n escape the moral law of God. God will not, and God can not, change\n his law by one hair\u2019s breadth, even to save a universe of sinners.\n Omar Kh\u00e1yy\u00e1m, in his Rub\u00e1iy\u00e1t, begs his god to \u201creconcile the law\n to my desires.\u201d Marie Corelli says well: \u201cAs if a gnat should seek\n to build a cathedral, and should ask to have the laws of\n architecture altered to suit its gnat-like capacity.\u201d See\n Martineau, Types, 2:120.\n\n\nSecondly, the law of God as the ideal of human nature.\u2014A law thus\nidentical with the eternal and necessary relations of the creature to the\nCreator, and demanding of the creature nothing less than perfect holiness,\nas the condition of harmony with the infinite holiness of God, is adapted\nto man\u2019s finite nature, as needing law; to man\u2019s free nature, as needing\nmoral law; and to man\u2019s progressive nature, as needing ideal law.\n\n\n Man, as finite, needs law, just as railway cars need a track to\n guide them\u2014to leap the track is to find, not freedom, but ruin.\n Railway President: \u201cOur rules are written in blood.\u201d Goethe, Was\n Wir Bringen, 19 Auftritt: \u201cIn vain shall spirits that are all\n unbound To the pure heights of perfectness aspire; In limitation\n first the Master shines, And law alone can give us liberty.\u201d\u2014Man,\n as a free being, needs moral law. He is not an automaton, a\n creature of necessity, governed only by physical influences. With\n conscience to command the right, and will to choose or reject it,\n his true dignity and calling are that he should freely realize the\n right.\u2014Man, as a progressive being, needs nothing less than an\n ideal and infinite standard of attainment, a goal which he can\n never overpass, an end which shall ever attract and urge him\n forward. This he finds in the holiness of God.\n\n The law is a _fence_, not only for ownership, but for care. God\n not only demands, but he protects. Law is the transcript of love\n as well as of holiness. We may reverse the well-known couplet and\n say: \u201cI slept, and dreamed that life was Duty; I woke and found\n that life was Beauty.\u201d \u201cCui servire regnare est.\u201d Butcher, Aspects\n of Greek Genius, 56\u2014\u201cIn Plato\u2019s Crito, the Laws are made to\n present themselves in person to Socrates in prison, not only as\n the guardians of his liberty, but as his lifelong friends, his\n well-wishers, his equals, with whom he had of his own free will\n entered into binding compact.\u201d It does not harm the scholar to\n have before him the ideal of perfect scholarship; nor the teacher\n to have before him the ideal of a perfect school; nor the\n legislator to have before him the ideal of perfect law. Gordon,\n The Christ of To-day, 134\u2014\u201cThe moral goal must be a flying goal;\n the standard to which we are to grow must be ever rising; the type\n to which we are to be conformed must have in it inexhaustible\n fulness.\u201d\n\n John Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 2:119\u2014\u201cIt is just the\n best, purest, noblest human souls, who are least satisfied with\n themselves and their own spiritual attainments; and the reason is\n that the human is not a nature essentially different from the\n divine, but a nature which, just because it is in essential\n affinity with God, can be satisfied with nothing less than a\n divine perfection.\u201d J. M. Whiton, The Divine Satisfaction: \u201cLaw\n requires being, character, likeness to God. It is automatic,\n self-operating. Penalty is untransferable. It cannot admit of any\n other satisfaction than the re\u00ebstablishment of the normal relation\n which it requires. Punishment proclaims that the law has not been\n satisfied. There is no cancelling of the curse except through the\n growing up of the normal relation. Blessing and curse ensue upon\n what we are, not upon what we were. Reparation is within the\n spirit itself. The atonement is educational, not governmental.\u201d We\n reply that the atonement is both governmental and educational, and\n that reparation must first be made to the holiness of God before\n conscience, the mirror of God\u2019s holiness, can reflect that\n reparation and be at peace.\n\n\nThe law of God is therefore characterized by:\n\n(_a_) All-comprehensiveness.\u2014It is over us at all times; it respects our\npast, our present, our future. It forbids every conceivable sin; it\nrequires every conceivable virtue; omissions as well as commissions are\ncondemned by it.\n\n\n _Ps. 119:96_\u2014\u201c_I have seen an end of all perfection ... thy\n commandment is exceeding broad_\u201d; _Rom. 3:23_\u2014\u201c_all have sinned,\n and fall short of the glory of God_\u201d; _James 4:17_\u2014\u201c_To him\n therefore that knoweth to do good, and __ doeth it not, to him it\n is sin._\u201d Gravitation holds the mote as well as the world. God\u2019s\n law detects and denounces the least sin, so that without atonement\n it cannot be pardoned. The law of gravitation may be suspended or\n abrogated, for it has no necessary ground in God\u2019s being; but\n God\u2019s moral law cannot be suspended or abrogated, for that would\n contradict God\u2019s holiness. \u201cAbout right\u201d is not \u201call right.\u201d \u201cThe\n giant hexagonal pillars of basalt in the Scottish Staffa are\n identical in form with the microscopic crystals of the same\n mineral.\u201d So God is our pattern, and goodness is our likeness to\n him.\n\n\n(_b_) Spirituality.\u2014It demands not only right acts and words, but also\nright dispositions and states. Perfect obedience requires not only the\nintense and unremitting reign of love toward God and man, but conformity\nof the whole inward and outward nature of man to the holiness of God.\n\n\n _Mat. 5:22, 28_\u2014the angry word is murder; the sinful look is\n adultery. _Mark 12:30, 31_\u2014\u201c_thou shalt love the Lord thy God with\n all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and\n with all thy strength.... Thou shalt love thy neighbor as\n thyself_\u201d; _2 Cor. 10:5_\u2014\u201c_bringing every thought into captivity\n to the obedience of Christ_\u201d; _Eph. 5:1_\u2014\u201c_Be ye therefore\n imitators of God, as beloved children_\u201d; _1 Pet. 1:16_\u2014\u201c_Ye shall\n be holy; for I am holy._\u201d As the brightest electric light, seen\n through a smoked glass against the sun, appears like a black spot,\n so the brightest unregenerate character is dark, when compared\n with the holiness of God. Matheson, Moments on the Mount, 235,\n remarks on _Gal. 6:4_\u2014\u201c_let each man prove his own work, and then\n shall he have his glorying in regard of himself alone, and not of\n his neighbor_\u201d\u2014\u201cI have a small candle and I compare it with my\n brother\u2019s taper and come away rejoicing. Why not compare it with\n the sun? Then I shall lose my pride and uncharitableness.\u201d The\n distance to the sun from the top of an ant-hill and from the top\n of Mount Everest is nearly the same. The African princess praised\n for her beauty had no way to verify the compliments paid her but\n by looking in the glassy surface of the pool. But the trader came\n and sold her a mirror. Then she was so shocked at her own ugliness\n that she broke the mirror in pieces. So we look into the mirror of\n God\u2019s law, compare ourselves with the Christ who is reflected\n there, and hate the mirror which reveals us to ourselves (_James\n 1:23, 24_).\n\n\n(_c_) Solidarity.\u2014It exhibits in all its parts the nature of the one\nLawgiver, and it expresses, in its least command, the one requirement of\nharmony with him.\n\n\n _Mat. 5:48_\u2014\u201c_Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly\n Father is perfect_\u201d; _Mark 12:29, 30_\u2014\u201c_The Lord our God, the Lord\n is one: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God_\u201d; _James 2:10_\u2014\u201c_For\n whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point,\n he is become guilty of all_\u201d; _4:12_\u2014\u201c_One only is the lawgiver\n and judge._\u201d Even little rattlesnakes are snakes. One link broken\n in the chain, and the bucket falls into the well. The least sin\n separates us from God. The least sin renders us guilty of the\n whole law, because it shows us to lack the love which is required\n in all the commandments. Those who send us to the Sermon on the\n Mount for salvation send us to a tribunal that damns us. The\n Sermon on the Mount is but a republication of the law given on\n Sinai, but now in more spiritual and penetrating form. Thunders\n and lightnings proceed from the N. T., as from the O. T., mount.\n The Sermon on the Mount is only the introductory lecture of Jesus\u2019\n theological course, as _John 14-17_ is the closing lecture. In it\n is announced the law, which prepares the way for the gospel. Those\n who would degrade doctrine by exalting precept will find that they\n have left men without the motive or the power to keep the precept.\n \u00c6schylus, Agamemnon: \u201cFor there\u2019s no bulwark in man\u2019s wealth to\n him Who, through a surfeit, kicks\u2014into the dim And\n disappearing\u2014Right\u2019s great altar.\u201d\n\n\nOnly to the first man, then, was the law proposed as a method of\nsalvation. With the first sin, all hope of obtaining the divine favor by\nperfect obedience is lost. To sinners the law remains as a means of\ndiscovering and developing sin in its true nature, and of compelling a\nrecourse to the mercy provided in Jesus Christ.\n\n\n _2 Chron. 34:19_\u2014\u201c_And it came to pass, when the king had heard\n the words of the law, that he rent his clothes_\u201d; _Job 42:5,\n 6_\u2014\u201c_I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear; But now mine\n eye seeth thee; Wherefore I abhor myself, And repent in dust and\n ashes._\u201d The revelation of God in _Is. 6:3, 5_\u2014\u201c_Holy, holy, holy,\n is Jehovah of hosts_\u201d\u2014causes the prophet to cry like the leper:\n \u201c_Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean\n lips._\u201d _Rom. 3:20_\u2014\u201c_by the works of the law shall no flesh be\n justified in his sight; for through the law cometh the __\n knowledge of sin_\u201d; _5:20_\u2014\u201c_the law came in besides, that the\n trespass might abound_\u201d; _7:7, 8_\u2014\u201c_I had not known sin, except\n through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had\n said, Thou shalt not covet: but sin, finding occasion, wrought in\n me through the commandment all manner of coveting: for apart from\n the law sin is dead_\u201d; _Gal. 3:24_\u2014\u201c_So that the law is become our\n tutor,_\u201d or attendant-slave, \u201c_to bring us unto Christ, that we\n might be justified by faith_\u201d\u2014the law trains our wayward boyhood\n and leads it to Christ the Master, as in old times the slave\n accompanied children to school. Stevens, Pauline Theology, 177,\n 178\u2014\u201cThe law increases sin by increasing the knowledge of sin and\n by increasing the activity of sin. The law does not add to the\n inherent energy of the sinful principle which pervades human\n nature, but it does cause this principle to reveal itself more\n energetically in sinful act.\u201d The law inspires fear, but it leads\n to love. The Rabbins said that, if Israel repented but for one\n day, the Messiah would appear.\n\n No man ever yet drew a straight line or a perfect curve; yet he\n would be a poor architect who contented himself with anything\n less. Since men never come up to their ideals, he who aims to live\n only an _average_ moral life will inevitably fall _below_ the\n average. The law, then, leads to Christ. He who is the _ideal_ is\n also the _way_ to attain the ideal. He who is himself the Word and\n the Law embodied, is also the Spirit of life that makes obedience\n possible to us (_John 14:6_\u2014\u201c_I am the way, and the truth, and the\n life_\u201d; _Rom. 8:2_\u2014\u201c_For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ\n Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death_\u201d). Mrs.\n Browning, Aurora Leigh: \u201cThe Christ himself had been no Lawgiver,\n Unless he had given the Life too with the Law.\u201d Christ _for_ us\n upon the Cross, and Christ _in_ us by his Spirit, is the only\n deliverance from the curse of the law; _Gal 3:13_\u2014\u201c_Christ\n redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for\n us._\u201d We must see the claims of the law satisfied and the law\n itself written on our hearts. We are \u201c_reconciled to God through\n the death of his Son_,\u201d but we are also _\u201c__saved by his life__\u201d__\n (Rom. 5:10_).\n\n Robert Browning, in The Ring and the Book, represents Caponsacchi\n as comparing himself at his best with the new ideal of \u201cperfect as\n Father in heaven is perfect\u201d suggested by Pompilia\u2019s purity, and\n as breaking out into the cry: \u201cO great, just, good God! Miserable\n me!\u201d In the Interpreter\u2019s House of Pilgrim\u2019s Progress, Law only\n stirred up the dust in the foul room,\u2014the Gospel had to sprinkle\n water on the floor before it could be cleansed. E. G. Robinson:\n \u201cIt is necessary to smoke a man out, before you can bring a higher\n motive to bear upon him.\u201d Barnabas said that Christ was the answer\n to the riddle of the law. _Rom. 10:4_\u2014\u201c_Christ is the end of the\n law unto righteousness to every one that believeth._\u201d The railroad\n track opposite Detroit on the St. Clair River runs to the edge of\n the dock and seems intended to plunge the train into the abyss.\n But when the ferry boat comes up, rails are seen upon its deck,\n and the boat is the end of the track, to carry passengers over to\n Detroit. So the law, which by itself would bring only destruction,\n finds its end in Christ who ensures our passage to the celestial\n city.\n\n Law, then, with its picture of spotless innocence, simply reminds\n man of the heights from which he has fallen. \u201cIt is a mirror which\n reveals derangement, but does not create or remove it.\u201d With its\n demand of absolute perfection, up to the measure of man\u2019s original\n endowments and possibilities, it drives us, in despair of\n ourselves, to Christ as our only righteousness and our only Savior\n (_Rom. 8:3, 4_\u2014\u201c_For what the law could not do, in that it was\n weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness\n of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the\n ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after\n the flesh, but after the Spirit_\u201d; _Phil. 3:8, 9_\u2014\u201c_that I may\n gain Christ, and be found in him, not having a righteousness of\n mine own, even that which is of the law, but that which is through\n faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith_\u201d).\n Thus law must prepare the way for grace, and John the Baptist must\n precede Christ.\n\n When Sarah Bernhardt was solicited to add an eleventh commandment,\n she declined upon the ground there were already ten too many. It\n was an expression of pagan contempt of law. In heathendom, sin and\n insensibility to sin increased together. In Judaism and\n Christianity, on the contrary, there has been a growing sense of\n sin\u2019s guilt and condemnableness. McLaren, in S. S. Times, Sept.\n 23, 1893:600\u2014\u201cAmong the Jews there was a far profounder sense of\n sin than in any other ancient nation. The law written on men\u2019s\n hearts evoked a lower consciousness of sin, and there are prayers\n on the Assyrian and Babylonian tablets which may almost stand\n beside the 51st Psalm. But, on the whole, the deep sense of sin\n was the product of the revealed law.\u201d See Fairbairn, Revelation of\n Law and Scripture; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 187-242; Hovey, God\n with Us, 187-210; Julius M\u00fcller, Doctrine of Sin, 1:45-50; Murphy,\n Scientific Bases of Faith, 53-71; Martineau, Types, 2:120-125.\n\n\n2. _Positive Enactment_, or the expression of the will of God in published\nordinances. This is also two-fold:\n\nA. General moral precepts.\u2014These are written summaries of the elemental\nlaw (Mat. 5:48; 22:37-40), or authorized applications of it to special\nhuman conditions (Ex. 20:1-17; Mat. chap. 5-8).\n\n\n _Mat. 5:48_\u2014\u201c_Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly\n Father is perfect_\u201d; _22:37-40_\u2014\u201c_Thou shalt love the Lord thy\n God.... Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two\n commandments the whole law hangeth and the prophets_\u201d; _Ex.\n 20:1-17_\u2014the Ten Commandments; _Mat., chap. 5-8_\u2014the Sermon on the\n Mount. _Cf._ Augustine, on _Ps. 57:1_.\n\n Solly, On the Will, 162, gives two illustrations of the fact that\n positive precepts are merely applications of elemental law or the\n law of nature: \u201c \u2018_Thou shalt not steal_,\u2019 is a moral law which\n may be stated thus: _thou shalt not take that for thy own\n property, which is the property of another_. The contradictory of\n this proposition would be: _thou mayest take that for thy own\n property which is the property of another_. But this is a\n contradiction in terms; for it is the very conception of property,\n that the owner stands in a peculiar relation to its subject\n matter; and what is every man\u2019s property is no man\u2019s property, as\n it is _proper_ to no man. Hence the contradictory of the\n commandment contains a simple contradiction directly it is made a\n rule universal; and the commandment itself is established as one\n of the principles for the harmony of individual wills.\n\n \u201c \u2018_Thou shalt not tell a lie_,\u2019 as a rule of morality, may be\n expressed generally: _thou shall not by thy outward act make\n another to believe thy thought to be other than it is_. The\n contradictory made universal is: _every man may by his outward act\n make another to believe his thought to be other than it is_. Now\n this maxim also contains a contradiction, and is self-destructive.\n It conveys a permission to do that which is rendered impossible by\n the permission itself. Absolute and universal indifference to\n truth, or the entire mutual independence of the thought and\n symbol, makes the symbol cease to be a symbol, and the conveyance\n of thought by its means, an impossibility.\u201d\n\n Kant, Metaphysic of Ethics, 48, 90\u2014\u201cFundamental law of reason: So\n act, that thy maxims of will might become laws in a system of\n universal moral legislation.\u201d This is Kant\u2019s categorical\n imperative. He expresses it in yet another form: \u201cAct from maxims\n fit to be regarded as universal laws of nature.\u201d For expositions\n of the Decalogue which bring out its spiritual meaning, see Kurtz,\n Religionslehre, 9-72; Dick, Theology, 2:513-554; Dwight, Theology,\n 3:163-560; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 3:259-465.\n\n\nB. Ceremonial or special injunctions.\u2014These are illustrations of the\nelemental law, or approximate revelations of it, suited to lower degrees\nof capacity and to earlier stages of spiritual training (Ez. 20:25; Mat.\n19:8; Mark 10:5). Though temporary, only God can say when they cease to be\nbinding upon us in their outward form.\n\nAll positive enactments, therefore, whether they be moral or ceremonial,\nare republications of elemental law. Their forms may change, but the\nsubstance is eternal. Certain modes of expression, like the Mosaic system,\nmay be abolished, but the essential demands are unchanging (Mat. 5:17, 18;\ncf. Eph. 2:15). From the imperfection of human language, no positive\nenactments are able to express in themselves the whole content and meaning\nof the elemental law. \u201cIt is not the purpose of revelation to disclose the\nwhole of our duties.\u201d Scripture is not a complete code of rules for\npractical action, but an enunciation of principles, with occasional\nprecepts by way of illustration. Hence we must supplement the positive\nenactment by the law of being\u2014the moral ideal found in the nature of God.\n\n\n _Ez. 20:25_\u2014\u201c_Moreover also I gave them statutes that were not\n good, and ordinances wherein they should not live_\u201d; _Mat.\n 19:8_\u2014\u201c_Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away\n your wives_\u201d; _Mark 10:5_\u2014\u201c_For your hardness of heart he wrote\n you this commandment_\u201d; _Mat. 5:17, 18_\u2014\u201c_Think not that I came to\n destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to\n fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass\n away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the\n law, till all things be accomplished_\u201d; _cf._ _Eph. 2:15_\u2014\u201c_having\n abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments\n contained in ordinances_\u201d; _Heb. 8:7_\u2014\u201c_if that first covenant had\n been faultless, then would no place have been sought for a\n second._\u201d Fisher, Nature and Method of Revelation, 90\u2014\u201cAfter the\n coming of the new covenant, the keeping up of the old was as\n needless a burden as winter garments in the mild air of summer, or\n as the attempt of an adult to wear the clothes of a child.\u201d\n\n Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 2:5-35\u2014\u201cJesus repudiates for himself and\n for his disciples absolute subjection to O. T. Sabbath law (_Mark\n 2:27_ _sq._); to O. T. law as to external defilements (_Mark\n 7:15_); to O. T. divorce law (_Mark 10:2_ _sq._). He would\n \u2018_fulfil_\u2019 law and prophets by complete practical performance of\n the revealed will of God. He would bring out their inner meaning,\n not by literal and slavish obedience to every minute requirement\n of the Mosaic law, but by revealing in himself the perfect life\n and work toward which they tended. He would perfect the O. T.\n conceptions of God\u2014not keep them intact in their literal form, but\n in their essential spirit. Not by quantitative extension, but by\n qualitative renewal, he would fulfil the law and the prophets. He\n would bring the imperfect expression in the O. T. to perfection,\n not by servile letter-worship or allegorizing, but through grasp\n of the divine idea.\u201d\n\n Scripture is not a series of minute injunctions and prohibitions\n such as the Pharisees and the Jesuits laid down. The Koran showed\n its immeasurable inferiority to the Bible by establishing the\n letter instead of the spirit, by giving permanent, definite, and\n specific rules of conduct, instead of leaving room for the growth\n of the free spirit and for the education of conscience. This is\n not true either of O. T. or of N. T. law. In Miss Fowler\u2019s novel\n The Farringdons, Mrs. Herbert wishes \u201cthat the Bible had been\n written on the principle of that dreadful little book called\n \u2018Don\u2019t,\u2019 which gives a list of the solecisms you should avoid; she\n would have understood it so much better than the present system.\u201d\n Our Savior\u2019s words about giving to him that asketh, and turning\n the cheek to the smiter (_Mat 5:39-42_) must be interpreted by the\n principle of love that lies at the foundation of the law. Giving\n to every tramp and yielding to every marauder is not pleasing our\n neighbor \u201c_for that which is good unto edifying_\u201d (_Rom. 15:2_).\n Only by confounding the divine law with Scripture prohibition\n could one write as in N. Amer. Rev., Feb. 1890:275\u2014\u201cSin is the\n transgression of a divine law; but there is no divine law against\n suicide; therefore suicide is not sin.\u201d\n\n The written law was imperfect because God could, at the time, give\n no higher to an unenlightened people. \u201cBut to say that the _scope_\n and _design_ were imperfectly moral, is contradicted by the whole\n course of the history. We must ask what is the moral standard in\n which this course of education issues.\u201d And this we find in the\n life and precepts of Christ. Even the law of repentance and faith\n does not take the place of the old law of being, but applies the\n latter to the special conditions of sin. Under the Levitical law,\n the prohibition of the touching of the dry bone (_Num. 19:16_),\n equally with the purifications and sacrifices, the separations and\n penalties of the Mosaic code, expressed God\u2019s holiness and his\n repelling from him all that savored of sin or death. The laws with\n regard to leprosy were symbolic, as well as sanitary. So church\n polity and the ordinances are not arbitrary requirements, but they\n publish to dull sense-environed consciences, better than abstract\n propositions could have done, the fundamental truths of the\n Christian scheme. Hence they are not to be abrogated \u201c_till he\n come_\u201d (_1 Cor. 11:26_).\n\n The Puritans, however, in re\u00ebnacting the Mosaic code, made the\n mistake of confounding the eternal law of God with a partial,\n temporary, and obsolete expression of it. So we are not to rest in\n external precepts respecting woman\u2019s hair and dress and speech,\n but to find the underlying principle of modesty and subordination\n which alone is of universal and eternal validity. Robert Browning,\n The Ring and the Book, 1:255\u2014\u201cGod breathes, not speaks, his\n verdicts, felt not heard\u2014Passed on successively to each court, I\n call Man\u2019s conscience, custom, manners, all that make More and\n more effort to promulgate, mark God\u2019s verdict in determinable\n words, Till last come human jurists\u2014solidify Fluid results,\u2014what\u2019s\n fixable lies forged, Statute,\u2014the residue escapes in fume, Yet\n hangs aloft a cloud, as palpable To the finer sense as word the\n legist welds. Justinian\u2019s Pandects only make precise What simply\n sparkled in men\u2019s eyes before, Twitched in their brow or quivered\n on their lip, Waited the speech they called, but would not come.\u201d\n See Mozley, Ruling Ideas in Early Ages, 104; Tulloch, Doctrine of\n Sin, 141-144; Finney, Syst. Theol., 1-40, 135-319; Mansel,\n Metaphysics, 378, 379; H. B. Smith, System of Theology, 191-195.\n\n Paul\u2019s injunction to women to keep silence in the churches (_1\n Cor. 14:35_; _1 Tim. 2:11,12_) is to be interpreted by the larger\n law of gospel equality and privilege (_Col. 3:11_). Modesty and\n subordination once required a seclusion of the female sex which is\n no longer obligatory. Christianity has emancipated woman and has\n restored her to the dignity which belonged to her at the\n beginning. \u201cIn the old dispensation Miriam and Deborah and Huldah\n were recognized as leaders of God\u2019s people, and Anna was a notable\n prophetess in the temple courts at the time of the coming of\n Christ. Elizabeth and Mary spoke songs of praise for all\n generations. A prophecy of _Joel 2:28_ was that the daughters of\n the Lord\u2019s people should prophesy, under the guidance of the\n Spirit, in the new dispensation. Philip the evangelist had \u2018_four\n virgin daughters, who prophesied_\u2019 (_Acts 21:9_), and Paul\n cautioned Christian women to have their heads covered when they\n prayed or prophesied in public (_1 Cor. 11:5_), but had no words\n against the work of such women. He brought Priscilla with him to\n Ephesus, where she aided in training Apollos into better preaching\n power (_Acts 18:26_). He welcomed and was grateful for the work of\n those women who labored with him in the gospel at Philippi (_Phil.\n 4:3_). And it is certainly an inference from the spirit and\n teachings of Paul that we should rejoice in the efficient service\n and sound words of Christian women to-day in the Sunday School and\n in the missionary field.\u201d The command \u201c_And he that heareth let\n him say, Come_\u201d (_Rev. 22:17_) is addressed to women also. See\n Ellen Batelle Dietrick, Women in the Early Christian Ministry;\n _per contra_, see G. F. Wilkin, Prophesying of Women, 183-193.\n\n\nIII. Relation of the Law to the Grace of God.\n\n\nIn human government, while law is an expression of the will of the\ngoverning power, and so of the nature lying behind the will, it is by no\nmeans an exhaustive expression of that will and nature, since it consists\nonly of general ordinances, and leaves room for particular acts of command\nthrough the executive, as well as for \u201cthe institution of equity, the\nfaculty of discretionary punishment, and the prerogative of pardon.\u201d\n\n\n Amos, Science of Law, 29-46, shows how \u201cthe institution of equity,\n the faculty of discretionary punishment, and the prerogative of\n pardon\u201d all involve expressions of will above and beyond what is\n contained in mere statute. Century Dictionary, on Equity: \u201cEnglish\n law had once to do only with property in goods, houses and lands.\n A man who had none of these might have an interest in a salary, a\n patent, a contract, a copyright, a security, but a creditor could\n not at common law levy upon these. When the creditor applied to\n the crown for redress, a chancellor or keeper of the king\u2019s\n conscience was appointed, who determined what and how the debtor\n should pay. Often the debtor was required to put his intangible\n property into the hands of a receiver and could regain possession\n of it only when the claim against it was satisfied. These\n chancellors\u2019 courts were called courts of equity, and redressed\n wrongs which the common law did not provide for. In later times\n law and equity are administered for the most part by the same\n courts. The same court sits at one time as a court of law, and at\n another time as a court of equity.\u201d \u201cSumma lex, summa injuria,\u201d is\n sometimes true.\n\n\nApplying now to the divine law this illustration drawn from human law, we\nremark:\n\n(_a_) The law of God is a _general_ expression of God\u2019s will, applicable\nto all moral beings. It therefore does not include the possibility of\nspecial injunctions to individuals, and special acts of wisdom and power\nin creation and providence. The very specialty of these latter expressions\nof will prevents us from classing them under the category of law.\n\n\n Lord Bacon, Confession of Faith: \u201cThe soul of man was not produced\n by heaven or earth, but was breathed immediately from God; so the\n ways and dealings of God with spirits are not included in nature,\n that is, in the laws of heaven and earth, but are reserved to the\n law of his secret will and grace.\u201d\n\n\n(_b_) The law of God, accordingly, is a _partial_, not an exhaustive,\nexpression of God\u2019s nature. It constitutes, indeed, a manifestation of\nthat attribute of holiness which is fundamental in God, and which man must\npossess in order to be in harmony with God. But it does not fully express\nGod\u2019s nature in its aspects of personality, sovereignty, helpfulness,\nmercy.\n\n\n The chief error of all pantheistic theology is the assumption that\n law is an exhaustive expression of God: Strauss, Glaubenslehre,\n 1:31\u2014\u201cIf nature, as the self-realization of the divine essence, is\n equal to this divine essence, then it is infinite, and there can\n be nothing above and beyond it.\u201d This is a denial of the\n transcendence of God (see notes on Pantheism, pages 100-105). Mere\n law is illustrated by the Buddhist proverb: \u201cAs the cartwheel\n follows the tread of the ox, so punishment follows sin.\u201d Denovan:\n \u201cApart from Christ, even if we have never yet broken the law, it\n is only by steady and perfect obedience for the entire future that\n we can remain justified. If we have sinned, we can be justified\n [without Christ] only by suffering and exhausting the whole\n penalty of the law.\u201d\n\n\n(_c_) Mere law, therefore, leaves God\u2019s nature in these aspects of\npersonality, sovereignty, helpfulness, mercy, to be expressed toward\nsinners in another way, namely, through the atoning, regenerating,\npardoning, sanctifying work of the gospel of Christ. As creation does not\nexclude miracles, so law does not exclude grace (Rom. 8:3\u2014\u201cwhat the law\ncould not do ... God\u201d did).\n\n\n Murphy, Scientific Bases, 303-327, esp. 315\u2014\u201cTo impersonal law, it\n is indifferent whether its subjects obey or not. But God desires,\n not the punishment, but the destruction, of sin.\u201d Campbell,\n Atonement, Introd., 28\u2014\u201cThere are two regions of the divine\n self-manifestation, one the reign of law, the other the kingdom of\n God.\u201d C. H. M.: \u201cLaw is the transcript of the mind of God as to\n what man ought to be. But God is not merely law, but love. There\n is more in his heart than could be wrapped up in the \u2018ten words.\u2019\n Not the law, but only Christ, is the perfect image of God\u201d (_John\n 1:17_\u2014\u201c_For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came\n through Jesus Christ_\u201d). So there is more in man\u2019s heart toward\n God than exact fulfilment of requirement. The mother who\n sacrifices herself for her sick child does it, not because she\n must, but because she loves. To say that we are saved by grace, is\n to say that we are saved both without merit on our own part, and\n without necessity on the part of God. Grace is made known in\n proclamation, offer, command; but in all these it is gospel, or\n glad-tidings.\n\n\n(_d_) Grace is to be regarded, however, not as abrogating law, but as\nrepublishing and enforcing it (Rom. 3:31\u2014\u201cwe establish the law\u201d). By\nremoving obstacles to pardon in the mind of God, and by enabling man to\nobey, grace secures the perfect fulfilment of law (Rom. 8:4\u2014\u201cthat the\nordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us\u201d). Even grace has its law\n(Rom. 8:2\u2014\u201cthe law of the Spirit of life\u201d); another higher law of grace,\nthe operation of individualizing mercy, overbears the \u201claw of sin and of\ndeath,\u201d\u2014this last, as in the case of the miracle, not being suspended,\nannulled, or violated, but being merged in, while it is transcended by,\nthe exertion of personal divine will.\n\n\n Hooker, Eccl. Polity, 1:155, 185, 194\u2014\u201cMan, having utterly\n disabled his nature unto those [natural] means, hath had other\n revealed by God, and hath received from heaven a law to teach him\n how that which is desired naturally, must now be supernaturally\n attained. Finally, we see that, because those latter exclude not\n the former as unnecessary, therefore the law of grace teaches and\n includes natural duties also, such as are hard to ascertain by the\n law of nature.\u201d The truth is midway between the Pelagian view,\n that there is no obstacle to the forgiveness of sins, and the\n modern rationalistic view, that since law fully expresses God,\n there can be no forgiveness of sins at all. Greg, Creed of\n Christendom, 2:217-228\u2014\u201cGod is the only being who cannot forgive\n sins.... Punishment is not the execution of a sentence, but the\n occurrence of an effect.\u201d Robertson, Lect. on Genesis, 100\u2014\u201cDeeds\n are irrevocable,\u2014their consequences are knit up with them\n irrevocably.\u201d So Baden Powell, Law and Gospel, in Noyes\u2019\n Theological Essays, 27. All this is true if God be regarded as\n merely the source of law. But there is such a thing as grace, and\n grace is more than law. There is no forgiveness in nature, but\n grace is above and beyond nature.\n\n Bradford, Heredity, 233, quotes from Huxley the terrible\n utterance: \u201cNature always checkmates, without haste and without\n remorse, never overlooking a mistake, or making the slightest\n allowance for ignorance.\u201d Bradford then remarks: \u201cThis is\n Calvinism with God left out. Christianity does not deny or\n minimize the law of retribution, but it discloses a Person who is\n able to deliver in spite of it. There is grace, but grace brings\n salvation to those who accept the terms of salvation\u2014terms\n strictly in accord with the laws revealed by science.\u201d God\n revealed himself, we add, not only in law but in life; see _Deut.\n 1:6, 7_\u2014\u201c_Ye have dwelt long enough in this mountain_\u201d\u2014the\n mountain of the law; \u201c_turn you and take your journey_\u201d\u2014_i. e._,\n see how God\u2019s law is to be applied to life.\n\n\n(_e_) Thus the revelation of grace, while it takes up and includes in\nitself the revelation of law, adds something different in kind, namely,\nthe manifestation of the personal love of the Lawgiver. Without grace, law\nhas only a demanding aspect. Only in connection with grace does it become\n\u201cthe perfect law, the law of liberty\u201d (James 1:25). In fine, grace is that\nlarger and completer manifestation of the divine nature, of which law\nconstitutes the necessary but preparatory stage.\n\n\n Law reveals God\u2019s love and mercy, but only in their mandatory\n aspect; it requires in men conformity to the love and mercy of\n God; and as love and mercy in God are conditioned by holiness, so\n law requires that love and mercy should be conditioned by holiness\n in men. Law is therefore chiefly a revelation of holiness: it is\n in grace that we find the chief revelation of love; though even\n love does not save by ignoring holiness, but rather by vicariously\n satisfying its demands. Robert Browning, Saul: \u201cI spoke as I saw.\n I report as man may of God\u2019s work\u2014All\u2019s Love, yet all\u2019s Law.\u201d\n\n Dorner, Person of Christ, 1:64, 78\u2014\u201cThe law was a word (\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2),\n but it was not a \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, a plastic word, like the words of\n God that brought forth the world, for it was only imperative, and\n there was no reality nor willing corresponding to the command\n (_dem Sollen fehlte das Seyn, das Wollen_). The Christian \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 is\n \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2\u2014\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\u2014an operative and\n effective word, as that of creation.\u201d Chaucer, The Persones Tale:\n \u201cFor sothly the lawe of God is the love of God.\u201d S. S. Times,\n Sept. 14, 1901:595\u2014\u201cUntil a man ceases to be an outsider to the\n kingdom and knows the liberty of the sons of God, he is apt to\n think of God as the great Exacter, the great Forbidder, who reaps\n where he has not sown and gathers where he has not strewn.\u201d\n Burton, in Bap. Rev., July, 1879:261-273, art.: Law and Divine\n Intervention; Farrar, Science and Theology, 184; Salmon, Reign of\n Law; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 1:31.\n\n\n\nSection II.\u2014Nature Of Sin.\n\n\nI. Definition of Sin.\n\n\nSin is lack of conformity to the moral law of God, either in act,\ndisposition, or state.\n\nIn explanation, we remark that (_a_) This definition regards sin as\npredicable only of rational and voluntary agents. (_b_) It assumes,\nhowever, that man has a rational nature below consciousness, and a\nvoluntary nature apart from actual volition. (_c_) It holds that the\ndivine law requires moral likeness to God in the affections and tendencies\nof the nature, as well as in its outward activities. (_d_) It therefore\nconsiders lack of conformity to the divine holiness in disposition or\nstate as a violation of law, equally with the outward act of\ntransgression.\n\n\n In our discussion of the Will (pages 504-513), we noticed that\n there are permanent states of the will, as well as of the\n intellect and of the sensibilities. It is evident, moreover, that\n these permanent states, unlike man\u2019s deliberate acts, are always\n very imperfectly conscious, and in many cases are not conscious at\n all. Yet it is in these very states that man is most unlike God,\n and so, as law only reflects God (see pages 537-544), most lacking\n in conformity to God\u2019s law.\n\n One main difference between Old School and New School views of sin\n is that the latter constantly tends to limit sin to mere act,\n while the former finds sin in the states of the soul. We propose\n what we think to be a valid and proper compromise between the two.\n We make sin co\u00ebxtensive, not with act, but with activity. The Old\n School and the New School are not so far apart, when we remember\n that the New School \u201cchoice\u201d is _elective preference_, exercised\n so soon as the child is born (Park) and reasserting itself in all\n the subordinate choices of life; while the Old School \u201cstate\u201d is\n not a dead, passive, mechanical thing, but is a _state of active\n movement_, or of tendency to move, toward evil. As God\u2019s holiness\n is not passive purity but purity willing (pages 268-275), so the\n opposite to this, sin, is not passive impurity but is impurity\n willing.\n\n The soul may not always be conscious, but it may always be active.\n At his creation man \u201c_became a living soul_\u201d (_Gen. 2:7_), and it\n may be doubted whether the human spirit ever ceases its activity,\n any more than the divine Spirit in whose image it is made. There\n is some reason to believe that even in the deepest sleep the body\n rests rather than the mind. And when we consider how large a\n portion of our activity is automatic and continuous, we see the\n impossibility of limiting the term \u201csin\u201d to the sphere of\n momentary act, whether conscious or unconscious.\n\n E. G. Robinson: \u201cSin is not mere act\u2014something foreign to the\n being. It is a quality of being. There is no such thing as a sin\n apart from a sinner, or an act apart from an actor. God punishes\n sinners, not sins. Sin is a mode of being; as an entity by itself\n it never existed. God punishes sin as a state, not as an act. Man\n is not responsible for the consequences of his crimes, nor for the\n acts themselves, except as they are symptomatic of his personal\n states.\u201d Dorner, Hist. Doct. Person Christ, 5:162\u2014\u201cThe knowledge\n of sin has justly been termed the \u03b2 and \u03c8 of philosophy.\u201d\n\n\nOur treatment of Holiness, as belonging to the nature of God (pages\n268-275); of Will, as not only the faculty of volitions, but also a\npermanent state of the soul (pages 504-513); and of Law as requiring the\nconformity of man\u2019s nature to God\u2019s holiness (pages 537-544); has prepared\nus for the definition of sin as a state. The chief psychological defect of\nNew School theology, next to its making holiness to be a mere form of\nlove, is its ignoring of the unconscious and subconscious elements in\nhuman character. To help our understanding of sin as an underlying and\npermanent state of the soul, we subjoin references to recent writers of\nnote upon psychology and its relations to theology.\n\n\n We may preface our quotations by remarking that mind is always\n greater than its conscious operations. The man is more than his\n acts. Only the smallest part of the self is manifested in the\n thoughts, feelings, and volitions. In counting, to put myself to\n sleep, I find, when my attention has been diverted by other\n thoughts, that the counting has gone on all the same. Ladd,\n Philosophy of Mind, 176, speaks of the \u201cdramatic sundering of the\n ego.\u201d There are dream-conversations. Dr. Johnson was once greatly\n vexed at being worsted by his opponent in an argument in a dream.\n M. Maury in a dream corrected the bad English of his real self by\n the good English of his other unreal self. Spurgeon preached a\n sermon in his sleep after vainly trying to excogitate one when\n awake, and his wife gave him the substance of it after he woke.\n Hegel said that \u201cLife is divided into two realms\u2014a night-life of\n genius, and a day-life of consciousness.\u201d\n\n Du Prel, Philosophy of Mysticism, propounds the thesis: \u201cThe ego\n is not wholly embraced in self-consciousness,\u201d and claims that\n there is much of psychical activity within us of which our common\n waking conception of ourselves takes no account. Thus when \u201cdream\n dramatizes\u201d\u2014when we engage in a dream-conversation in which our\n interlocutor\u2019s answer comes to us with a shock of surprise\u2014if our\n own mind is assumed to have furnished that answer, it has done so\n by a process of unconscious activity. Dwinell, in Bib. Sac., July,\n 1890:369-389\u2014\u201cThe soul is only imperfectly in possession of its\n organs, and is able to report only a small part of its activities\n in consciousness.\u201d Thoughts come to us like foundlings laid at our\n door. We slip in a question to the librarian, Memory, and after\n leaving it there awhile the answer appears on the bulletin board.\n Delb\u0153uf, Le Sommeil et les R\u00eaves, 91\u2014\u201cThe dreamer is a momentary\n and involuntary dupe of his own imagination, as the poet is the\n momentary and voluntary dupe, and the insane man is the permanent\n and involuntary dupe.\u201d If we are the organs not only of our own\n past thinking, but, as Herbert Spencer suggests, also the organs\n of the past thinking of the race, his doctrine may give\n additional, though unintended, confirmation to a Scriptural view\n of sin.\n\n William James, Will to Believe, 316, quotes from F. W. H. Myers,\n in Jour. Psych. Research, who likens our ordinary consciousness to\n the visible part of the solar spectrum; the total consciousness is\n like that spectrum prolonged by the inclusion of the ultra-red and\n the ultra-violet rays\u20141 to 12 and 96. \u201cEach of us,\u201d he says, \u201cis\n an abiding psychical entity far more extensive than he knows\u2014an\n individuality which can never express itself completely through\n any corporeal manifestation. The self manifests itself through the\n organism; but there is always some part of the self unmanifested,\n and always, as it seems, some power of organic expression in\n abeyance or reserve.\u201d William James himself, in Scribner\u2019s\n Monthly, March, 1890:361-373, sketches the hypnotic investigations\n of Janet and Binet. There is a secondary, subconscious self.\n Hysteria is the lack of synthetising power, and consequent\n disintegration of the field of consciousness into mutually\n exclusive parts. According to Janet, the secondary and the primary\n consciousnesses, added together, can never exceed the normally\n total consciousness of the individual. But Prof. James says:\n \u201cThere are trances which obey another type. I know a\n non-hysterical woman, who in her trances knows facts which\n altogether transcend her possible normal consciousness, facts\n about the lives of people whom she never saw or heard of before.\u201d\n\n Our affections are deeper and stronger than we know. We learn how\n deep and strong they are, when their current is resisted by\n affliction or dammed up by death. We know how powerful evil\n passions are, only when we try to subdue them. Our dreams show us\n our naked selves. On the morality of dreams, the London Spectator\n remarks: \u201cOur conscience and power of self-control act as a sort\n of watchdog over our worse selves during the day, but when the\n watchdog is off duty, the primitive or natural man is at liberty\n to act as he pleases; our \u2018soul\u2019 has left us at the mercy of our\n own evil nature, and in our dreams we become what, except for the\n grace of God, we would always be.\u201d\n\n Both in conscience and in will there is a self-diremption. Kant\u2019s\n categorical imperative is only one self laying down the law to the\n other self. The whole Kantian system of ethics is based on this\n doctrine of double consciousness. Ladd, in his Philosophy of Mind,\n 169 _sq._, speaks of \u201cpsychical automatism.\u201d Yet this automatism\n is possible only to self-conscious and cognitively remembering\n minds. It is always the \u201cI\u201d that puts itself into \u201cthat other.\u201d We\n could not conceive of the other self except under the figure of\n the \u201cI.\u201d All our mental operations are ours, and we are\n responsible for them, because the subconscious and even the\n unconscious self is the product of past self-conscious thoughts\n and volitions. The present settled state of our wills is the\n result of former decisions. The will is a storage battery, charged\n by past acts, full of latent power, ready to manifest its energy\n so soon as the force which confines it is withdrawn. On\n unconscious mental action, see Carpenter, Mental Physiology, 139,\n 515-543, and criticism of Carpenter, in Ireland, Blot on the\n Brain, 226-238; Bramwell, Hypnotism, its History, Practice and\n Theory, 358-398; Porter, Human Intellect, 333, 334; _versus_ Sir\n Wm. Hamilton, who adopts the maxim: \u201cNon sentimus, nisi sentiamus\n nos sentire\u201d (Philosophy, ed. Wight, 171). Observe also that sin\n may infect the body, as well as the soul, and may bring it into a\n state of non-conformity to God\u2019s law (see H. B. Smith, Syst.\n Theol., 267).\n\n\nIn adducing our Scriptural and rational proof of the definition of sin as\na state, we desire to obviate the objection that this view leaves the soul\nwholly given over to the power of evil. While we maintain that this is\ntrue of man apart from God, we also insist that side by side with the evil\nbent of the human will there is always an immanent divine power which\ngreatly counteracts the force of evil, and if not resisted leads the\nindividual soul\u2014even when resisted leads the race at large\u2014toward truth\nand salvation. This immanent divine power is none other than Christ, the\neternal Word, the Light which lighteth every man; see John 1:4, 9.\n\n\n _John 1:4, 9_\u2014\u201c_In him was life, and the life was the light of\n men.... There was the true light, even the light which lighteth\n every man._\u201d See a further statement in A. H. Strong, Cleveland\n Sermon, May, 1904, with regard to the old and the new view as to\n sin:\u2014\u201cOur fathers believed in total depravity, and we agree with\n them that man naturally is devoid of love to God and that every\n faculty is weakened, disordered, and corrupted by the selfish bent\n of his will. They held to original sin. The selfish bent of man\u2019s\n will can be traced back to the apostacy of our first parents; and,\n on account of that departure of the race from God, all men are by\n nature children of wrath. And all this is true, if it is regarded\n as a statement of the facts, apart from their relation to Christ.\n But our fathers did not see, as we do, that man\u2019s relation to\n Christ antedated the Fall and constituted an underlying and\n modifying condition of man\u2019s life. Humanity was naturally in\n Christ, in whom all things were created and in whom they all\n consist. Even man\u2019s sin did not prevent Christ from still working\n in him to counteract the evil and to suggest the good. There was\n an internal, as well as an external, preparation for man\u2019s\n redemption. In this sense, of a divine principle in man striving\n against the selfish and godless will, there was a total\n redemption, over against man\u2019s total depravity; and an original\n grace, that was even more powerful than original sin.\n\n \u201cWe have become conscious that total depravity alone is not a\n sufficient or proper expression of the truth; and the phrase has\n been outgrown. It has been felt that the old view of sin did not\n take account of the generous and noble aspirations, the unselfish\n efforts, the strivings after God, of even unregenerate men. For\n this reason there has been less preaching about sin, and less\n conviction as to its guilt and condemnation. The good impulses of\n men outside the Christian pale have been often credited to human\n nature, when they should have been credited to the indwelling\n Spirit of Christ. I make no doubt that one of our radical\n weaknesses at this present time is our more superficial view of\n sin. Without some sense of sin\u2019s guilt and condemnation, we cannot\n feel our need of redemption. John the Baptist must go before\n Christ; the law must prepare the way for the gospel.\n\n \u201cMy belief is that the new apprehension of Christ\u2019s relation to\n the race will enable us to declare, as never before, the lost\n condition of the sinner; while at the same time we show him that\n Christ is with him and in him to save. This presence in every man\n of a power not his own that works for righteousness is a very\n different doctrine from that \u2019divinity of man\u2019 which is so often\n preached. The divinity is not the divinity of man, but the\n divinity of Christ. And the power that works for righteousness is\n not the power of man, but the power of Christ. It is a power whose\n warning, inviting, persuading influence renders only more marked\n and dreadful the evil will which hampers and resists it. Depravity\n is all the worse, when we recognize in it the constant antagonist\n of an ever-present, all-holy, and all-loving Redeemer.\u201d\n\n\n1. Proof.\n\n\nAs it is readily admitted that the outward act of transgression is\nproperly denominated sin, we here attempt to show only that lack of\nconformity to the law of God in disposition or state is also and equally\nto be so denominated.\n\nA. From Scripture.\n\n(_a_) The words ordinarily translated \u201csin,\u201d or used as synonyms for it,\nare as applicable to dispositions and states as to acts (\u05d7\u05d8\u05d0\u05d4 and \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\n= a missing, failure, coming short [_sc._ of God\u2019s will]).\n\n\n See _Num. 15:28_\u2014\u201c_sinneth unwittingly_\u201d; _Ps. 51:2_\u2014\u201c_cleanse me\n from my sin_\u201d; _5_\u2014\u201c_Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And\n in sin did my mother conceive me_\u201d; _Rom. 7:17_\u2014\u201c_sin which\n dwelleth in me_\u201d; compare _Judges 20:16_, where the literal\n meaning of the word appears: \u201c_sling stones at a hair-breadth, and\n not miss_\u201d (\u05d7\u05d8\u05d0). In a similar manner, \u05de\u05e9\u05e2 [LXX \u1f00\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1] =\n separation from, rebellion against [sc. God]; see _Lev. 16:16,\n 21_; _cf._ Delitzsch on _Ps. 32:1_. \u05e2\u05d5\u05df [LXX \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1] = bending,\n perversion [sc. of what is right], iniquity; see _Lev. 5:17_;\n _cf._ _John 7:18_. See also the Hebrew \u05e8\u05e2, \u05e8\u05e9\u05e2, [= ruin,\n confusion], and the Greek \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1, \u1f14\u03c7\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03b1,\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03be. None of these designations of sin limits it to mere\n act,\u2014most of them more naturally suggest disposition or state.\n \u1f09\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1 implies that man in sin does not reach what he seeks\n therein; sin is a state of delusion and deception (Julius M\u00fcller).\n On the words mentioned, see Girdlestone, O. T. Synonyms; Cremer,\n Lexicon N. T. Greek; Present Day Tracts, 5: no. 28, pp. 43-47;\n Trench, N. T. Synonyms, part 2:61, 73.\n\n\n(b) The New Testament descriptions of sin bring more distinctly to view\nthe states and dispositions than the outward acts of the soul (1 John\n3:4\u2014\u1f21 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f21 \u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1, where \u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 =, not \u201ctransgression of the\nlaw,\u201d but, as both context and etymology show, \u201clack of conformity to law\u201d\nor \u201clawlessness\u201d\u2014Rev. Vers.).\n\n\n See _1 John 5:17_\u2014\u201c_All unrighteousness is sin_\u201d; _Rom.\n 14:23_\u2014\u201c_whatsoever is not of faith is sin_\u201d; _James 4:17_\u2014\u201c_To\n him therefore that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it\n is sin._\u201d Where the sin is that of _not doing_, sin cannot be said\n to consist in _act_. It must then at least be a _state_.\n\n\n(_c_) Moral evil is ascribed not only to the thoughts and affections, but\nto the heart from which they spring (we read of the \u201cevil thoughts\u201d and of\nthe \u201cevil heart\u201d\u2014Mat. 15:19 and Heb. 3:12).\n\n\n See also _Mat. 5:22_\u2014anger in the heart is murder; _28_\u2014impure\n desire is adultery. _Luke 6:45_\u2014\u201c_the evil man out of the evil\n treasure_ [of his heart] _bringeth forth that which is evil._\u201d\n _Heb. 3:12_\u2014\u201c_an evil heart of unbelief_\u201d; _cf._ _Is. 1:5_\u2014\u201c_the\n whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint_\u201d; _Jer. 17:9_\u2014\u201c_The\n heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceedingly\n corrupt: who can know it?_\u201d\u2014here the sin that cannot be known is\n not sin of act, but sin of the heart. \u201cBelow the surface stream,\n shallow and light, Of what we _say_ we feel; below the stream, As\n light, of what we _think_ we feel, there flows, With silent\n current, strong, obscure and deep, The central stream of what we\n feel _indeed_.\u201d\n\n\n(_d_) The state or condition of the soul which gives rise to wrong desires\nand acts is expressly called sin (Rom. 7:8\u2014\u201cSin ... wrought in me ... all\nmanner of coveting\u201d).\n\n\n _John 8:34_\u2014\u201c_Every one that committeth sin is the bondservant of\n sin_\u201d; _Rom. 7:11, 13, 14, 17, 20_\u2014\u201c_sin ... beguiled me ...\n working death to me ... I am carnal, sold under sin ... sin which\n dwelleth in me._\u201d These representations of sin as a principle or\n state of the soul are incompatible with the definition of it as a\n mere act. John Byrom, 1691-1763: \u201cThink and be careful what thou\n art within, For there is sin in the desire of sin. Think and be\n thankful in a different case, For there is grace in the desire of\n grace.\u201d\n\n Alexander, Theories of the Will, 85\u2014\u201cIn the person of Paul is\n represented the man who has been already justified by faith and\n who is at peace with God. In the 6th chapter of Romans, the\n question is discussed whether such a man is obliged to keep the\n moral law. But in the 7th chapter the question is not, _must_ man\n keep the moral law? but why is he so _incapable_ of keeping the\n moral law? The struggle is thus, not in the soul of the\n unregenerate man who is dead in sin, but in the soul of the\n regenerate man who has been pardoned and is endeavoring to keep\n the law.... In a state of sin the will is determined toward the\n bad; in a state of grace the will is determined toward\n righteousness; but not wholly so, for the flesh is not at once\n subdued, and there is a war between the good and bad principles of\n action in the soul of him who has been pardoned.\u201d\n\n\n(_e_) Sin is represented as existing in the soul, prior to the\nconsciousness of it, and as only discovered and awakened by the law (Rom.\n7:9, 10\u2014\u201cwhen the commandment came, sin revived, and I died\u201d\u2014if sin\n\u201crevived,\u201d it must have had previous existence and life, even though it\ndid not manifest itself in acts of conscious transgression).\n\n\n _Rom. 7:8_\u2014\u201c_apart from the law sin is dead_\u201d\u2014here is sin which is\n not yet sin of act. Dead or unconscious sin is still sin. The fire\n in a cave discovers reptiles and stirs them, but they were there\n before; the light and heat do not create them. Let a beam of\n light, says Jean Paul Richter, through your window-shutter into a\n darkened room, and you reveal a thousand motes floating in the air\n whose existence was before unsuspected. So the law of God reveals\n our \u201c_hidden faults_\u201d (_Ps. 19:12_)\u2014infirmities, imperfections,\n evil tendencies and desires\u2014which also cannot all be classed as\n _acts_ of transgression.\n\n\n(_f_) The allusions to sin as a permanent power or reigning principle, not\nonly in the individual but in humanity at large, forbid us to define it as\na momentary act, and compel us to regard it as being primarily a settled\ndepravity of nature, of which individual sins or acts of transgression are\nthe workings and fruits (Rom. 5:21\u2014\u201csin reigned in death\u201d; 6:12\u2014\u201clet not\ntherefore sin reign in your mortal body\u201d).\n\n\n In _Rom. 5:21_, the reign of sin is compared to the reign of\n grace. As grace is not an act but a principle, so sin is not an\n act but a principle. As the poisonous exhalations from a well\n indicate that there is corruption and death at the bottom, so the\n ever-recurring thoughts and acts of sin are evidence that there is\n a principle of sin in the heart,\u2014in other words, that sin exists\n as a permanent disposition or state. A momentary act cannot\n \u201creign\u201d nor \u201cdwell\u201d; a disposition or state can. Maudsley, Sleep,\n its Psychology, makes the damaging confession: \u201cIf we were held\n responsible for our dreams, there is no living man who would not\n deserve to be hanged.\u201d\n\n\n(_g_) The Mosaic sacrifices for sins of ignorance and of omission, and\nespecially for general sinfulness, are evidence that sin is not to be\nlimited to mere act, but that it includes something deeper and more\npermanent in the heart and the life (Lev. 1:3; 5:11; 12:8; _cf._ Luke\n2:24).\n\n\n The sin-offering for sins of ignorance (_Lev. 4:14, 20, 31_), the\n trespass-offering for sins of omission (_Lev. 5:5, 6_), and the\n burnt offering to expiate general sinfulness (_Lev. 1:3_; _cf._\n _Luke 2:22-24_), all witness that sin is not confined to mere act.\n _John 1:29_\u2014\u201c_the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin,_\u201d not the\n sins, \u201c_of the world_\u201d. See Oehler, O. T. Theology, 1:233; Schmid,\n Bib. Theol. N. T., 194, 381, 442, 448, 492, 604; Philippi,\n Glaubenslehre, 3:210-217; Julius M\u00fcller, Doctrine of Sin,\n 2:259-306; Edwards, Works. 3:16-18. For the New School definition\n of sin, see Fitch, Nature of Sin, and Park, in Bib. Sac., 7:551.\n\n\nB. From the common judgment of mankind.\n\n(_a_) Men universally attribute vice as well as virtue not only to\nconscious and deliberate acts, but also to dispositions and states. Belief\nin something more permanently evil than acts of transgression is indicated\nin the common phrases, \u201chateful temper,\u201d \u201cwicked pride,\u201d \u201cbad character.\u201d\n\n\n As the beatitudes (_Mat. 5:1-12_) are pronounced, not upon acts,\n but upon dispositions of the soul, so the curses of the law are\n uttered not so much against single acts of transgression as\n against the evil affections from which they spring. Compare the\n \u201c_works of the flesh_\u201d (_Gal. 5:19_) with the \u201c_fruit of the\n Spirit_\u201d (_5:22_). In both, dispositions and states predominate.\n\n\n(_b_) Outward acts, indeed, are condemned only when they are regarded as\noriginating in, and as symptomatic of, evil dispositions. Civil law\nproceeds upon this principle in holding crime to consist, not alone in the\nexternal act, but also in the evil motive or intent with which it is\nperformed.\n\n\n The _mens rea_ is essential to the idea of crime. The\n \u201c_idle-word_\u201d (_Mat 12:36_) shall be brought into the judgment,\n not because it is so important in itself, but because it is a\n floating straw that indicates the direction of the whole current\n of the heart and life. Murder differs from homicide, not in any\n outward respect, but simply because of the motive that prompts\n it,\u2014and that motive is always, in the last analysis, an evil\n disposition or state.\n\n\n(_c_) The stronger an evil disposition, or in other words, the more it\nconnects itself with, or resolves itself into, a settled state or\ncondition of the soul, the more blameworthy is it felt to be. This is\nshown by the distinction drawn between crimes of passion and crimes of\ndeliberation.\n\n\n Edwards: \u201cGuilt consists in having one\u2019s heart wrong, and in doing\n wrong from the heart.\u201d There is guilt in evil desires, even when\n the will combats them. But there is greater guilt when the will\n consents. The outward act may be in each case the same, but the\n guilt of it is proportioned to the extent to which the evil\n disposition is settled and strong.\n\n\n(_d_) This condemning sentence remains the same, even although the origin\nof the evil disposition or state cannot be traced back to any conscious\nact of the individual. Neither the general sense of mankind, nor the civil\nlaw in which this general sense is expressed, goes behind the fact of an\nexisting evil will. Whether this evil will is the result of personal\ntransgression or is a hereditary bias derived from generations passed,\nthis evil will is the man himself, and upon him terminates the blame. We\ndo not excuse arrogance or sensuality upon the ground that they are family\ntraits.\n\n\n The young murderer in Boston was not excused upon the ground of a\n congenitally cruel disposition. We repent in later years of sins\n of boyhood, which we only now see to be sins; and converted\n cannibals repent, after becoming Christians, of the sins of\n heathendom which they once committed without a thought of their\n wickedness. The peacock cannot escape from his feet by flying, nor\n can we absolve ourselves from blame for an evil state of will by\n tracing its origin to a remote ancestry. We are responsible for\n what we are. How this can be, when we have not personally and\n consciously originated it, is the problem of original sin, which\n we have yet to discuss.\n\n\n(_e_) When any evil disposition has such strength in itself, or is so\ncombined with others, as to indicate a settled moral corruption in which\nno power to do good remains, this state is regarded with the deepest\ndisapprobation of all. Sin weakens man\u2019s power of obedience, but the\ncan-not is a will-not, and is therefore condemnable. The opposite\nprinciple would lead to the conclusion that, the more a man weakened his\npowers by transgression, the less guilty he would be, until absolute\ndepravity became absolute innocence.\n\n\n The boy who hates his father cannot change his hatred into love by\n a single act of will; but he is not therefore innocent.\n Spontaneous and uncontrollable profanity is the worst profanity of\n all. It is a sign that the whole will, like a subterranean\n Kentucky river, is moving away from God, and that no recuperative\n power is left in the soul which can reach into the depths to\n reverse its course. See Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:110-114; Shedd,\n Hist. Doct., 2:79-92, 152-157; Richards, Lectures on Theology,\n 256-301; Edwards, Works, 2:134; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 243-262;\n Princeton Essays, 2:224-239; Van Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 394.\n\n\nC. From the experience of the Christian.\n\nChristian experience is a testing of Scripture truth, and therefore is not\nan independent source of knowledge. It may, however, corroborate\nconclusions drawn from the word of God. Since the judgment of the\nChristian is formed under the influence of the Holy Spirit, we may trust\nthis more implicitly than the general sense of the world. We affirm, then,\nthat just in proportion to his spiritual enlightenment and self-knowledge,\nthe Christian\n\n(_a_) Regards his outward deviations from God\u2019s law, and his evil\ninclinations and desires, as outgrowths and revelations of a depravity of\nnature which lies below his consciousness; and\n\n(_b_) Repents more deeply for this depravity of nature, which constitutes\nhis inmost character and is inseparable from himself, than for what he\nmerely feels or does.\n\nIn proof of these statements we appeal to the biographies and writings of\nthose in all ages who have been by general consent regarded as most\nadvanced in spiritual culture and discernment.\n\n\n \u201cIntelligentia prima est, ut te noris peccatorem.\u201d Compare David\u2019s\n experience, _Ps. 51:6_\u2014\u201c_Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward\n parts: And in the hidden part thou wilt make me to know\n wisdom_\u201d\u2014with Paul\u2019s experience in _Rom. 7:24_\u2014\u201c_Wretched man that\n I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death?_\u201d\u2014with\n Isaiah\u2019s experience (_6:5_), when in the presence of God\u2019s glory\n he uses the words of the leper (_Lev. 13:45_) and calls himself\n \u201c_unclean_,\u201d and with Peter\u2019s experience (_Luke 5:8_) when at the\n manifestation of Christ\u2019s miraculous power he \u201c_fell down at\n Jesus\u2019 __ knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O\n Lord._\u201d So the publican cries: _\u201c__God, be thou merciful to me the\n sinner__\u201d__ (Luke 18:13)_, and Paul calls himself the \u201c_chief_\u201d of\n sinners (_1 Tim. 1:15_). It is evident that in none of these cases\n were there merely single acts of transgression in view; the\n humiliation and self-abhorrence were in view of permanent states\n of depravity. Van Oosterzee: \u201cWhat we do outwardly is only the\n revelation of our inner nature.\u201d The outcropping and visible rock\n is but small in extent compared with the rock that is underlying\n and invisible. The iceberg has eight-ninths of its mass below the\n surface of the sea, yet icebergs have been seen near Cape Horn\n from 700 to 800 feet high above the water.\n\n It may be doubted whether any repentance is genuine which is not\n repentance for _sin_ rather than for _sins_; compare _John\n 16:8_\u2014the Holy Spirit \u201c_will convict the world in respect of\n sin_/\u201d On the difference between conviction of sins and conviction\n of sin, see Hare, Mission of the Comforter. Dr. A. J. Gordon, just\n before his death, desired to be left alone. He was then overheard\n confessing his sins in such seemingly extravagant terms as to\n excite fear that he was in delirium. Martensen, Dogmatics,\n 389\u2014Luther during his early experience \u201coften wrote to Staupitz:\n \u2018Oh, my sins, my sins!\u2019 and yet in the confessional he could name\n no sins in particular which he had to confess; so that it was\n clearly a sense of the general depravity of his nature which\n filled his soul with deep sorrow and pain.\u201d Luther\u2019s conscience\n would not accept the comfort that he _wished_ to be without sin,\n and therefore had no real sin. When he thought himself too great a\n sinner to be saved, Staupitz replied: \u201cWould you have the\n semblance of a sinner and the semblance of a Savior?\u201d\n\n After twenty years of religious experience, Jonathan Edwards wrote\n (Works 1:22, 23; also 3:16-18): \u201cOften since I have lived in this\n town I have had very affecting views of my own sinfulness and\n vileness, very frequently to such a degree as to hold me in a kind\n of loud weeping, sometimes for a considerable time together, so\n that I have been often obliged to shut myself up. I have had a\n vastly greater sense of my own wickedness and the badness of my\n heart than ever I had before my conversion. It has often appeared\n to me that if God should mark iniquity against me, I should appear\n the very worst of all mankind, of all that have been since the\n beginning of the world to this time; and that I should have by far\n the lowest place in hell. When others that have come to talk with\n me about their soul\u2019s concerns have expressed the sense they have\n had of their own wickedness, by saying that it seemed to them they\n were as bad as the devil himself; I thought their expressions\n seemed exceeding faint and feeble to represent my wickedness.\u201d\n\n Edwards continues: \u201cMy wickedness, as I am in myself, has long\n appeared to me perfectly ineffable and swallowing up all thought\n and imagination\u2014like an infinite deluge, or mountains over my\n head. I know not how to express better what my sins appear to me\n to be, than by heaping infinite on infinite and multiplying\n infinite by infinite. Very often for these many years, these\n expressions are in my mind and in my mouth: \u2018Infinite upon\n infinite\u2014infinite upon infinite!\u2019 When I look into my heart and\n take a view of my wickedness, it looks like an abyss infinitely\n deeper than hell. And it appears to me that were it not for free\n grace, exalted and raised up to the infinite height of all the\n fulness and glory of the great Jehovah, and the arm of his power\n and grace stretched forth in all the majesty of his power and in\n all the glory of his sovereignty, I should appear sunk down in my\n sins below hell itself, far beyond the sight of everything but the\n eye of sovereign grace that can pierce even down to such a depth.\n And yet it seems to me that my conviction of sin is exceeding\n small and faint; it is enough to amaze me that I have no more\n sense of my sin. I know certainly that I have very little sense of\n my sinfulness. When I have had turns of weeping for my sins, I\n thought I knew at the time that my repentance was nothing to my\n sin.... It is affecting to think how ignorant I was, when a young\n Christian, of the bottomless, infinite depths of wickedness,\n pride, hypocrisy, and deceit left in my heart.\u201d\n\n Jonathan Edwards was not an ungodly man, but the holiest man of\n his time. He was not an enthusiast, but a man of acute,\n philosophic mind. He was not a man who indulged in exaggerated or\n random statements, for with his power of introspection and\n analysis he combined a faculty and habit of exact expression\n unsurpassed among the sons of men. If the maxim \u201ccuique in arte\n sua credendum est\u201d is of any value, Edwards\u2019s statements in a\n matter of religious experience are to be taken as correct\n interpretations of the facts. H. B. Smith (System. Theol., 275)\n quotes Thomasius as saying: \u201cIt is a striking fact in Scripture\n that statements of the depth and power of sin are chiefly from the\n regenerate.\u201d Another has said that \u201ca serpent is never seen at its\n whole length until it is dead.\u201d Thomas \u00e0 Kempis (ed. Gould and\n Lincoln, 142)\u2014\u201cDo not think that thou hast made any progress\n toward perfection, till thou feelest that thou art less than the\n least of all human beings.\u201d Young\u2019s Night Thoughts: \u201cHeaven\u2019s\n Sovereign saves all beings but himself That hideous sight\u2014a naked\n human heart.\u201d\n\n Law\u2019s Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life: \u201cYou may justly\n condemn yourself for being the greatest sinner that you know, 1.\n Because you know more of the folly of your own heart than of other\n people\u2019s, and can charge yourself with various sins which you know\n only of yourself and cannot be sure that others are guilty of\n them. 2. The greatness of our guilt arises from the greatness of\n God\u2019s goodness to us. You know more of these aggravations of your\n sins than you do of the sins of other people. Hence the greatest\n saints have in all ages condemned themselves as the greatest\n sinners.\u201d We may add: 3. That, since each man is a peculiar being,\n each man is guilty of peculiar sins, and in certain particulars\n and aspects may constitute an example of the enormity and\n hatefulness of sin, such as neither earth nor hell can elsewhere\n show.\n\n Of Cromwell, as a representative of the Puritans, Green says\n (Short History of the English People, 454): \u201cThe vivid sense of\n the divine Purity close to such men, made the life of common men\n seem sin.\u201d Dr. Arnold of Rugby (Life and Corresp., App. D.): \u201cIn a\n deep sense of moral evil, more perhaps than anything else, abides\n a saving knowledge of God.\u201d Augustine, on his death-bed, had the\n 32d Psalm written over against him on the wall. For his\n expressions with regard to sin, see his Confessions, book 10. See\n also Shedd, Discourses and Essays, 284, note.\n\n\n2. Inferences.\n\n\nIn the light of the preceding discussion, we may properly estimate the\nelements of truth and of error in the common definition of sin as \u201cthe\nvoluntary transgression of known law.\u201d\n\n(_a_) Not all sin is voluntary as being a distinct and conscious volition;\nfor evil disposition and state often precede and occasion evil volition,\nand evil disposition and state are themselves sin. All sin, however, is\nvoluntary as springing either directly from will, or indirectly from those\nperverse affections and desires which have themselves originated in will.\n\u201cVoluntary\u201d is a term broader then \u201cvolitional,\u201d and includes all those\npermanent states of intellect and affection which the will has made what\nthey are. Will, moreover, is not to be regarded as simply the faculty of\nvolitions, but as primarily the underlying determination of the being to a\nsupreme end.\n\n\n Will, as we have seen, includes preference (\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1, _voluntas_,\n _Wille_) as well as volition (\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03ae, _arbitrium_, _Willk\u00fcr_). We\n do not, with Edwards and Hodge, regard the sensibilities as states\n of the will. They are, however, in their character and their\n objects determined by the will, and so they may be called\n voluntary. The permanent state of the will (New School \u201celective\n preference\u201d) is to be distinguished from the permanent state of\n the sensibilities (dispositions, or desires). But both are\n voluntary because both are due to past decisions of the will, and\n \u201cwhatever springs from will we are responsible for\u201d (Shedd,\n Discourses and Essays, 243). Julius M\u00fcller, 2:51\u2014\u201cWe speak of\n self-consciousness and reason as something which the ego _has_,\n but we identify the will _with_ the ego. No one would say, \u2018my\n will has decided this or that,\u2019 although we do say, \u2018my reason, my\n conscience teaches me this or that.\u2019 The will is the very man\n himself, as Augustine says: \u2018Voluntas est in omnibus; imo omnes\n nihil aliud quam voluntates sunt.\u2019 \u201d\n\n For other statements of the relation of disposition to will, see\n Alexander, Moral Science, 151\u2014\u201cIn regard to dispositions, we say\n that they are in a sense voluntary. They properly belong to the\n will, taking the word in a large sense. In judging of the morality\n of voluntary acts, the principle from which they proceed is always\n included in our view and comes in for a large part of the blame\u201d;\n see also pages 201, 207, 208. Edwards on the Affections, 3:1-22;\n on the Will, 3:4\u2014\u201cThe affections are only certain modes of the\n exercise of the will.\u201d A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, 234\u2014\u201cAll\n sin is voluntary, in the sense that all sin has its root in the\n perverted dispositions, desires, and affections which constitute\n the depraved state of the will.\u201d But to Alexander, Edwards, and\n Hodge, we reply that the first sin was not voluntary in this\n sense, for there was no such depraved state of the will from which\n it could spring. We are responsible for dispositions, not upon the\n ground that they are a part of the will, but upon the ground that\n they are effects of will, in other words, that past decisions of\n the will have made them what they are. See pages 504-513.\n\n\n(_b_) Deliberate intention to sin is an aggravation of transgression, but\nit is not essential to constitute any given act or feeling a sin. Those\nevil inclinations and impulses which rise unbidden and master the soul\nbefore it is well aware of their nature, are themselves violations of the\ndivine law, and indications of an inward depravity which in the case of\neach descendant of Adam is the chief and fontal transgression.\n\n\n Joseph Cook: \u201cOnly the surface-water of the sea is penetrated with\n light. Beneath is a half-lit region. Still further down is\n absolute darkness. We are greater than we know.\u201d Weismann,\n Heredity, 2:8\u2014\u201cAt the depth of 170 meters, or 552 feet, there is\n about as much light as that of a starlight night when there is no\n moon. Light penetrates as far as 400 meters, or 1,300 feet, but\n animal life exists at a depth of 4,000 meters, or 13,000 feet.\n Below 1,300 feet, all animals are blind.\u201d (_Cf._ _Ps. 51:6;\n 19:12_\u2014\u201c_the inward parts ... the hidden parts ... hidden\n faults_\u201d\u2014hidden not only from others, but even from ourselves.)\n The light of consciousness plays only on the surface of the waters\n of man\u2019s soul.\n\n\n(_c_) Knowledge of the sinfulness of an act or feeling is also an\naggravation of transgression, but it is not essential to constitute it a\nsin. Moral blindness is the effect of transgression, and, as inseparable\nfrom corrupt affections and desires, is itself condemned by the divine\nlaw.\n\n\n It is our duty to do better than we know. Our duty of knowing is\n as real as our duty of doing. Sin is an opiate. Some of the most\n deadly diseases do not reveal themselves in the patient\u2019s\n countenance, nor has the patient any adequate understanding of his\n malady. There is an ignorance which is indolence. Men are often\n unwilling to take the trouble of rectifying their standards of\n judgment. There is also an ignorance which is intention. Instance\n many students\u2019 ignorance of College laws.\n\n We cannot excuse disobedience by saying: \u201cI forgot.\u201d God\u2019s\n commandment is: \u201c_Remember_\u201d\u2014as in _Ex. 20:8_; _cf._ _2 Pet.\n 3:5_\u2014\u201c_For this they wilfully forget._\u201d \u201cIgnorantia legis neminem\n excusat.\u201d _Rom. 2:12_\u2014\u201c_as many as have sinned without the law\n shall also perish without the law_\u201d; _Luke 12:48_\u2014\u201c_he that knew\n not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten_ [though]\n _with few stripes._\u201d The aim of revelation and of preaching is to\n bring man \u201c_to himself_\u201d (_cf._ _Luke 15:17_)\u2014to show him what he\n has been doing and what he is. Goethe: \u201cWe are never deceived: we\n deceive ourselves.\u201d Royce, World and Individual, 2:359\u2014\u201cThe sole\n possible free moral action is then a freedom that relates to the\n present fixing of attention upon the ideas of the Ought which are\n already present. To sin is _consciously to choose to forget_,\n through a narrowing of the field of attention, an Ought that one\n already recognizes.\u201d\n\n\n(_d_) Ability to fulfill the law is not essential to constitute the\nnon-fulfilment sin. Inability to fulfill the law is a result of\ntransgression, and, as consisting not in an original deficiency of faculty\nbut in a settled state of the affections and will, it is itself\ncondemnable. Since the law presents the holiness of God as the only\nstandard for the creature, ability to obey can never be the measure of\nobligation or the test of sin.\n\n\n Not power to the contrary, in the sense of ability to change all\n our permanent states by mere volition, is the basis of obligation\n and responsibility; for surely Satan\u2019s responsibility does not\n depend upon his power at any moment to turn to God and be holy.\n\n Definitions of sin\u2014Melanchthon: Defectus vel inclinatio vel actio\n pugnans cum lege Dei. Calvin: Illegalitas, seu difformitas a lege.\n Hollaz: Aberratio a lege divina. Hollaz adds: \u201cVoluntariness does\n not enter into the definition of sin, generically considered. Sin\n may be called voluntary, either in respect to its cause, as it\n inheres in the will, or in respect to the act, as it procedes from\n deliberate volition. Here is the antithesis to the Roman Catholics\n and to the Socinians, the latter of whom define sin as a voluntary\n [_i. e._, a volitional] transgression of law\u201d\u2014a view, says Hase\n (Hutterus Redivivus, 11th ed., 162-164), \u201cwhich is derived from\n the necessary methods of civil tribunals, and which is\n incompatible with the orthodox doctrine of original sin.\u201d On the\n New School definition of sin, see Fairchild, Nature of Sin, in\n Bib. Sac., 25:30-48; Whedon, in Bib. Sac., 19:251, and On the\n Will, 328. _Per contra_, see Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:180-190;\n Lawrence, Old School in N. E. Theol., in Bib. Sac., 20:317-328;\n Julius M\u00fcller, Doc. Sin, 1:40-72; Nitzsch, Christ. Doct., 216;\n Luthardt, Compendium der Dogmatik, 124-126.\n\n\nII. The Essential Principle of Sin.\n\n\nThe definition of sin as lack of conformity to the divine law does not\nexclude, but rather necessitates, an inquiry into the characterizing\nmotive or impelling power which explains its existence and constitutes its\nguilt. Only three views require extended examination. Of these the first\ntwo constitute the most common excuses for sin, although not propounded\nfor this purpose by their authors: Sin is due (1) to the human body, or\n(2) to finite weakness. The third, which we regard as the Scriptural view,\nconsiders sin as (3) the supreme choice of self, or selfishness.\n\nIn the preceding section on the Definition of Sin, we showed that sin is a\n_state_, and a state of the _will_. We now ask: What is the nature of this\nstate? and we expect to show that it is essentially a _selfish_ state of\nthe will.\n\n\n1. Sin as Sensuousness.\n\n\nThis view regards sin as the necessary product of man\u2019s sensuous nature\u2014a\nresult of the soul\u2019s connection with a physical organism. This is the view\nof Schleiermacher and of Rothe. More recent writers, with John Fiske,\nregard moral evil as man\u2019s inheritance from a brute ancestry.\n\n\n For statement of the view here opposed, see Schleiermacher, Der\n Christliche Glaube, 1:361-364\u2014\u201cSin is a prevention of the\n determining power of the spirit, caused by the independence\n (Selbst\u00e4ndigkeit) of the sensuous functions.\u201d The child lives at\n first a life of sense, in which the bodily appetites are supreme.\n The senses are the avenues of all temptation, the physical\n domineers over the spiritual, and the soul never shakes off the\n body. Sin is, therefore, a malarious exhalation from the low\n grounds of human nature, or, to use the words of Schleiermacher,\n \u201ca positive opposition of the flesh to the spirit.\u201d Pfleiderer,\n Prot. Theol. seit Kant, 113,\u2014says that Schleiermacher here repeats\n Spinoza\u2019s \u201cinability of the spirit to control the sensuous\n affections.\u201d Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 1:230\u2014\u201cIn the\n development of man out of naturality, the lower impulses have\n already won a power of self-assertion and resistance, before the\n reason could yet come to its valid position and authority. As this\n propensity of the self-will is grounded in the specific nature of\n man, it may be designated as inborn, hereditary, or _original_\n sinfulness.\u201d\n\n Rothe\u2019s view of sin may be found in his Dogmatik, 1:300-302;\n notice the connection of Rothe\u2019s view of sin with his doctrine of\n continuous creation (see page 416 of this Compendium).\n Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, 21:2\u2014\u201cRothe was a thorough going\n evolutionist who regarded the natural man as the consummation of\n the development of physical nature, and regarded spirit as the\n personal attainment, with divine help, of those beings in whom the\n further creative process of moral development is carried on. This\n process of development necessarily takes an abnormal form and\n passes through the phase of sin. This abnormal condition\n necessitates a fresh creative act, that of salvation, which was\n however from the very first a part of the divine plan of\n development. Rothe, notwithstanding his evolutionary doctrine,\n believed in the supernatural birth of Christ.\u201d\n\n John Fiske, Destiny of Man, 103\u2014\u201cOriginal sin is neither more nor\n less than the brute inheritance which every man carries with him,\n and the process of evolution is an advance toward true salvation.\u201d\n Thus man is a sphynx in whom the human has not yet escaped from\n the animal. So Bowne, Atonement, 69, declares that sin is \u201ca relic\n of the animal not yet outgrown, a resultant of the mechanism of\n appetite and impulse and reflex action for which the proper\n inhibitions are not yet developed. Only slowly does it grow into a\n consciousness of itself as evil.... It would be hysteria to regard\n the common life of men as rooting in a conscious choice of\n unrighteousness.\u201d\n\n\nIn refutation of this view, it will be sufficient to urge the following\nconsiderations:\n\n(_a_) It involves an assumption of the inherent evil of matter, at least\nso far as regards the substance of man\u2019s body. But this is either a form\nof dualism, and may be met with the objections already brought against\nthat system, or it implies that God, in being the author of man\u2019s physical\norganism, is also the responsible originator of human sin.\n\n\n This has been called the \u201ccaged-eagle theory\u201d of man\u2019s existence;\n it holds that the body is a prison only, or, as Plato expressed\n it, \u201cthe tomb of the soul,\u201d so that the soul can be pure only by\n escaping from the body. But matter is not eternal. God made it,\n and made it pure. The body was made to be the servant of the\n spirit. We must not throw the blame of sin upon the senses, but\n upon the spirit that used the senses so wickedly. To attribute sin\n to the body is to make God, the author of the body, to be also the\n author of sin,\u2014which is the greatest of blasphemies. Men cannot\n \u201cjustly accuse Their Maker, or their making, or their fate\u201d\n (Milton, Paradise Lost, 3:112). Sin is a contradiction within the\n spirit itself, and not simply between the spirit and the flesh.\n Sensuous activities are not themselves sinful\u2014this is essential\n Manich\u00e6anism. Robert Burns was wrong when he laid the blame for\n his delinquencies upon \u201cthe passions wild and strong.\u201d And Samuel\n Johnson was wrong when he said that \u201cEvery man is a rascal so soon\n as he is sick.\u201d The normal soul has power to rise above both\n passion and sickness and to make them serve its moral development.\n On the development of the body, as the organ of sin, see\n Straffen\u2019s Hulsean Lectures on Sin, 33-50. The essential error of\n this view is its identification of the moral with the physical. If\n it were true, then Jesus, who came in human flesh, must needs be a\n sinner.\n\n\n(_b_) In explaining sin as an inheritance from the brute, this theory\nignores the fact that man, even though derived from a brute ancestry, is\nno longer brute, but man, with power to recognize and to realize moral\nideals, and under no necessity to violate the law of his being.\n\n\n See A. H. Strong, Christ in Creation, 163-180, on The Fall and the\n Redemption of Man, in the Light of Evolution: \u201cEvolution has been\n thought to be incompatible with any proper doctrine of a fall. It\n has been assumed by many that man\u2019s immoral course and conduct are\n simply survivals of his brute inheritance, inevitable remnants of\n his old animal propensities, yieldings of the weak will to fleshly\n appetites and passions. This is to deny that sin is truly sin, but\n it is also to deny that man is truly man.... Sin must be referred\n to freedom, or it is not sin. To explain it as the natural result\n of weak will overmastered by lower impulses is to make the animal\n nature, and not the will, the cause of transgression. And that is\n to say that man at the beginning is not man, but brute.\u201d See also\n D. W. Simon, in Bib. Sac., Jan. 1897:1-20\u2014\u201cThe key to the strange\n and dark contrast between man and his animal ancestry is to be\n found in the fact of the Fall. Other species live normally. No\n remnant of the reptile hinders the bird. The bird is a true bird.\n Only man fails to live normally and is a true man only after ages\n of sin and misery.\u201d Marlowe very properly makes his Faustus to be\n tempted by sensual baits only after he has sold himself to Satan\n for power.\n\n To regard vanity, deceitfulness, malice, and revenge as inherited\n from brute ancestors is to deny man\u2019s original innocence and the\n creatorship of God. B. W. Lockhart: \u201cThe animal mind knows not\n God, is not subject to his law, neither indeed can be, just\n because it is animal, and as such is incapable of right or\n wrong.... If man were an animal and nothing more, he could not\n sin. It is by virtue of being something more, that he becomes\n capable of sin. Sin is the yielding of the known higher to the\n known lower. It is the soul\u2019s abdication of its being to the\n brute.... Hence the need of spiritual forces from the spiritual\n world of divine revelation, to heal and build and discipline the\n soul within itself, giving it the victory over the animal passions\n which constitute the body and over the kingdom of blind desire\n which constitutes the world. The final purpose of man is growth of\n the soul into liberty, truth, love, likeness to God. Education is\n the word that covers the movement, and probation is incident to\n education.\u201d We add that reparation for past sin and renewing power\n from above must follow probation, in order to make education\n possible.\n\n Some recent writers hold to a real fall of man, and yet regard\n that fall as necessary to his moral development. Emma Marie\n Caillard, in Contemp. Rev., Dec. 1893: 879\u2014\u201cMan passed out of a\n state of innocence\u2014unconscious of his own imperfection\u2014into a\n state of consciousness of it. The will became slave instead of\n master. The result would have been the complete stoppage of his\n evolution but for redemption, which restored his will and made the\n continuance of his evolution possible. Incarnation was the method\n of redemption. But even apart from the fall, this incarnation\n would have been necessary to reveal to man the goal of his\n evolution and so to secure his co\u00f6peration in it.\u201d Lisle,\n Evolution of Spiritual Man, 39, and in Bib. Sac., July, 1892:\n 431-452\u2014\u201cEvolution by catastrophe in the natural world has a\n striking analogue in the spiritual world.... Sin is primarily not\n so much a fall from a higher to a lower, as a failure to rise from\n a lower to a higher; not so much eating of the forbidden tree, as\n failure to partake of the tree of life. The latter represented\n communion and correspondence with God, and had innocent man\n continued to reach out for this, he would not have fallen. Man\u2019s\n refusal to choose the higher preceded and conditioned his fall to\n the lower, and the essence of sin is therefore in this refusal,\n whatever may cause the will to make it.... Man chose the lower of\n his own free will. Then his centripetal force was gone. His\n development was swiftly and endlessly away from God. He reverted\n to his original type of savage animalism; and yet, as a\n self-conscious and free-acting being, he retained a sense of\n responsibility that filled him with fear and suffering.\u201d\n\n On the development-theory of sin, see W. W. McLane, in New\n Englander, 1891: 180-188; A. B. Bruce, Apologetics, 60-62; Lyman\n Abbott, Evolution of Christianity, 203-208; Le Conte, Evolution,\n 330, 365-375; Henry Drummond, Ascent of Man, 1-13, 329, 342; Salem\n Wilder, Life, its Nature, 266-273; Wm. Graham, Creed of Science,\n 38-44; Frank H. Foster, Evolution and the Evangelical System;\n Chandler, The Spirit of Man, 45-47.\n\n\n(_c_) It rests upon an incomplete induction of facts, taking account of\nsin solely in its aspect of self-degradation, but ignoring the worst\naspect of it as self-exaltation. Avarice, envy, pride, ambition, malice,\ncruelty, revenge, self-righteousness, unbelief, enmity to God, are none of\nthem fleshly sins, and upon this principle are incapable of explanation.\n\n\n Two historical examples may suffice to show the insufficiency of\n the sensuous theory of sin. Goethe was not a markedly sensual man;\n yet the spiritual vivisection which he practised on Friederike\n Brion, his perfidious misrepresentation of his relations with\n Kestner\u2019s wife in the \u201cSorrows of Werther,\u201d and his flattery of\n Napoleon, when a patriot would have scorned the advances of the\n invader of his country, show Goethe to have been a very\n incarnation of heartlessness and selfishness. The patriot Boerne\n said of him: \u201cNot once has he ever advanced a poor solitary word\n in his country\u2019s cause\u2014he who from the lofty height he has\n attained might speak out what none other but himself would dare\n pronounce.\u201d It has been said that Goethe\u2019s first commandment to\n genius was: \u201cThou shalt love thy neighbor and thy neighbor\u2019s\n wife.\u201d His biographers count up sixteen women to whom he made love\n and who reciprocated his affection, though it is doubtful whether\n he contented himself with the doctrine of 16 to 1. As Sainte-Beuve\n said of Ch\u00e2teaubriand\u2019s attachments: \u201cThey are like the stars in\n the sky,\u2014the longer you look, the more of them you discover.\u201d\n Christiane Vulpius, after being for seventeen years his mistress,\n became at last his wife. But the wife was so slighted that she was\n driven to intemperance, and Goethe\u2019s only son inherited her\n passion and died of drink. Goethe was the great heathen of modern\n Christendom, deriding self-denial, extolling self-confidence,\n attention to the present, the seeking of enjoyment, and the\n submission of one\u2019s self to the decrees of fate. Hutton calls\n Goethe \u201ca Narcissus in love with himself.\u201d Like George Eliot\u2019s\n \u201cDinah,\u201d in Adam Bede, Goethe\u2019s \u201cConfessions of a Beautiful Soul,\u201d\n in Wilhelm Meister, are the purely artistic delineation of a\n character with which he had no inner sympathy. On Goethe, see\n Hutton, Essays, 2:1-79; Shedd, Dogm. Theology, 1:490; A. H.\n Strong, Great Poets, 279-331; Principal Shairp, Culture and\n Religion, 16\u2014\u201cGoethe, the high priest of culture, loathes Luther,\n the preacher of righteousness\u201d; S. Law Wilson, Theology of Modern\n Literature, 149-156.\n\n Napoleon was not a markedly sensual man, but \u201chis self-sufficiency\n surpassed the self-sufficiency of common men as the great Sahara\n desert surpasses an ordinary sand patch.\u201d He wantonly divulged his\n amours to Josephine, with all the details of his ill-conduct, and\n when she revolted from them, he only replied: \u201cI have the right to\n meet all your complaints with an eternal I.\u201d When his wars had\n left almost no able-bodied men in France, he called for the boys,\n saying: \u201cA boy can stop a bullet as well as a man,\u201d and so the\n French nation lost two inches of stature. Before the battle of\n Leipzig, when there was prospect of unexampled slaughter, he\n exclaimed: \u201cWhat are the lives of a million of men, to carry out\n the will of a man like me?\u201d His most truthful epitaph was: \u201cThe\n little butchers of Ghent to Napoleon the Great\u201d [butcher]. Heine\n represents Napoleon as saying to the world: \u201cThou shalt have no\n other gods before me.\u201d Memoirs of Madame de R\u00e9musat, 1:225\u2014\u201cAt a\n f\u00eate given by the city of Paris to the Emperor, the repertory of\n inscriptions being exhausted, a brilliant device was resorted to.\n Over the throne which he was to occupy, were placed, in letters of\n gold, the following words from the Holy Scriptures: \u2018I am the I\n am.\u2019 And no one seemed to be scandalized.\u201d Iago, in Shakespeare\u2019s\n Othello, is the greatest villain of all literature; but Coleridge,\n Works, 4:180, calls attention to his passionless character. His\n sin is, like that of Goethe and of Napoleon, sin not of the flesh\n but of the intellect and will.\n\n\n(_d_) It leads to absurd conclusions,\u2014as, for example, that asceticism, by\nweakening the power of sense, must weaken the power of sin; that man\nbecomes less sinful as his senses fail with age; that disembodied spirits\nare necessarily holy; that death is the only Redeemer.\n\n\n Asceticism only turns the current of sin in other directions.\n Spiritual pride and tyranny take the place of fleshly desires. The\n miser clutches his gold more closely as he nears death. Satan has\n no physical organism, yet he is the prince of evil. Not our own\n death, but Christ\u2019s death, saves us. But when Rousseau\u2019s \u00c9mile\n comes to die, he calmly declares: \u201cI am delivered from the\n trammels of the body, and am myself without contradiction.\u201d At the\n age of seventy-five Goethe wrote to Eckermann: \u201cI have ever been\n esteemed one of fortune\u2019s favorites, nor can I complain of the\n course my life has taken. Yet truly there has been nothing but\n care and toil, and I may say that I have never had four weeks of\n genuine pleasure.\u201d Shedd, Dogm. Theology, 2:743\u2014\u201cWhen the\n authoritative demand of Jesus Christ, to confess sin and beg\n remission through atoning blood, is made to David Hume, or David\n Strauss, or John Stuart Mill, none of whom were sensualists, it\n wakens intense mental hostility.\u201d\n\n\n(_e_) It interprets Scripture erroneously. In passages like Rom. 7:18\u2014\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\n\u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u03af, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u2014\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03be, or flesh,\nsignifies, not man\u2019s body, but man\u2019s whole being when destitute of the\nSpirit of God. The Scriptures distinctly recognize the seat of sin as\nbeing in the soul itself, not in its physical organism. God does not tempt\nman, nor has he made man\u2019s nature to tempt him (James 1:13, 14).\n\n\n In the use of the term \u201c_flesh_,\u201d Scripture puts a stigma upon\n sin, and intimates that human nature without God is as corruptible\n and perishable as the body would be without the soul to inhabit\n it. The \u201ccarnal mind,\u201d or _\u201c__mind of the flesh__\u201d__ (Rom. 8:7)_,\n accordingly means, not the sensual mind, but the mind which is not\n under the control of the Holy Spirit, its true life. See Meyer, on\n _1 Cor. 1:26_\u2014\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03be\u2014\u201cthe purely human element in man, as opposed to\n the divine principle\u201d; Pope, Theology, 2:65\u2014\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03be\u2014\u201cthe whole being\n of man, body, soul, and spirit, separated from God and subjected\n to the creature\u201d; Julius M\u00fcller, Proof-texts, 19\u2014\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03be\u2014\u201chuman\n nature as living in and for itself, sundered from God and opposed\n to him.\u201d The earliest and best statement of this view of the term\n \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03be is that of Julius M\u00fcller, Doctrine of Sin, 1:295-333,\n especially 321. See also Dickson, St. Paul\u2019s Use of the Terms\n Flesh and Spirit, 270-271\u2014\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03be\u2014\u201chuman nature without the\n \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1.... man standing by himself, or left to himself, over\n against God.... the natural man, conceived as not having yet\n received grace, or as not yet wholly under its influence.\u201d\n\n _James 1:14, 15_\u2014\u201c_desire, when it hath conceived, beareth\n sin_\u201d\u2014innocent desire\u2014for it comes in before the sin\u2014innocent\n constitutional propensity, not yet of the nature of depravity, is\n only the _occasion_ of sin. The love of freedom is a part of our\n nature; sin arises only when the will determines to indulge this\n impulse without regard to the restraints of the divine law.\n Luther, Preface to Ep. to Romans: \u201cThou must not understand\n \u2018flesh\u2019 as though that only were \u2018flesh\u2019 which is connected with\n unchastity. St. Paul uses \u2018flesh\u2019 of the whole man, body and soul,\n reason and all his faculties included, because all that is in him\n longs and strives after the \u2018flesh\u2019.\u201d Melanchthon: \u201cNote that\n \u2018flesh\u2019 signifies the entire nature of man, sense and reason,\n without the Holy Spirit.\u201d Gould, Bib. Theol. N. T., 76\u2014\u201cThe \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03be\n of Paul corresponds to the \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 of John. Paul sees the divine\n economy; John the divine nature. That Paul did not hold sin to\n consist in the possession of a body appears from his doctrine of a\n bodily resurrection (_1 Cor. 15:38-49_). This resurrection of the\n body is an integral part of immortality.\u201d On \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03be, see Thayer, N.\n T. Lexicon, 571; Kaftan, Dogmatik, 319.\n\n\n(_f_) Instead of explaining sin, this theory virtually denies its\nexistence,\u2014for if sin arises from the original constitution of our being,\nreason may recognize it as misfortune, but conscience cannot attribute to\nit guilt.\n\n\n Sin which in its ultimate origin is a necessary thing is no longer\n sin. On the whole theory of the sensuous origin of sin, see\n Neander, Planting and Training, 386, 428; Ernesti, Ursprung der\n S\u00fcnde, 1:29-274; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 2:132-147; Tulloch,\n Doctrine of Sin, 144\u2014\u201cThat which is an inherent and necessary\n power in the creation cannot be a contradiction of its highest\n law.\u201d This theory confounds sin with the mere consciousness of\n sin. On Schleiermacher, see Julius M\u00fcller, Doctrine of Sin,\n 1:341-349. On the sense-theory of sin in general, see John Caird,\n Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 2:26-52; N. R. Wood, The Witness of\n Sin, 79-87.\n\n\n2. Sin as Finiteness.\n\n\nThis view explains sin as a necessary result of the limitations of man\u2019s\nfinite being. As an incident of imperfect development, the fruit of\nignorance and impotence, sin is not absolutely but only relatively evil\u2014an\nelement in human education and a means of progress. This is the view of\nLeibnitz and of Spinoza. Modern writers, as Schurman and Royce, have\nmaintained that moral evil is the necessary background and condition of\nmoral good.\n\n\n The theory of Leibnitz may be found in his Th\u00e9odic\u00e9e, part 1,\n sections 20 and 31; that of Spinoza in his Ethics, part 4,\n proposition 20. Upon this view sin is the blundering of\n inexperience, the thoughtlessness that takes evil for good, the\n ignorance that puts its fingers into the fire, the stumbling\n without which one cannot learn to walk. It is a fruit which is\n sour and bitter simply because it is immature. It is a means of\n discipline and training for something better,\u2014it is holiness in\n the germ, good in the making\u2014\u201cErhebung des Menschen zur freien\n Vernunft.\u201d The Fall was a fall up, and not down.\n\n John Fiske, in addition to his sense-theory of sin already\n mentioned, seems to hold this theory also. In his Mystery of Evil,\n he says: \u201cIts impress upon the human soul is the indispensable\n background against which shall be set hereafter the eternal joys\n of heaven\u201d; in other words, sin is necessary to holiness, as\n darkness is the indispensable contrast and background to light;\n without black, we should never be able to know white. Schurman,\n Belief in God, 251 _sq._\u2014\u201cThe possibility of sin is the\n correlative of the free initiative God has vacated on man\u2019s\n behalf.... The essence of sin is the enthronement of self.... Yet,\n without such self-absorption, there could be no sense of union\n with God. For consciousness is possible only through opposition.\n To know A, we must know it through not-A. Alienation from God is\n the necessary condition of communion with God. And this is the\n meaning of the Scripture that \u2018where sin abounded, grace shall\n much more abound.\u2019... Modern culture protests against the Puritan\n enthronement of goodness above truth.... For the decalogue it\n would substitute the wider new commandment of Goethe: \u2018Live\n resolutely in the Whole, in the Good, in the Beautiful.\u2019 The\n highest religion can be content with nothing short of the\n synthesis demanded by Goethe.... God is the universal life in\n which individual activities are included as movements of a single\n organism.\u201d\n\n Royce, World and Individual, 2:364-384\u2014\u201cEvil is a discord\n necessary to perfect harmony. In itself it is evil, but in\n relation to the whole it has value by showing us its own\n finiteness and imperfection. It is a sorrow to God as much as to\n us; indeed, all our sorrow is his sorrow. The evil serves the good\n only by being overcome, thwarted, overruled. Every evil deed must\n somewhere and at some time be atoned for, by some other than the\n agent, if not by the agent himself.... All finite life is a\n struggle with evil. Yet from the final point of view the Whole is\n good. The temporal order contains at no moment anything that can\n satisfy. Yet the eternal order is perfect. We have all sinned and\n come short of the glory of God. Yet in just our life, viewed in\n its entirety, the glory of God is completely manifest. These hard\n sayings are the deepest expressions of the essence of true\n religion. They are also the most inevitable outcome of\n philosophy.... Were there no longing in time, there would be no\n peace in eternity. The prayer that God\u2019s will may be done on earth\n as it is in heaven is identical with what philosophy regards as\n simple fact.\u201d\n\n\nWe object to this theory that\n\n(_a_) It rests upon a pantheistic basis, as the sense-theory rests upon\ndualism. The moral is confounded with the physical; might is identified\nwith right. Since sin is a necessary incident of finiteness, and creatures\ncan never be infinite, it follows that sin must be everlasting, not only\nin the universe, but in each individual soul.\n\n\n Goethe, Carlyle, and Emerson are representatives of this view in\n literature. Goethe spoke of the \u201cidleness of wishing to jump off\n from one\u2019s own shadow.\u201d He was a disciple of Spinoza, who believed\n in one substance with contradictory attributes of thought and\n extension. Goethe took the pantheistic view of God with the\n personal view of man. He ignored the fact of sin. Hutton calls him\n \u201cthe wisest man the world has seen who was without humility and\n faith, and who lacked the wisdom of a child.\u201d Speaking of Goethe\u2019s\n Faust, Hutton says: \u201cThe great drama is radically false in its\n fundamental philosophy. Its primary notion is that even a spirit\n of pure evil is an exceedingly useful being, because he stirs into\n activity those whom he leads into sin, and so prevents them from\n rusting away in pure indolence. There are other and better means\n of stimulating the positive affections of men than by tempting\n them to sin.\u201d On Goethe, see Hutton, Essays, 2:1-79; Shedd, Dogm.\n Theol., 1:490; A. H. Strong, Great Poets and their Theology,\n 279-331.\n\n Carlyle was a Scotch Presbyterian _minus_ Christianity. At the age\n of twenty-five, he rejected miraculous and historical religion,\n and thenceforth had no God but natural Law. His worship of\n objective truth became a worship of subjective sincerity, and his\n worship of personal will became a worship of impersonal force. He\n preached truth, service, sacrifice, but all in a mandatory and\n pessimistic way. He saw in England and Wales \u201ctwenty-nine\n millions\u2014mostly fools.\u201d He had no love, no remedy, no hope. In our\n civil war, he was upon the side of the slaveholder. He claimed\n that his philosophy made right to be might, but in practice he\n made might to be right. Confounding all moral distinctions, as he\n did in his later writings, he was fit to wear the title which he\n invented for another: \u201cPresident of the\n Heaven-and-Hell-Amalgamation Society.\u201d Froude calls him \u201ca\n Calvinist without the theology\u201d\u2014a believer in predestination\n without grace. On Carlyle, see S. Law Wilson, Theology of Modern\n Literature, 131-178.\n\n Emerson also is the worshiper of successful force. His pantheism\n is most manifest in his poems \u201cCupido\u201d and \u201cBrahma,\u201d and in his\n Essays on \u201cSpirit\u201d and on \u201cThe Over-soul.\u201d Cupido: \u201cThe solid,\n solid universe Is pervious to Love; With bandaged eyes he never\n errs, Around, below, above. His blinding light He flingeth white\n On God\u2019s and Satan\u2019s brood, And reconciles by mystic wiles The\n evil and the good.\u201d Brahma: \u201cIf the red slayer thinks he slays, Or\n if the slain think he is slain, They know not well the subtle ways\n I keep, and pass, and turn again. Far or forgot to me is near;\n Shadow and sunlight are the same; The vanished gods to me appear;\n And one to me are shame or fame. They reckon ill who leave me out;\n When me they fly, I am the wings; I am the doubter and the doubt,\n And I the hymn the Brahmin sings. The strong gods pine for my\n abode, And pine in vain the sacred Seven; But thou, meek lover of\n the good, Find me, and turn thy back on heaven.\u201d\n\n Emerson taught that man\u2019s imperfection is not sin, and that the\n cure for it lies in education. \u201cHe lets God evaporate into\n abstract Ideality. Not a Deity in the concrete, nor a superhuman\n Person, but rather the immanent divinity in things, the\n essentially spiritual structure of the universe, is the object of\n the transcendental cult.\u201d His view of Jesus is found in his\n Essays, 2:263\u2014\u201cJesus would absorb the race; but Tom Paine, or the\n coarsest blasphemer, helps humanity by resisting this exuberance\n of power.\u201d In his Divinity School Address, he banished the person\n of Jesus from genuine religion. He thought \u201cone could not be a man\n if he must subordinate his nature to Christ\u2019s nature.\u201d He failed\n to see that Jesus not only absorbs but transforms, and that we\n grow only by the impact of nobler souls than our own. Emerson\u2019s\n essay style is devoid of clear and precise theological statement,\n and in this vagueness lies its harmfulness. Fisher, Nature and\n Method of Revelation, xii\u2014\u201cEmerson\u2019s pantheism is not hardened\n into a consistent creed, for to the end he clung to the belief in\n personal immortality, and he pronounced the acceptance of this\n belief \u2018the test of mental sanity.\u2019 \u201d On Emerson, see S. L.\n Wilson, Theology of Modern Literature, 97-123.\n\n We may call this theory the \u201cgreen-apple theory\u201d of sin. Sin is a\n green apple, which needs only time and sunshine and growth to\n bring it to ripeness and beauty and usefulness. But we answer that\n sin is not a green apple, but an apple with a worm at its heart.\n The evil of it can never be cured by growth. The fall can never be\n anything else than downward. Upon this theory, sin is an\n inseparable factor in the nature of finite things. The highest\n archangel cannot be without it. Man in moral character is \u201cthe\n asymptote of God,\u201d\u2014forever learning, but never able to come to the\n knowledge of the truth. The throne of iniquity is set up forever\n in the universe. If this theory were true, Jesus, in virtue of his\n partaking of our finite humanity, must needs be a sinner. His\n perfect development, without sin, shows that sin was not a\n necessity of finite progress. Matthews, in Christianity and\n Evolution, 137\u2014\u201cIt was not necessary for the prodigal to go into\n the far country and become a swineherd, in order to find out the\n father\u2019s love.\u201d E. H. Johnson, Syst. Theol., 141\u2014\u201cIt is not the\n privilege of the Infinite alone to be good.\u201d Dorner, System,\n 1:119, speaks of the moral career which this theory describes, as\n \u201ca _progressus in infinitum_, where the constant approach to the\n goal has as its reverse side an eternal separation from the goal.\u201d\n In his \u201cTransformation,\u201d Hawthorne hints, though rather\n hesitatingly, that without sin the higher humanity of man could\n not be taken up at all, and that sin may be essential to the first\n conscious awakening of moral freedom and to the possibility of\n progress; see Hutton, Essays, 2:381.\n\n\n(_b_) So far as this theory regards moral evil as a necessary\npresupposition and condition of moral good, it commits the serious error\nof confounding the possible with the actual. What is necessary to goodness\nis not the actuality of evil, but only the possibility of evil.\n\n\n Since we cannot know white except in contrast to black, it is\n claimed that without knowing actual evil we could never know\n actual good. George A. Gordon, New Epoch for Faith, 49, 50, has\n well shown that in that case the elimination of evil would imply\n the elimination of good. Sin would need to have place in God\u2019s\n being in order that he might be holy, and thus he would be\n divinity and devil in one person. Jesus too must needs be evil as\n well as good. Not only would it be true, as intimated above, that\n Christ, since his humanity is finite, must be a sinner, but also\n that we ourselves, who must always be finite, must always be\n sinners. We grant that holiness, in either God or man, must\n involve the abstract possibility of its opposite. But we maintain\n that, as this possibility in God is only abstract and never\n realized, so in man it should be only abstract and never realized.\n Man has power to reject this possible evil. His sin is a turning\n of the merely possible evil, by the decision of his will, into\n actual evil. Robert Browning is not free from the error above\n mentioned; see S. Law Wilson, Theology of Modern Literature,\n 207-210; A. H. Strong, Great Poets and their Theology, 433-444.\n\n This theory of sin dates back to Hegel. To him there is no real\n sin and cannot be. Imperfection there is and must always be,\n because the relative can never become the absolute. Redemption is\n only an evolutionary process, indefinitely prolonged, and evil\n must remain an eternal condition. All finite thought is an element\n in the infinite thought, and all finite will an element in the\n infinite will. As good cannot exist without evil as its\n antithesis, infinite righteousness should have for its counterpart\n an infinite wickedness. Hegel\u2019s guiding principle was that \u201cWhat\n is rational is real, and what is real is rational.\u201d Seth,\n Hegelianism and Personality, remarks that this principle ignores\n \u201cthe riddle of the painful earth.\u201d The disciples of Hegel thought\n that nothing remained for history to accomplish, now that the\n World-spirit had come to know himself in Hegel\u2019s philosophy.\n\n Biedermann\u2019s Dogmatik is based upon the Hegelian philosophy. At\n page 649 we read: \u201cEvil is the finiteness of the world-being which\n clings to all individual existences by virtue of their belonging\n to the immanent world-order. Evil is therefore a necessary element\n in the divinely willed being of the world.\u201d Bradley follows Hegel\n in making sin to be no reality, but only a relative appearance.\n There is no free will, and no antagonism between the will of God\n and the will of man. Darkness is an evil, a destroying agent. But\n it is not a positive force, as light is. It cannot be attacked and\n overcome as an entity. Bring light, and darkness disappears. So\n evil is not a positive force, as good is. Bring good, and evil\n disappears. Herbert Spencer\u2019s Evolutionary Ethics fits in with\n such a system, for he says: \u201cA perfect man in an imperfect race is\n impossible.\u201d On Hegel\u2019s view of sin, a view which denies holiness\n even to Christ, see J. M\u00fcller, Doct. Sin, 1:390-407; Dorner, Hist.\n Doct. Person of Christ, B. 3:131-162; Stearns, Evidence of Christ.\n Experience, 92-96; John Caird, Fund. Ideas, 2:1-25; Forrest,\n Authority of Christ, 13-16.\n\n\n(_c_) It is inconsistent with known facts,\u2014as for example, the following:\nNot all sins are negative sins of ignorance and infirmity; there are acts\nof positive malignity, conscious transgressions, wilful and presumptuous\nchoices of evil. Increased knowledge of the nature of sin does not of\nitself give strength to overcome it; but, on the contrary, repeated acts\nof conscious transgression harden the heart in evil. Men of greatest\nmental powers are not of necessity the greatest saints, nor are the\ngreatest sinners men of least strength of will and understanding.\n\n\n Not the weak but the strong are the greatest sinners. We do not\n pity Nero and C\u00e6sar Borgia for their weakness; we abhor them for\n their crimes. Judas was an able man, a practical administrator;\n and Satan is a being of great natural endowments. Sin is not\n simply a weakness,\u2014it is also a power. A pantheistic philosophy\n should worship Satan most of all; for he is the truest type of\n godless intellect and selfish strength.\n\n _John 12:6_\u2014Judas, \u201c_having the bag, made away with what was put\n therein_.\u201d Judas was set by Christ to do the work he was best\n fitted for, and that was best fitted to interest and save him.\n Some men may be put into the ministry, because that is the only\n work that will prevent their destruction. Pastors should find for\n their members work suited to the aptitudes of each. Judas was\n tempted, or tried, as all men are, according to his native\n propensity. While his motive in objecting to Mary\u2019s generosity was\n really avarice, his pretext was charity, or regard for the poor.\n Each one of the apostles had his own peculiar gift, and was chosen\n because of it. The sin of Judas was not a sin of weakness, or\n ignorance, or infirmity. It was a sin of disappointed ambition, of\n malice, of hatred for Christ\u2019s self-sacrificing purity.\n\n E. H. Johnson: \u201cSins are not men\u2019s limitations, but the active\n expressions of a perverse nature.\u201d M. F. H. Round, Sec. of Nat.\n Prison Association, on examining the record of a thousand\n criminals, found that one quarter of them had an exceptionally\n fine basis of physical life and strength, while the other three\n quarters fell only a little below the average of ordinary\n humanity; see The Forum, Sept. 1893. The theory that sin is only\n holiness in the making reminds us of the view that the most\n objectionable refuse can by ingenious processes be converted into\n butter or at least into oleomargarine. It is not true that \u201ctout\n comprendre est tout pardonner.\u201d Such doctrine obliterates all\n moral distinctions. Gilbert, Bab Ballads, \u201cMy Dream\u201d: \u201cI dreamt\n that somehow I had come To dwell in Topsy-Turvydom, Where vice is\n virtue, virtue vice; Where nice is nasty, nasty nice; Where right\n is wrong, and wrong is right; Where white is black and black is\n white.\u201d\n\n\n(_d_) like the sense-theory of sin, it contradicts both conscience and\nScripture by denying human responsibility and by transferring the blame of\nsin from the creature to the Creator. This is to explain sin, again, by\ndenying its existence.\n\n\n \u0152dipus said that his evil deeds had been suffered, not done.\n Agamemnon, in the Iliad, says the blame belongs, not to himself,\n but to Jupiter and to fate. So sin blames everything and everybody\n but self. _Gen. 3:12_\u2014\u201c_The woman whom thou gavest to be with me,\n she gave me of the tree, and I did eat._\u201d But self-vindicating is\n God-accusing. Made imperfect at the start, man cannot help his\n sin. By the very fact of his creation he is cut loose from God.\n That cannot be sin which is a necessary outgrowth of human nature,\n which is not our act but our fate. To all this, the one answer is\n found in Conscience. Conscience testifies that sin is not \u201cdas\n Gewordene,\u201d but \u201cdas Gemachte,\u201d and that it was his own act when\n man by transgression fell. The Scriptures refer man\u2019s sin, not to\n the limitations of his being, but to the free will of man himself.\n On the theory here combated, see M\u00fcller, Doct. Sin, 1:271-295;\n Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 3:123-131; N. R. Wood, The Witness of\n Sin, 20-42.\n\n\n3. Sin as Selfishness.\n\n\nWe hold the essential principle of sin to be selfishness. By selfishness\nwe mean not simply the exaggerated self-love which constitutes the\nantithesis of benevolence, but that choice of self as the supreme end\nwhich constitutes the antithesis of supreme love to God. That selfishness\nis the essence of sin may be shown as follows:\n\nA. Love to God is the essence of all virtue. The opposite to this, the\nchoice of self as the supreme end, must therefore be the essence of sin.\n\nWe are to remember, however, that the love to God in which virtue consists\nis love for that which is most characteristic and fundamental in God,\nnamely, his holiness. It is not to be confounded with supreme regard for\nGod\u2019s interests or for the good of being in general. Not mere benevolence,\nbut love for God as holy, is the principle and source of holiness in man.\nSince the love of God required by the law is of this sort, it not only\ndoes not imply that love, in the sense of benevolence, is the essence of\nholiness in God,\u2014it implies rather that holiness, or self-loving and\nself-affirming purity, is fundamental in the divine nature. From this\nself-loving and self-affirming purity, love properly so-called, or the\nself-communicating attribute, is to be carefully distinguished (see vol.\n1, pages 271-275).\n\n\n Bossuet, describing heathendom, says: \u201cEvery thing was God but God\n himself.\u201d Sin goes further than this, and says: \u201cI am myself all\n things,\u201d\u2014not simply as Louis XVI: \u201cI am the state,\u201d but: \u201cI am the\n world, the universe, God.\u201d Heinrich Heine: \u201cI am no child. I do\n not want a heavenly Father any more.\u201d A French critic of Fichte\u2019s\n philosophy said that it was a flight toward the infinite which\n began with the ego, and never got beyond it. Kidd, Social\n Evolution, 75\u2014\u201cIn Calderon\u2019s tragic story, the unknown figure,\n which throughout life is everywhere in conflict with the\n individual whom it haunts, lifts the mask at last to disclose to\n the opponent his own features.\u201d Caird, Evolution of Religion,\n 1:78\u2014\u201cEvery self, once awakened, is naturally a despot, and\n \u2018bears, like the Turk, no brother near the throne.\u2019 \u201d Every one\n has, as Hobbes said, \u201can infinite desire for gain or glory,\u201d and\n can be satisfied with nothing but a whole universe for himself.\n Selfishness\u2014\u201chomo homini lupus.\u201d James Martineau: \u201cWe ask Comte to\n lift the veil from the holy of holies and show us the all-perfect\n object of worship,\u2014he produces a looking-glass and shows us\n ourselves.\u201d Comte\u2019s religion is a \u201csynthetic idealization of our\n existence\u201d\u2014a worship, not of God, but of humanity; and \u201cthe\n festival of humanity\u201d among Positivists\u2014Walt Whitman\u2019s \u201cI\n celebrate myself.\u201d On Comte, see Martineau, Types, 1:499. The most\n thorough discussion of the essential principle of sin is that of\n Julius M\u00fcller, Doct. Sin, 1:147-182. He defines sin as \u201ca turning\n away from the love of God to self-seeking.\u201d\n\n N. W. Taylor holds that self-love is the primary cause of all\n moral action; that selfishness is a different thing, and consists\n not in making our own happiness our ultimate end, which we must do\n if we are moral beings, but in love of the world, and in\n preferring the world to God as our portion or chief good (see N.\n W. Taylor, Moral Govt., 1:24-26; 2:20-24, and Rev. Theol.,\n 134-162; Tyler, Letters on the New Haven Theology, 72). We claim,\n on the contrary, that to make our own happiness our ultimate aim\n is itself sin, and the essence of sin. As God makes his holiness\n the central thing, so we are to live for that, loving self only in\n God and for God\u2019s sake. This love for God as holy is the essence\n of virtue. The opposite to this, or supreme love for self, is sin.\n As Richard Lovelace writes: \u201cI could not love thee, dear, so much,\n Loved I not honor more,\u201d so Christian friends can say: \u201cOur loves\n in higher love endure.\u201d The sinner raises some lower object of\n instinct or desire to supremacy, regardless of God and his law,\n and this he does for no other reason than to gratify self. On the\n distinction between mere benevolence and the love required by\n God\u2019s law, see Hovey, God With Us, 187-200; Hopkins, Works, 1:235;\n F. W. Robertson, Sermon I. Emerson: \u201cYour goodness must have some\n edge to it, else it is none.\u201d See Newman Smyth, Christian Ethics,\n 327-370, on duties toward self as a moral end.\n\n Love to God is the essence of all virtue. We are to love God with\n all the heart. But what God? Surely, not the false God, the God\n who is indifferent to moral distinctions and who treats the wicked\n as he treats the righteous. The love which the law requires is\n love for the true God, the God of holiness. Such love aims at the\n reproduction of God\u2019s holiness in ourselves and in others. We are\n to love ourselves only for God\u2019s sake and for the sake of\n realizing the divine idea in us. We are to love others only for\n God\u2019s sake and for the sake of realizing the divine idea in them.\n In our moral progress we, first, love self for our own sake;\n secondly, God for our own sake; thirdly, God for his own sake;\n fourthly, ourselves for God\u2019s sake. The first is our state by\n nature; the second requires prevenient grace; the third,\n regenerating grace; and the fourth, sanctifying grace. Only the\n last is reasonable self-love. Balfour, Foundations of Belief,\n 27\u2014\u201cReasonable self-love is a virtue wholly incompatible with what\n is commonly called selfishness. Society suffers, not from having\n too much of it, but from having too little.\u201d Altruism is not the\n whole of duty. Self-realization is equally important. But to care\n only for self, like Goethe, is to miss the true self-realization,\n which love to God ensures.\n\n Love desires only _the best_ for its object, and the best is\n _God_. The golden rule bids us give, not what others desire, but\n what they need. _Rom. 15:2_\u2014\u201c_Let each one of us please his\n neighbor for that which is good, unto edifying._\u201d Deutsche Liebe:\n \u201cNicht Liebe die fragt: Willst du mein sein? Sondern Liebe die\n sagt: Ich muss dein sein.\u201d Sin consists in taking for one\u2019s self\n alone and apart from God that in one\u2019s self and in others to which\n one has a right only in God and for God\u2019s sake. Mrs. Humphrey\n Ward, David Grieve, 403\u2014\u201cHow dare a man pluck from the Lord\u2019s\n hand, for his wild and reckless use, a soul and body for which he\n died? How dare he, the Lord\u2019s bondsman, steal his joy, carrying it\n off by himself into the wilderness, like an animal his prey,\n instead of asking it at the hands and under the blessing of the\n Master? How dare he, a member of the Lord\u2019s body, forget the\n whole, in his greed for the one\u2014eternity in his thirst for the\n present?\u201d Wordsworth, Prelude, 546\u2014\u201cDelight how pitiable, Unless\n this love by a still higher love Be hallowed, love that breathes\n not without awe; Love that adores, but on the knees of prayer. By\n heaven inspired.... This spiritual love acts not nor can exist\n Without imagination, which in truth Is but another name for\n absolute power, And clearest insight, amplitude of mind, And\n reason in her most exalted mood.\u201d\n\n Aristotle says that the wicked have no right to love themselves,\n but that the good may. So, from a Christian point of view, we may\n say: No unregenerate man can properly respect himself.\n Self-respect belongs only to the man who lives in God and who has\n God\u2019s image restored to him thereby. True self-love is not love\n for the _happiness_ of the self, but for the _worth_ of the self\n in God\u2019s sight, and this self-love is the condition of all genuine\n and worthy love for others. But true self-love is in turn\n conditioned by love to God as holy, and it seeks primarily, not\n the happiness, but the holiness, of others. Asquith, Christian\n Conception of Holiness, 98, 145, 154, 207\u2014\u201cBenevolence or love is\n not the same with altruism. Altruism is instinctive, and has not\n its origin in the moral reason. It has utility, and it may even\n furnish material for reflection on the part of the moral reason.\n But so far as it is not deliberate, not indulged for the sake of\n the end, but only for the gratification of the instinct of the\n moment, it is not moral.... Holiness is dedication to God, the\n Good, not as an external Ruler, but as an internal controller and\n transformer of character.... God is a being whose every thought is\n love, of whose thoughts not one is for himself, save so far as\n himself is not himself, that is, so far as there is a distinction\n of persons in the Godhead. Creation is one great unselfish\n thought\u2014the bringing into being of creatures who can know the\n happiness that God knows.... To the spiritual man holiness and\n love are one. Salvation is deliverance from selfishness.\u201d Kaftan,\n Dogmatik, 319, 320, regards the essence of sin as consisting, not\n in selfishness, but in turning away from God and so from the love\n which would cause man to grow in knowledge and likeness to God.\n But this seems to be nothing else than choosing self instead of\n God as our object and end.\n\n\nB. All the different forms of sin can be shown to have their root in\nselfishness, while selfishness itself, considered as the choice of self as\na supreme end, cannot be resolved into any simpler elements.\n\n(_a_) Selfishness may reveal itself in the elevation to supreme dominion\nof any one of man\u2019s natural appetites, desires, or affections. Sensuality\nis selfishness in the form of inordinate appetite. Selfish desire takes\nthe forms respectively of avarice, ambition, vanity, pride, according as\nit is set upon property, power, esteem, independence. Selfish affection is\nfalsehood or malice, according as it hopes to make others its voluntary\nservants, or regards them as standing in its way; it is unbelief or enmity\nto God, according as it simply turns away from the truth and love of God,\nor conceives of God\u2019s holiness as positively resisting and punishing it.\n\n\n Augustine and Aquinas held the essence of sin to be pride; Luther\n and Calvin regarded its essence to be unbelief. Kreibig\n (Vers\u00f6hnungslehre) regards it as \u201cworld-love\u201d; still others\n consider it as enmity to God. In opposing the view that sensuality\n is the essence of sin, Julius M\u00fcller says: \u201cWherever we find\n sensuality, there we find selfishness, but we do not find that,\n where there is selfishness, there is always sensuality.\n Selfishness may embody itself in fleshly lust or inordinate desire\n for the creature, but this last cannot bring forth spiritual sins\n which have no element of sensuality in them.\u201d\n\n Covetousness or avarice makes, not sensual gratification itself,\n but the things that may minister thereto, the object of pursuit,\n and in this last chase often loses sight of its original aim.\n Ambition is selfish love of power; vanity is selfish love of\n esteem. Pride is but the self-complacency, self-sufficiency, and\n self-isolation of a selfish spirit that desires nothing so much as\n unrestrained independence. Falsehood originates in selfishness,\n first as self-deception, and then, since man by sin isolates\n himself and yet in a thousand ways needs the fellowship of his\n brethren, as deception of others. Malice, the perversion of\n natural resentment (together with hatred and revenge), is the\n reaction of selfishness against those who stand, or are imagined\n to stand, in its way. Unbelief and enmity to God are effects of\n sin, rather than its essence; selfishness leads us first to doubt,\n and then to hate, the Lawgiver and Judge. Tacitus: \u201cHumani generis\n proprium est odisse quem l\u00e6seris.\u201d In sin, self-affirmation and\n self-surrender are not co\u00f6rdinate elements, as Dorner holds, but\n the former conditions the latter.\n\n As love to God is love to God\u2019s holiness, so love to man is love\n for holiness in man and desire to impart it. In other words, true\n love for man is the longing to make man like God. Over against\n this normal desire which should fill the heart and inspire the\n life, there stands a hierarchy of lower desires which may be\n utilized and sanctified by the higher love, but which may assert\n their independence and may thus be the occasions of sin. Physical\n gratification, money, esteem, power, knowledge, family, virtue,\n are proper objects of regard, so long as these are sought for\n God\u2019s sake and within the limitations of his will. Sin consists in\n turning our backs on God and in seeking any one of these objects\n for its own sake; or, which is the same thing, for our own sake.\n Appetite gratified without regard to God\u2019s law is lust; the love\n of money becomes avarice; the desire for esteem becomes vanity;\n the longing for power becomes ambition; the love for knowledge\n becomes a selfish thirst for intellectual satisfaction; parental\n affection degenerates into indulgence and nepotism; the seeking of\n virtue becomes self-righteousness and self-sufficiency. Kaftan,\n Dogmatik, 323\u2014\u201cJesus grants that even the heathen and sinners love\n those who love them. But family love becomes family pride;\n patriotism comes to stand for country right or wrong; happiness in\n one\u2019s calling leads to class distinctions.\u201d\n\n Dante, in his Divine Comedy, divides the Inferno into three great\n sections: those in which are punished, respectively, incontinence,\n bestiality, and malice. Incontinence\u2014sin of the heart, the\n emotions, the affections. Lower down is found bestiality\u2014sin of\n the head, the thoughts, the mind, as infidelity and heresy. Lowest\n of all is malice\u2014sin of the will, deliberate rebellion, fraud and\n treachery. So we are taught that the heart carries the intellect\n with it, and that the sin of unbelief gradually deepens into the\n intensity of malice. See A. H. Strong, Great Poets and their\n Theology, 133\u2014\u201cDante teaches us that sin is the self-perversion of\n the will. If there is any thought fundamental to his system, it is\n the thought of freedom. Man is not a waif swept irresistibly\n downward on the current; he is a being endowed with power to\n resist, and therefore guilty if he yields. Sin is not misfortune,\n or disease, or natural necessity; it is wilfulness, and crime, and\n self-destruction. The Divine Comedy is, beyond all other poems,\n the poem of conscience; and this could not be, if it did not\n recognize man as a free agent, the responsible cause of his own\n evil acts and his own evil state.\u201d See also Harris, in Jour. Spec.\n Philos., 21:350-451; Dinsmore, Atonement in Literature and Life,\n 69-86.\n\n In Greek tragedy, says Prof. Wm. Arnold Stevens, the one sin which\n the gods hated and would not pardon was \u1f55\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2\u2014obstinate\n self-assertion of mind or will, absence of reverence and\n humility\u2014of which we have an illustration in Ajax. George\n MacDonald: \u201cA man may be possessed of himself, as of a devil.\u201d\n Shakespeare depicts this insolence of infatuation in Shylock,\n Macbeth, and Richard III. Troilus and Cressida, 4:4\u2014\u201cSomething may\n be done that we will not; And sometimes we are devils to\n ourselves, When we will tempt the frailty of our powers, Presuming\n on their changeful potency.\u201d Yet Robert G. Ingersoll said that\n Shakespeare holds crime to be the mistake of ignorance! N. P.\n Willis, Parrhasius: \u201cHow like a mounting devil in the heart Rules\n unrestrained ambition!\u201d\n\n\n(_b_) Even in the nobler forms of unregenerate life, the principle of\nselfishness is to be regarded as manifesting itself in the preference of\nlower ends to that of God\u2019s proposing. Others are loved with idolatrous\naffection because these others are regarded as a part of self. That the\nselfish element is present even here, is evident upon considering that\nsuch affection does not seek the highest interest of its object, that it\noften ceases when unreturned, and that it sacrifices to its own\ngratification the claims of God and his law.\n\n\n Even in the mother\u2019s idolatry of her child, the explorer\u2019s\n devotion to science, the sailor\u2019s risk of his life to save\n another\u2019s, the gratification sought may be that of a lower\n instinct or desire, and any substitution of a lower for the\n highest object is non-conformity to law, and therefore sin. H. B.\n Smith, System Theology, 277\u2014\u201cSome lower affection is supreme.\u201d And\n the underlying motive which leads to this substitution is\n self-gratification. There is no such thing as disinterested sin,\n for \u201c_every one that loveth is begotten of God_\u201d (_1 John 4:7_).\n Thomas Hughes, The Manliness of Christ: Much of the heroism of\n battle is simply \u201cresolution in the actors to have their way,\n contempt for ease, animal courage which we share with the bulldog\n and the weasel, intense assertion of individual will and force,\n avowal of the rough-handed man that he has that in him which\n enables him to defy pain and danger and death.\u201d\n\n Mozley on Blanco White, in Essays, 2:143: Truth may be sought in\n order to absorb truth in self, not for the sake of absorbing self\n in truth. So Blanco White, in spite of the pain of separating from\n old views and friends, lived for the selfish pleasure of new\n discovery, till all his early faith vanished, and even immortality\n seemed a dream. He falsely thought that the pain he suffered in\n giving up old beliefs was evidence of self-sacrifice with which\n God must be pleased, whereas it was the inevitable pain which\n attends the victory of selfishness. Robert Browning, Paracelsus,\n 81\u2014\u201cI still must hoard, and heap, and class all truths With one\n ulterior purpose: I must know! Would God translate me to his\n throne, believe That I should only listen to his words To further\n my own ends.\u201d F. W. Robertson on Genesis, 57\u2014\u201cHe who sacrifices\n his sense of right, his conscience, for another, sacrifices the\n God within him; he is not sacrificing self.... He who prefers his\n dearest friend or his beloved child to the call of duty, will soon\n show that he prefers himself to his dearest friend, and would not\n sacrifice himself for his child.\u201d _Ib._, 91\u2014\u201cIn those who love\n little, love [for finite beings] is a primary affection,\u2014a\n secondary, in those who love much.... The only true affection is\n that which is subordinate to a higher.\u201d True love is love for the\n soul and its highest, its eternal, interests; love that seeks to\n make it holy; love for the sake of God and for the accomplishment\n of God\u2019s idea in his creation.\n\n Although we cannot, with Augustine, call the virtues of the\n heathen \u201csplendid vices\u201d\u2014for they were relatively good and\n useful,\u2014they still, except in possible instances where God\u2019s\n Spirit wrought upon the heart, were illustrations of a morality\n divorced from love to God, were lacking in the most essential\n element demanded by the law, were therefore infected with sin.\n Since the law judges all action by the heart from which it\n springs, no action of the unregenerate can be other than sin. The\n ebony-tree is white in its outer circles of woody fibre; at heart\n it is black as ink. There is no unselfishness in the unregenerate\n heart, apart from the divine enlightenment and energizing.\n Self-sacrifice for the sake of self is selfishness after all.\n Professional burglars and bank-robbers are often carefully\n abstemious in their personal habits, and they deny themselves the\n use of liquor and tobacco while in the active practice of their\n trade. Herron, The Larger Christ, 47\u2014\u201cIt is as truly immoral to\n seek truth out of mere love of knowing it, as it is to seek money\n out of love to gain. Truth sought for truth\u2019s sake is an\n intellectual vice; it is spiritual covetousness. It is an\n idolatry, setting up the worship of abstractions and generalities\n in place of the living God.\u201d\n\n\n(_c_) It must be remembered, however, that side by side with the selfish\nwill, and striving against it, is the power of Christ, the immanent God,\nimparting aspirations and impulses foreign to unregenerate humanity, and\npreparing the way for the soul\u2019s surrender to truth and righteousness.\n\n\n _Rom. 8:7_\u2014\u201c_the mind of the flesh is enmity against God_\u201d; _Acts\n 17:27, 28_\u2014\u201c_he is not far from each one of us: for in him we\n live, and move, and have our being_\u201d; _Rom. 2:4_\u2014\u201c_the goodness of\n God leadeth thee to repentance_\u201d; _John 1:9_\u2014\u201c_the light which\n lighteth every man._\u201d Many generous traits and acts of\n self-sacrifice in the unregenerate must be ascribed to the\n prevenient grace of God and to the enlightening influence of the\n Spirit of Christ. A mother, during the Russian famine, gave to her\n children all the little supply of food that came to her in the\n distribution, and died that they might live. In her decision to\n sacrifice herself for her offspring she may have found her\n probation and may have surrendered herself to God. The impulse to\n make the sacrifice may have been due to the Holy Spirit, and her\n yielding may have been essentially an act of saving faith. In\n _Mark 10:21, 22_\u2014\u201c_And Jesus looking upon him loved him ... he\n went away sorrowful_\u201d\u2014our Lord apparently loved the young man, not\n only for his gifts, his efforts, and his possibilities, but also\n for the manifest working in him of the divine Spirit, even while\n in his natural character he was without God and without love,\n self-ignorant, self-righteous, and self-seeking.\n\n Paul, in like manner, before his conversion, loved and desired\n righteousness, provided only that this righteousness might be the\n product and achievement of his own will and might reflect honor on\n himself; in short, provided only that self might still be\n uppermost. To be dependent for righteousness upon another was\n abhorrent to him. And yet this very impulse toward righteousness\n may have been due to the divine Spirit within him. On Paul\u2019s\n experience before conversion, see E. D. Burton, Bib. World, Jan.\n 1893. Peter objected to the washing of his feet by Jesus (_John\n 13:8_), not because it humbled the Master too much in the eyes of\n the disciple, but because it humbled the disciple too much in his\n own eyes. Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 1:218\u2014\u201cSin is the\n violation of the God-willed moral order of the world by the\n self-will of the individual.\u201d Tophel on the Holy Spirit, 17\u2014\u201cYou\n would deeply wound him [the average sinner] if you told him that\n his heart, full of sin, is an object of horror to the holiness of\n God.\u201d The impulse to repentance, as well as the impulse to\n righteousness, is the product, not of man\u2019s own nature, but of the\n Christ within him who is moving him to seek salvation.\n\n Elizabeth Barrett wrote to Robert Browning after she had accepted\n his proposal of marriage: \u201cHenceforth I am yours for everything\n but to do you harm.\u201d George Harris, Moral Evolution, 138\u2014\u201cLove\n seeks the true good of the person loved. It will not minister in\n an unworthy way to afford a temporary pleasure. It will not\n approve or tolerate that which is wrong. It will not encourage the\n coarse, base passions of the one loved. It condemns impurity,\n falsehood, selfishness. A parent does not really love his child if\n he tolerates the self-indulgence, and does not correct or punish\n the faults, of the child.\u201d Hutton: \u201cYou might as well say that it\n is a fit subject for art to paint the morbid exstasy of cannibals\n over their horrid feasts, as to paint lust without love. If you\n are to delineate man at all, you must delineate him with his human\n nature, and therefore you can never omit from any worthy picture\n that conscience which is its crown.\u201d\n\n Tennyson, in In Memoriam, speaks of \u201cFantastic beauty such as\n lurks In some wild poet when he works Without a conscience or an\n aim.\u201d Such work may be due to mere human nature. But the lofty\n work of true creative genius, and the still loftier acts of men\n still unregenerate but conscientious and self-sacrificing, must be\n explained by the working in them of the immanent Christ, the life\n and light of men. James Martineau, Study, 1:20\u2014\u201cConscience may act\n as human, before it is discovered to be divine.\u201d See J. D. Stoops,\n in Jour. Philos., Psych., and Sci. Meth., 2:512\u2014\u201cIf there is a\n divine life over and above the separate streams of individual\n lives, the welling up of this larger life in the experience of the\n individual is precisely the point of contact between the\n individual person and God.\u201d Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity,\n 2:122\u2014\u201cIt is this divine element in man, this relationship to God,\n which gives to sin its darkest and direst complexion. For such a\n life is the turning of a light brighter than the sun into\n darkness, the squandering or bartering away of a boundless wealth,\n the suicidal abasement, to the things that perish, of a nature\n destined by its very constitution and structure for participation\n in the very being and blessedness of God.\u201d\n\n On the various forms of sin as manifestations of selfishness, see\n Julius M\u00fcller, Doct. Sin, 1:147-182; Jonathan Edwards, Works,\n 2:268, 269; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 3:5, 6; Baird, Elohim\n Revealed, 243-262; Stewart, Active and Moral Powers, 11-91;\n Hopkins, Moral Science, 86-156. On the Roman Catholic \u201cSeven\n Deadly Sins\u201d (Pride, Envy, Anger, Sloth, Avarice, Gluttony, Lust),\n see Wetzer und Welte, Kirchenlexikon, and Orby Shipley, Theory\n about Sin, preface, xvi-xviii.\n\n\nC. This view accords best with Scripture.\n\n(_a_) The law requires love to God as its all-embracing requirement. (_b_)\nThe holiness of Christ consisted in this, that he sought not his own will\nor glory, but made God his supreme end. (_c_) The Christian is one who has\nceased to live for self. (_d_) The tempter\u2019s promise is a promise of\nselfish independence. (_e_) The prodigal separates himself from his\nfather, and seeks his own interest and pleasure. (_f_) The \u201cman of sin\u201d\nillustrates the nature of sin, in \u201copposing and exalting himself against\nall that is called God.\u201d\n\n\n (_a_) _Mat. 22:37-39_\u2014the command of love to God and man; _Rom.\n 13:8-10_\u2014\u201c_love therefore is the fulfilment of the law_\u201d; _Gal.\n 5:14_\u2014\u201c_the whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: Thou\n shalt love thy neighbor as thyself_\u201d; _James 2:8_\u2014\u201c_the royal\n law._\u201d (_b_) _John 5:30_\u2014\u201c_my judgment is righteous; because I\n seek not mine own will, but the will of him that sent me_\u201d;\n _7:18_\u2014\u201c_He that speaketh from himself seeketh his own glory: but\n he that seeketh the glory of him that sent him, the same is true,\n and no unrighteousness is in him_\u201d; _Rom. 15:3_\u2014\u201c_Christ also\n pleased not himself._\u201d (_c_) _Rom. 14:7_\u2014\u201c_none of us liveth to\n himself, and none dieth to himself_\u201d; _2 Cor. 5:15_\u2014\u201c_he died for\n all, that they that live should no longer live unto themselves,\n but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again_\u201d; _Gal.\n 2:20_\u2014\u201c_I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I\n that live, but Christ liveth in me._\u201d Contrast _2 Tim.\n 3:2_\u2014\u201c_lovers of self._\u201d (_d_) _Gen. 3:5_\u2014\u201c_ye shall be as God,\n knowing good and evil._\u201d (_e_) _Luke 15:12, 13_\u2014\u201c_give me the\n portion of thy substance ... gathered all together and took his\n journey into a far country._\u201d (_f_) _2 Thess. 2:3, 4_\u2014\u201c_the man of\n sin ... the son of perdition, he that opposeth and exalteth\n himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so\n that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as\n God._\u201d\n\n Contrast \u201c_the man of sin_\u201d who \u201c_exalteth himself_\u201d (_2 Thess.\n 2:3, 4_) with the Son of God who \u201c_emptied himself_\u201d (_Phil.\n 2:7_). On \u201c_the man of sin_\u201d, see Wm. Arnold Stevens, in Bap.\n Quar. Rev., July, 1889:328-360. Ritchie, Darwin, and Hegel, 24\u2014\u201cWe\n are conscious of sin, because we know that our true self is God,\n from whom we are severed. No ethics is possible unless we\n recognize an ideal for all human effort in the presence of the\n eternal Self which any account of conduct presupposes.\u201d John\n Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 2:53-73\u2014\u201cHere, as in all\n organic life, the individual member or organ has no independent or\n exclusive life, and the attempt to attain to it is fatal to\n itself.\u201d Milton describes man as \u201caffecting Godhead, and so losing\n all.\u201d Of the sinner, we may say with Shakespeare, Coriolanus,\n 5:4\u2014\u201cHe wants nothing of a god but eternity and a heaven to throne\n in.... There is no more mercy in him than there is milk in a male\n tiger.\u201d No one of us, then, can sign too early \u201cthe declaration of\n dependence.\u201d Both Old School and New School theologians agree that\n sin is selfishness; see Bellamy, Hopkins, Emmons, the younger\n Edwards, Finney, Taylor. See also A. H. Strong, Christ in\n Creation, 287-292.\n\n\nSin, therefore, is not merely a negative thing, or an absence of love to\nGod. It is a fundamental and positive choice or preference of self instead\nof God, as the object of affection and the supreme end of being. Instead\nof making God the centre of his life, surrendering himself unconditionally\nto God and possessing himself only in subordination to God\u2019s will, the\nsinner makes self the centre of his life, sets himself directly against\nGod, and constitutes his own interest the supreme motive and his own will\nthe supreme rule.\n\nWe may follow Dr. E. G. Robinson in saying that, while sin as a state is\nunlikeness to God, as a principle is opposition to God, and as an act is\ntransgression of God\u2019s law, the essence of it always and everywhere is\nselfishness. It is therefore not something external, or the result of\ncompulsion from without; it is a depravity of the affections and a\nperversion of the will, which constitutes man\u2019s inmost character.\n\n\n See Harris, in Bib. Sac., 18:148\u2014\u201cSin is essentially egoism or\n selfism, putting self in God\u2019s place. It has four principal\n characteristics or manifestations: (1) self-sufficiency, instead\n of faith; (2) self-will, instead of submission; (3) self-seeking,\n instead of benevolence; (4) self-righteousness, instead of\n humility and reverence.\u201d All sin is either explicit or implicit\n \u201c_enmity against God_\u201d (_Rom. 8:7_). All true confessions are like\n David\u2019s (_Ps. 51:4_)\u2014\u201c_Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, And\n done that which is evil in thy sight._\u201d Of all sinners it might be\n said that they \u201c_Fight neither with small nor great, save only\n with the king of Israel_\u201d (_1 K. 22:31_).\n\n Not every sinner is conscious of this enmity. Sin is a principle\n in course of development. It is not yet \u201c_full-grown_\u201d (_James\n 1:15_\u2014\u201c_the sin, when it is full-grown, bringeth forth death_\u201d).\n Even now, as James Martineau has said: \u201cIf it could be known that\n God was dead, the news would cause but little excitement in the\n streets of London and Paris.\u201d But this indifference easily grows,\n in the presence of threatening and penalty, into violent hatred to\n God and positive defiance of his law. If the sin which is now\n hidden in the sinner\u2019s heart were but permitted to develop itself\n according to its own nature, it would hurl the Almighty from his\n throne, and would set up its own kingdom upon the ruins of the\n moral universe. Sin is world-destroying, as well as\n God-destroying, for it is inconsistent with the conditions which\n make being as a whole possible; see Royce, World and Individual,\n 2:366; Dwight, Works, sermon 80.\n\n\n\nSection III.\u2014Universality Of Sin.\n\n\nWe have shown that sin is a state, a state of the will, a selfish state of\nthe will. We now proceed to show that this selfish state of the will is\nuniversal. We divide our proof into two parts. In the first, we regard sin\nin its aspect as conscious violation of law; in the second, in its aspect\nas a bias of the nature to evil, prior to or underlying consciousness.\n\n\nI. Every human being who has arrived at moral consciousness has committed\nacts, or cherished dispositions, contrary to the divine law.\n\n\n1. _Proof from Scripture._\n\nThe universality of transgression is:\n\n(_a_) Set forth in direct statements of Scripture.\n\n\n _1 K. 8:46_\u2014\u201c_there is no man that sinneth not_\u201d; _Ps.\n 143:2_\u2014\u201c_enter not into judgment with thy servant; For in thy\n sight no man living is righteous_\u201d; _Prov. 20:9_\u2014\u201c_Who can say, I\n have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?_\u201d; _Eccl.\n 7:20_\u2014\u201c_Surely there is not a righteous man upon earth, that doeth\n good, and sinneth not_\u201d; _Luke 11:13_\u2014\u201c_If ye, then, being evil_\u201d;\n _Rom. 3:10, 12_\u2014\u201c_There is none righteous, no, not one.... There\n is none that doeth good, no, not so much as one_\u201d; _19, 20_\u2014\u201c_that\n every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be brought under\n the judgment of God: because by the works of the law shall no\n flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law cometh the\n knowledge of sin_\u201d; _23_\u2014\u201c_for all have sinned, and fall short of\n the glory of God_\u201d; _Gal. 3:22_\u2014\u201c_the scripture shut up all things\n under sin_\u201d; _James 3:2_\u2014\u201c_For in many things we all stumble_\u201d; _1\n John 1:8_\u2014\u201c_If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves,\n and the truth is not in us._\u201d Compare _Mat. 6:12_\u2014\u201c_forgive us our\n debts_\u201d\u2014given as a prayer for all men; _14_\u2014\u201c_if ye forgive men\n their trespasses_\u201d\u2014the condition of our own forgiveness.\n\n\n(_b_) Implied in declarations of the universal need of atonement,\nregeneration, and repentance.\n\n\n Universal need of atonement: _Mark 16:16_\u2014\u201c_He that believeth and\n is baptised shall be saved_\u201d (Mark 16:9-20, though probably not\n written by Mark, is nevertheless of canonical authority); _John\n 3:16_\u2014\u201c_God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten\n Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish_\u201d;\n _6:50_\u2014\u201c_This is the bread which cometh down out of heaven, that a\n man may eat thereof, and not die_\u201d; _12:47_\u2014\u201c_I came not to judge\n the world, but to save the world_\u201d; _Acts 4:12_\u2014\u201c_in none other is\n there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven,\n that is given among men, wherein we must be saved._\u201d Universal\n need of regeneration: _John 3:3, 5_\u2014\u201c_Except one be born anew, he\n cannot see the kingdom of God.... Except one be born of water and\n the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God._\u201d Universal\n need of repentance: _Acts 17:30_\u2014\u201c_commandeth men that they should\n all everywhere repent._\u201d Yet Mrs. Mary Baker G. Eddy, in her\n \u201cUnity of Good,\u201d speaks of \u201cthe illusion which calls sin real and\n man a sinner needing a Savior.\u201d\n\n\n(_c_) Shown from the condemnation resting upon all who do not accept\nChrist.\n\n\n _John 3:18_\u2014\u201c_he that believeth not hath been judged already,\n because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son\n of God_\u201d; _36_\u2014\u201c_he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life,\n but the wrath of God abideth on him_\u201d; Compare _1 John 5:19_\u2014\u201c_the\n whole world lieth in_ [_i. e._, in union with] _the evil one_\u201d;\n see Annotated Paragraph Bible, _in loco_. Kaftan, Dogmatik,\n 318\u2014\u201cLaw requires love to God. This implies love to our neighbor,\n not only abstaining from all injury to him, but righteousness in\n all our relations, forgiving instead of requiting, help to enemies\n as well as friends in all salutary ways, self-discipline,\n avoidance of all sensuous immoderation, subjection of all sensuous\n activity as means for spiritual ends in the kingdom of God, and\n all this, not as a matter of outward conduct merely, but from the\n heart and as the satisfaction of one\u2019s own will and desire. This\n is the will of God respecting us, which Jesus has revealed and of\n which he is the example in his life. Instead of this, man\n universally seeks to promote his own life, pleasure, and honor.\u201d\n\n\n(_d_) Consistent with those passages which at first sight seem to ascribe\nto certain men a goodness which renders them acceptable to God, where a\ncloser examination will show that in each case the goodness supposed is a\nmerely imperfect and fancied goodness, a goodness of mere aspiration and\nimpulse due to preliminary workings of God\u2019s Spirit, or a goodness\nresulting from the trust of a conscious sinner in God\u2019s method of\nsalvation.\n\n\n In _Mat 9:12_\u2014\u201c_They that are whole have no need of a physician,\n but they that are sick_\u201d\u2014Jesus means those who in their own esteem\n are whole; _cf._ _13_\u2014\u201c_I came not to call the righteous, but\n sinners_\u201d\u2014\u201cif any were truly righteous, they would not need my\n salvation; if they think themselves so, they will not care to seek\n it\u201d (An. Par. Bib.). In _Luke 10:30-37_\u2014the parable of the good\n Samaritan\u2014Jesus intimates, not that the good Samaritan was not a\n sinner, but that there were saved sinners outside of the bounds of\n Israel. In _Acts 10:35_\u2014\u201c_in every nation he that feareth him, and\n worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him_\u201d\u2014Peter declares, not\n that Cornelius was not a sinner, but that God had accepted him\n through Christ; Cornelius was already justified, but he needed to\n know (1) _that_ he was saved, and (2) _how_ he was saved; and\n Peter was sent to tell him of the fact, and of the method, of his\n salvation in Christ. In _Rom. 2:14_\u2014\u201c_for when Gentiles that have\n not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having\n the law, are a law unto themselves_\u201d\u2014it is only said that in\n certain respects the obedience of these Gentiles shows that they\n have an unwritten law in their hearts; it is not said that they\n perfectly obey the law and therefore have no sin\u2014for Paul says\n immediately after (_Rom. 3:9_)\u2014\u201c_we before laid to the charge both\n of Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin._\u201d\n\n So with regard to the words \u201c_perfect_\u201d and \u201c_upright_,\u201d as\n applied to godly men. We shall see, when we come to consider the\n doctrine of Sanctification, that the word \u201c_perfect_,\u201d as applied\n to spiritual conditions already attained, signifies only a\n relative perfection, equivalent to sincere piety or maturity of\n Christian judgment, in other words, the perfection of a sinner who\n has long trusted in Christ, and in whom Christ has overcome his\n chief defects of character. See _1 Cor. 2:6_\u2014\u201c_we speak wisdom\n among the perfect_\u201d (Am. Rev.: \u201c_among them that are\n full-grown_\u201d); _Phil. 3:15_\u2014\u201c_let us therefore, as many as are\n perfect, be thus minded_\u201d\u2014_i. e._, to press toward the goal\u2014a goal\n expressly said by the apostles to be not yet attained (_v.\n 12-14_).\n\n \u201cEst deus in nobis; agitante calescimus illo.\u201d God is the \u201cspark\n that fires our clay.\u201d S. S. Times, Sept. 21, 1901:609\u2014\u201cHumanity is\n better and worse than men have painted it. There has been a kind\n of theological pessimism in denouncing human sinfulness, which has\n been blind to the abounding love and patience and courage and\n fidelity to duty among men.\u201d A. H. Strong, Christ in Creation,\n 287-290\u2014\u201cThere is a natural life of Christ, and that life pulses\n and throbs in all men everywhere. All men are created in Christ,\n before they are recreated in him. The whole race lives, moves, and\n has its being in him, for he is the soul of its soul and the life\n of its life.\u201d To Christ then, and not to unaided human nature, we\n attribute the noble impulses of unregenerate men. These impulses\n are drawings of his Spirit, moving men to repentance. But they are\n influences of his grace which, if resisted, leave the soul in more\n than its original darkness.\n\n\n2. _Proof from history, observation, and the common judgment of mankind._\n\n(_a_) History witnesses to the universality of sin, in its accounts of the\nuniversal prevalence of priesthood and sacrifice.\n\n\n See references in Luthardt, Fund. Truths, 161-172, 335-339.\n Baptist Review, 1882:343\u2014\u201cPlutarch speaks of the tear-stained\n eyes, the pallid and woe-begone countenances which he sees at the\n public altars, men rolling themselves in the mire and confessing\n their sins. Among the common people the dull feeling of guilt was\n too real to be shaken off or laughed away.\u201d\n\n\n(_b_) Every man knows himself to have come short of moral perfection, and,\nin proportion to his experience of the world, recognizes the fact that\nevery other man has come short of it also.\n\n\n Chinese proverb: \u201cThere are but two good men; one is dead, and the\n other is not yet born.\u201d Idaho proverb: \u201cThe only good Indian is a\n dead Indian.\u201d But the proverb applies to the white man also. Dr.\n Jacob Chamberlain, the missionary, said: \u201cI never but once in\n India heard a man deny that he was a sinner. But once a Brahmin\n interrupted me and said: \u2018I deny your premisses. I am not a\n sinner. I do not need to do better.\u2019 For a moment I was abashed.\n Then I said: \u2018But what do your neighbors say?\u2019 Thereupon one cried\n out: \u2018He cheated me in trading horses\u2019; another: \u2018He defrauded a\n widow of her inheritance.\u2019 The Brahmin went out of the house, and\n I never saw him again.\u201d A great nephew of Richard Brinsley\n Sheridan, Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu, when a child, wrote in a few\n lines an \u201cEssay on the Life of Man,\u201d which ran as follows: \u201cA\n man\u2019s life naturally divides itself into three distinct parts: the\n first when he is contriving and planning all kinds of villainy and\n rascality,\u2014that is the period of youth and innocence. In the\n second, he is found putting in practice all the villainy and\n rascality he has contrived,\u2014that is the flower of mankind and\n prime of life. The third and last period is that when he is making\n his soul and preparing for another world,\u2014that is the period of\n dotage.\u201d\n\n\n(_c_) The common judgment of mankind declares that there is an element of\nselfishness in every human heart, and that every man is prone to some form\nof sin. This common judgment is expressed in the maxims: \u201cNo man is\nperfect\u201d; \u201cEvery man has his weak side\u201d, or \u201chis price\u201d; and every great\nname in literature has attested its truth.\n\n\n Seneca, De Ira, 3:26\u2014\u201cWe are all wicked. What one blames in\n another he will find in his own bosom. We live among the wicked,\n ourselves being wicked\u201d; Ep., 22\u2014\u201cNo one has strength of himself\n to emerge [from this wickedness]; some one must needs hold forth a\n hand; some one must draw us out.\u201d Ovid, Met., 7:19\u2014\u201cI see the\n things that are better and I approve them, yet I follow the\n worse.... We strive even after that which is forbidden, and we\n desire the things that are denied.\u201d Cicero: \u201cNature has given us\n faint sparks of knowledge; we extinguish them by our\n immoralities.\u201d\n\n Shakespeare, Othello, 3:3\u2014\u201cWhere\u2019s that palace whereinto foul\n things Sometimes Intrude not? Who has a breast so pure, But some\n uncleanly apprehensions keep leets [meetings in court] and\n law-days, and in sessions sit With meditations lawful?\u201d Henry VI.,\n II:3:3\u2014\u201cForbear to judge, for we are sinners all.\u201d Hamlet, 2:2,\n compares God\u2019s influence to the sun which \u201cbreeds maggots in a\n dead dog, Kissing carrion,\u201d\u2014that is, God is no more responsible\n for the corruption in man\u2019s heart and the evil that comes from it,\n than the sun is responsible for the maggots which its heat breeds\n in a dead dog; 3:1\u2014\u201cWe are arrant knaves all.\u201d Timon of Athens,\n 1:2\u2014\u201cWho lives that\u2019s not depraved or depraves?\u201d\n\n Goethe: \u201cI see no fault committed which I too might not have\n committed.\u201d Dr. Johnson: \u201cEvery man knows that of himself which he\n dare not tell to his dearest friend.\u201d Thackeray showed himself a\n master in fiction by having no heroes; the paragons of virtue\n belonged to a cruder age of romance. So George Eliot represents\n life correctly by setting before us no perfect characters; all act\n from mixed motives. Carlyle, hero-worshiper as he was inclined to\n be, is said to have become disgusted with each of his heroes\n before he finished his biography. Emerson said that to understand\n any crime, he had only to look into his own heart. Robert Burns:\n \u201cGod knows I\u2019m no thing I would be, Nor am I even the thing I\n could be.\u201d Huxley: \u201cThe best men of the best epochs are simply\n those who make the fewest blunders and commit the fewest sins.\u201d\n And he speaks of \u201cthe infinite wickedness\u201d which has attended the\n course of human history. Matthew Arnold: \u201cWhat mortal, when he\n saw, Life\u2019s voyage done, his heavenly Friend, Could ever yet dare\n tell him fearlessly:\u2014I have kept uninfringed my nature\u2019s law: The\n inly written chart thou gavest me, to guide me, I have kept by to\n the end?\u201d Walter Besant, Children of Gibeon: \u201cThe men of ability\n do not desire a system in which they shall not be able to do good\n to themselves first.\u201d \u201cReady to offer praise and prayer on Sunday,\n if on Monday they may go into the market place to skin their\n fellows and sell their hides.\u201d Yet Confucius declares that \u201cman is\n born good.\u201d He confounds conscience with will\u2014the _sense_ of right\n with the _love_ of right. Dean Swift\u2019s worthy sought many years\n for a method of extracting sunbeams from cucumbers. Human nature\n of itself is as little able to bear the fruits of God.\n\n Every man will grant (1) that he is not perfect in moral\n character; (2) that love to God has not been the constant motive\n of his actions, _i. e._, that he has been to some degree selfish;\n (3) that he has committed at least one known violation of\n conscience. Shedd, Sermons to the Natural Man, 86, 87\u2014\u201cThose\n theorists who reject revealed religion, and remand man to the\n first principles of ethics and morality as the only religion that\n he needs, send him to a tribunal that damns him\u201d; for it is simple\n fact that \u201cno human creature, in any country or grade of\n civilization, has ever glorified God to the extent of his\n knowledge of God.\u201d\n\n\n3. _Proof from Christian experience._\n\n(_a_) In proportion to his spiritual progress does the Christian recognize\nevil dispositions within him, which but for divine grace might germinate\nand bring forth the most various forms of outward transgression.\n\n\n See Goodwin\u2019s experience, in Baird, Elohim Revealed, 409; Goodwin,\n member of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, speaking of his\n conversion, says: \u201cAn abundant discovery was made to me of my\n inward lusts and concupiscence, and I was amazed to see with what\n greediness I had sought the gratification of every sin.\u201d T\u00f6llner\u2019s\n experience, in Martensen\u2019s Dogmatics: T\u00f6llner, though inclined to\n Pelagianism, says: \u201cI look into my own heart and I see with\n penitent sorrow that I must in God\u2019s sight accuse myself of all\n the offences I have named,\u201d\u2014and he had named only deliberate\n transgressions;\u2014\u201che who does not allow that he is similarly\n guilty, let him look deep into his own heart.\u201d John Newton sees\n the murderer led to execution, and says: \u201cThere, but for the grace\n of God, goes John Newton.\u201d Count de Maistre: \u201cI do not know what\n the heart of a villain may be\u2014I only know that of a virtuous man,\n and that is frightful.\u201d Tholuck, on the fiftieth anniversary of\n his professorship at Halle, said to his students: \u201cIn review of\n God\u2019s manifold blessings, the thing I seem most to thank him for\n is the conviction of sin.\u201d\n\n Roper Ascham: \u201cBy experience we find out a short way, by a long\n wandering.\u201d _Luke 15:25-32_ is sometimes referred to as indicating\n that there are some of God\u2019s children who never wander from the\n Father\u2019s house. But there were two prodigals in that family. The\n elder was a servant in spirit as well as the younger. J. J.\n Murphy, Nat. Selection and Spir. Freedom, 41, 42\u2014\u201cIn the wish of\n the elder son that he might sometimes feast with his own friends\n apart from his father, was contained the germ of that desire to\n escape the wholesome restraints of home which, in its full\n development, had brought his brother first to riotous living, and\n afterwards to the service of the stranger and the herding of\n swine. This root of sin is in us all, but in him it was not so\n full-grown as to bring death. Yet he says: \u2018_Lo, these many years\n do I serve thee_\u2019 (\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u2014as a bondservant), \u2018_and I never\n transgressed a commandment of thine._\u2019 Are the father\u2019s\n commandments grievous? Is service true and sincere, without love\n from the heart? The elder brother was calculating toward his\n father and unsympathetic toward his brother.\u201d Sir J. R. Seelye,\n Ecce Homo: \u201cNo virtue can be safe, unless it is enthusiastic.\u201d\n Wordsworth: \u201cHeaven rejects the love Of nicely calculated less or\n more.\u201d\n\n\n(_b_) Since those most enlightened by the Holy Spirit recognize themselves\nas guilty of unnumbered violations of the divine law, the absence of any\nconsciousness of sin on the part of unregenerate men must be regarded as\nproof that they are blinded by persistent transgression.\n\n\n It is a remarkable fact that, while those who are enlightened by\n the Holy Spirit and who are actually overcoming their sins see\n more and more of the evil of their hearts and lives, those who are\n the slaves of sin see less and less of that evil, and often deny\n that they are sinners at all. Rousseau, in his Confessions,\n confesses sin in a spirit which itself needs to be confessed. He\n glosses over his vices, and magnifies his virtues. \u201cNo man,\u201d he\n says, \u201ccan come to the throne of God and say: \u2018I am a better man\n than Rousseau.\u2019... Let the trumpet of the last judgment sound when\n it will: I will present myself before the Sovereign Judge with\n this book in my hand, and I will say aloud: \u2018Here is what I did,\n what I thought, and what I was.\u2019 \u201d \u201cAh,\u201d said he, just before he\n expired, \u201chow happy a thing it is to die, when one has no reason\n for remorse or self-reproach!\u201d And then, addressing himself to the\n Almighty, he said: \u201cEternal Being, the soul that I am going to\n give thee back is as pure at this moment as it was when it\n proceeded from thee; render it a partaker of thy felicity!\u201d Yet,\n in his boyhood, Rousseau was a petty thief. In his writings, he\n advocated adultery and suicide. He lived for more than twenty\n years in practical licentiousness. His children, most of whom, if\n not all, were illegitimate, he sent off to the foundling hospital\n as soon as they were born, thus casting them upon the charity of\n strangers, yet he inflamed the mothers of France with his eloquent\n appeals to them to nurse their own babies. He was mean,\n vacillating, treacherous, hypocritical, and blasphemous. And in\n his Confessions, he rehearses the exciting scenes of his life in\n the spirit of the bold adventurer. See N. M. Williams, in Bap.\n Review, art.: Rousseau, from which the substance of the above is\n taken.\n\n Edwin Forrest, when accused of being converted in a religious\n revival, wrote an indignant denial to the public press, saying\n that he had nothing to regret; his sins were those of omission\n rather than commission; he had always acted upon the principle of\n loving his friends and hating his enemies; and trusting in the\n justice as well as the mercy of God, he hoped, when he left this\n earthly sphere, to \u201cwrap the drapery of his couch about him, and\n lie down to pleasant dreams.\u201d And yet no man of his time was more\n arrogant, self-sufficient, licentious, revengeful. John Y. McCane,\n when sentenced to Sing Sing prison for six years for violating the\n election laws by the most highhanded bribery and ballot-stuffing,\n declared that he had never done anything wrong in his life. He was\n a Sunday School Superintendent, moreover. A lady who lived to the\n age of 92, protested that, if she had her whole life to live over\n again, she would not alter a single thing. Lord Nelson, after he\n had received his death wound at Trafalgar, said: \u201cI have never\n been a great sinner.\u201d Yet at that very time he was living in open\n adultery. Tennyson, Sea Dreams: \u201cWith all his conscience and one\n eye askew, So false, he partly took himself for true.\u201d Contrast\n the utterance of the apostle Paul: _1 Tim. 1:15_\u2014\u201c_Christ Jesus\n came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief_.\u201d It has\n been well said that \u201cthe greatest of sins is to be conscious of\n none.\u201d Rowland Hill: \u201cThe devil makes little of sin, that he may\n retain the sinner.\u201d\n\n The following reasons may be suggested for men\u2019s unconsciousness\n of their sins: 1. We never know the force of any evil passion or\n principle within us, until we begin to resist it. 2. God\u2019s\n providential restraints upon sin have hitherto prevented its full\n development. 3. God\u2019s judgments against sin have not yet been made\n manifest. 4. Sin itself has a blinding influence upon the mind. 5.\n Only he who has been saved from the penalty of sin is willing to\n look into the abyss from which he has been rescued.\u2014That a man is\n unconscious of any sin is therefore only proof that he is a great\n and hardened transgressor. This is also the most hopeless feature\n of his case, since for one who never realizes his sin there is no\n salvation. In the light of this truth, we see the amazing grace of\n God, not only in the gift of Christ to die for sinners, but in the\n gift of the Holy Spirit to convince men of their sins and to lead\n them to accept the Savior. _Ps. 90:8_\u2014\u201c_Thou hast set ... Our\n secret sins in the light of thy countenance_\u201d = man\u2019s inner\n sinfulness is hidden from himself, until it is contrasted with the\n holiness of God. Light = a luminary or sun, which shines down into\n the depths of the heart and brings out its hidden evil into\n painful relief. See Julius M\u00fcller, Doctrine of Sin, 2:248-259;\n Edwards, Works, 2:326; John Caird, Reasons for Men\u2019s\n Unconsciousness of their Sins, in Sermons, 33.\n\n\nII. Every member of the human race, without exception, possesses a\ncorrupted nature, which is a source of actual sin, and is itself sin.\n\n\n1. _Proof from Scripture._\n\nA. The sinful acts and dispositions of men are referred to, and explained\nby, a corrupt nature.\n\n\n By \u201cnature\u201d we mean that which is _born_ in a man, that which he\n has by birth. That there is an inborn corrupt state, from which\n sinful acts and dispositions flow, is evident from _Luke\n 6:43-45_\u2014\u201c_there is no good tree that bringeth forth corrupt\n fruit.... the evil man out of the evil treasure_ [of his heart]\n _bringeth forth that which is evil_\u201d; _Mat. 12:34_\u2014\u201c_Ye offspring\n of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things?_\u201d _Ps.\n 58:3_\u2014\u201c_The wicked are estranged from the womb: They go astray as\n soon as they are born, speaking lies._\u201d\n\n\nThis corrupt nature (_a_) belongs to man from the first moment of his\nbeing; (_b_) underlies man\u2019s consciousness; (_c_) cannot be changed by\nman\u2019s own power; (_d_) first constitutes him a sinner before God; (_e_) is\nthe common heritage of the race.\n\n\n (_a_) _Ps. 51:5_\u2014\u201c_Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in\n sin did my mother conceive me_\u201d\u2014here David is confessing, not his\n mother\u2019s sin, but his own sin; and he declares that this sin goes\n back to the very moment of his conception. Tholuck, quoted by H.\n B. Smith, System, 281\u2014\u201cDavid confesses that sin begins with the\n life of man; that not only his works, but the man himself, is\n guilty before God.\u201d Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:94\u2014\u201cDavid mentions the\n fact that he was born sinful, as an aggravation of his particular\n act of adultery, and not as an excuse for it.\u201d (_b_) _Ps.\n 19:12_\u2014\u201c_Who can discern his errors? Clear thou me from hidden\n faults_\u201d; _51:6, 7_\u2014\u201c_Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward\n parts; And in the hidden part thou wilt make me to know wisdom.\n Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: Wash me, and I shall\n be whiter than snow._\u201d (_c_) _Jer. 13:23_\u2014\u201c_Can the Ethiopian\n change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do\n good, that are accustomed to do evil_\u201d; _Rom. 7:24_\u2014\u201c_Wretched man\n that I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death?_\u201d\n (_d_) _Ps. 51:6_\u2014\u201c_Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward\n parts_\u201d; _Jer. 17:9_\u2014\u201c_The heart is deceitful above all things and\n it is exceedingly corrupt: who can know it? I, Jehovah, search the\n mind, I try the heart,_\u201d\u2014only God can fully know the native and\n incurable depravity of the human heart; see Annotated Paragraph\n Bible, _in loco_, (_e_) _Job 14:4_\u2014\u201c_Who can bring a clean thing\n out of an unclean? not one_\u201d; _John 3:6_\u2014\u201c_That which is born of\n the flesh is flesh,_\u201d _i. e._, human nature sundered from God.\n Pope, Theology, 2:53\u2014\u201cChrist, who knew what was in man, says: \u2018_If\n ye then, being evil_\u2019 (_Mat. 7:11_), and \u2018_That which is born of\n the flesh is flesh_\u2019 (_John 3:6_), that is\u2014putting the two\n together\u2014\u2018men are evil, because they are born evil.\u2019 \u201d\n\n Nathaniel Hawthorne\u2019s story of The Minister\u2019s Black Veil portrays\n the isolation of every man\u2019s deepest life, and the awe which any\n visible assertion of that isolation inspires. C. P. Cranch: \u201cWe\n are spirits clad in veils; Man by man was never seen; All our deep\n communing fails To remove the shadowy screen.\u201d In the heart of\n every one of us is that fearful \u201cblack drop,\u201d which the Koran says\n the angel showed to Mohammed. Sin is like the taint of scrofula in\n the blood, which shows itself in tumors, in consumption, in\n cancer, in manifold forms, but is everywhere the same organic\n evil. Byron spoke truly of \u201cThis ineradicable taint of sin, this\n boundless Upas, this all-blasting tree.\u201d\n\n E. G. Robinson, Christ. Theol., 161, 162\u2014\u201cThe objection that\n conscience brings no charge of guilt against inborn depravity,\n however true it may be of the nature in its passive state, is\n seen, when the nature is roused to activity, to be unfounded. This\n faculty, on the contrary, lends support to the doctrine it is\n supposed to overthrow. When the conscience holds intelligent\n inquisition upon single acts, it soon discovers that these are\n mere accessories to crime, while the principal is hidden away\n beyond the reach of consciousness. In following up its\n inquisition, it in due time extorts the exclamation of David: _Ps.\n 51:5_\u2014\u2018_Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my\n mother conceive me._\u2019 Conscience traces guilt to its seat in the\n inherited nature.\u201d\n\n\nB. All men are declared to be by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3). Here\n\u201cnature\u201d signifies something inborn and original, as distinguished from\nthat which is subsequently acquired. The text implies that: (_a_) Sin is a\nnature, in the sense of a congenital depravity of the will. (_b_) This\nnature is guilty and condemnable,\u2014since God\u2019s wrath rests only upon that\nwhich deserves it. (_c_) All men participate in this nature and in this\nconsequent guilt and condemnation.\n\n\n _Eph. 2:3_\u2014\u201c_were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest._\u201d\n Shedd: \u201cNature here is not substance created by God, but\n corruption of that substance, which corruption is created by man.\u201d\n \u201cNature\u201d (from _nascor_) may denote anything inborn, and the term\n may just as properly designate inborn evil tendencies and state,\n as inborn faculties or substance. \u201c_By nature_\u201d therefore = \u201cby\n birth\u201d; compare _Gal. 2:15_\u2014\u201c_Jews by nature._\u201d E. G. Robinson:\n \u201cNature = not \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, or essence, but only qualification of\n essence, as something born in us. There is just as much difference\n in babes, from the beginning of their existence, as there is in\n adults. If sin is defined as \u2018voluntary transgression of known\n law,\u2019 the definition of course disposes of original sin.\u201d But if\n sin is a selfish state of the will, such a state is demonstrably\n inborn. Aristotle speaks of some men as born to be savages (\u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\n \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9), and of others as destined by nature to be slaves (\u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\n \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9). Here evidently is a congenital aptitude and disposition.\n Similarly we can interpret Paul\u2019s words as declaring nothing less\n than that men are possessed at birth of an aptitude and\n disposition which is the object of God\u2019s just displeasure.\n\n The opposite view can be found in Stevens, Pauline Theology,\n 152-157. Principal Fairbairn also says that inherited sinfulness\n \u201cis _not_ transgression, and is _without_ guilt.\u201d Ritschl, Just.\n and Recon., 344\u2014\u201cThe predicate \u2018children of wrath\u2019 refers to the\n former actual transgression of those who now as Christians have\n the right to apply to themselves that divine purpose of grace\n which is the antithesis of wrath.\u201d Meyer interprets the verse; \u201cWe\n _become_ children of wrath by following a natural propensity.\u201d He\n claims the doctrine of the apostle to be, that man incurs the\n divine wrath by his _actual_ sin, when he submits his will to the\n inborn sin principle. So N. W. Taylor, Concio ad Clerum, quoted in\n H. B. Smith, System, 281\u2014\u201cWe were by nature such that we became\n through our own act children of wrath.\u201d \u201cBut,\u201d says Smith, \u201cif the\n apostle had meant this, he could have said so; there is a proper\n Greek word for \u2018became\u2019; the word which is used can only be\n rendered \u2018were.\u2019 \u201d So _1 Cor. 7:14_\u2014\u201c_else were your children\n unclean_\u201d\u2014implies that, apart from the operations of grace, all\n men are defiled in virtue of their very birth from a corrupt\n stock. Cloth is first died in the wool, and then dyed again after\n the weaving. Man is a \u201cdouble-dyed villain.\u201d He is corrupted by\n nature and afterwards by practice. The colored physician in New\n Orleans advertised that his method was \u201cfirst to remove the\n disease, and then to eradicate the system.\u201d The New School method\n of treating this text is of a similar sort. Beginning with a\n definition of sin which excludes from that category all inborn\n states of the will, it proceeds to vacate of their meaning the\n positive statements of Scripture.\n\n For the proper interpretation of _Eph. 2:3_, see Julius M\u00fcller,\n Doct. of Sin, 2:278, and Commentaries of Harless and Olshausen.\n See also Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 3:212 _sq._; Thomasius, Christi\n Person und Werk, 1:289; and an excellent note in the Expositor\u2019s\n Greek N.T., _in loco_. _Per contra_, see Reuss, Christ. Theol. in\n Apost. Age, 2:29, 79-84; Weiss, Bib. Theol. N.T., 239.\n\n\nC. Death, the penalty of sin, is visited even upon those who have never\nexercised a personal and conscious choice (Rom. 5:12-14). This text\nimplies that (_a_) Sin exists in the case of infants prior to moral\nconsciousness, and therefore in the nature, as distinguished from the\npersonal activity. (_b_) Since infants die, this visitation of the penalty\nof sin upon them marks the ill-desert of that nature which contains in\nitself, though undeveloped, the germs of actual transgression. (_c_) It is\ntherefore certain that a sinful, guilty, and condemnable nature belongs to\nall mankind.\n\n\n _Rom. 5:12-14_\u2014\u201c_Therefore, as through one man sin entered into\n the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all\n men, for that all sinned:\u2014for until the law sin was in the world;\n but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death\n reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned\n after the likeness of Adam\u2019s transgression_\u201d\u2014that is, over those\n who, like infants, had never personally and consciously sinned.\n See a more full treatment of these last words in connection with\n an exegesis of the whole passage\u2014_Rom. 5:12-19_\u2014under Imputation\n of Sin, pages 625-627.\n\n N. W. Taylor maintained that infants, prior to moral agency, are\n not subjects of the moral government of God, any more than are\n animals. In this he disagreed with Edwards, Bellamy, Hopkins,\n Dwight, Smalley, Griffin. See Tyler, Letters on N. E. Theol., 8,\n 132-142\u2014\u201cTo say that animals die, and therefore death can be no\n proof of sin in infants, is to take infidel ground. The infidel\n has just as good a right to say: Because animals die without being\n sinners, therefore adults may. If death may reign to such an\n alarming extent over the human race and yet be no proof of sin,\n then you adopt the principle that death may reign to any extent\n over the universe, yet never can be made a proof of sin in any\n case.\u201d We reserve our full proof that physical death is the\n penalty of sin to the section on Penalty as one of the\n Consequences of Sin.\n\n\n2. _Proof from Reason._\n\nThree facts demand explanation: (_a_) The universal existence of sinful\ndispositions in every mind, and of sinful acts in every life. (_b_) The\npreponderating tendencies to evil, which necessitate the constant\neducation of good impulses, while the bad grow of themselves. (_c_) The\nyielding of the will to temptation, and the actual violation of the divine\nlaw, in the case of every human being so soon as he reaches moral\nconsciousness.\n\n\n The fundamental selfishness of man is seen in childhood, when\n human nature acts itself out spontaneously. It is difficult to\n develop courtesy in children. There can be no true courtesy\n without regard for man as man and willingness to accord to each\n man his place and right as a son of God equal with ourselves. But\n children wish to please themselves without regard to others. The\n mother asks the child: \u201cWhy don\u2019t you do right instead of doing\n wrong?\u201d and the child answers: \u201cBecause it makes me so tired,\u201d or\n \u201cBecause I do wrong without trying.\u201d Nothing runs itself, unless\n it is going down hill. \u201cNo other animal does things habitually\n that will injure and destroy it, and does them from the love of\n it. But man does this, and he is born to do it, he does it from\n birth. As the seedlings of the peach-tree are all peaches, not\n apples, and those of thorns are all thorns, not grapes, so all the\n descendants of man are born with evil in their natures. That sin\n continually comes back to us, like a dog or cat that has been\n driven away, proves that our hearts are its home.\u201d\n\n Mrs. Humphrey Ward\u2019s novel, Robert Elsmere, represents the\n milk-and-water school of philanthropists. \u201cGive man a chance,\u201d\n they say; \u201cgive him good example and favorable environment and he\n will turn out well. He is more sinned against than sinning. It is\n the outward presence of evil that drives men to evil courses.\u201d But\n God\u2019s indictment is found in _Rom. 8:7_\u2014\u201c_the mind of the flesh is\n enmity against God._\u201d G. P. Fisher: \u201cOf the ideas of natural\n religion, Plato, Plutarch and Cicero found in the fact that they\n are in man\u2019s _reason_, but not obeyed and realized in man\u2019s\n _will_, the most convincing evidence that humanity is at schism\n with itself, and therefore depraved, fallen, and unable to deliver\n itself. The reason why many moralists fail and grow bitter and\n hateful is that they do not take account of this state of sin.\u201d\n\n\nReason seeks an underlying principle which will reduce these multitudinous\nphenomena to unity. As we are compelled to refer common physical and\nintellectual phenomena to a common physical and intellectual nature, so we\nare compelled to refer these common moral phenomena to a common moral\nnature, and to find in it the cause of this universal, spontaneous, and\nall-controlling opposition to God and his law. The only possible solution\nof the problem is this, that the common nature of mankind is corrupt, or,\nin other words, that the human will, prior to the single volitions of the\nindividual, is turned away from God and supremely set upon\nself-gratification. This unconscious and fundamental direction of the\nwill, as the source of actual sin, must itself be sin; and of this sin all\nmankind are partakers.\n\n\n The greatest thinkers of the world have certified to the\n correctness of this conclusion. See Aristotle\u2019s doctrine of \u201cthe\n slope,\u201d described in Chase\u2019s Introduction to Aristotle\u2019s Ethics,\n XXXV and 32\u2014\u201cIn regard to moral virtue, man stands on a slope. His\n appetites and passions gravitate downward; his reason attracts him\n upward. Conflict occurs. A step upward, and reason gains what\n passion has lost; but the reverse is the case if he steps\n downward. The tendency in the former case is to the entire\n subjection of passion; in the latter case, to the entire\n suppression of reason. The slope will terminate upwards in a level\n summit where men\u2019s steps will be secure, or downwards in an\n irretrievable plunge over the precipice. Continual self-control\n leads to absolute self-mastery; continual failure, to the utter\n absence of self-control. But _all we can see is the slope_. No man\n is ever at the \u1f20\u03c1\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 of the summit, nor can we say that a man has\n irretrievably fallen into the abyss. How it is that men constantly\n act against their own convictions of what is right, and their\n previous determinations to follow right, is a mystery Which\n Aristotle discusses, but leaves unexplained.\n\n \u201cCompare the passage in the Ethics, 1:11\u2014\u2018Clearly there is in them\n [men], besides the Reason, some other Inborn principle (\u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03c5\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2)\n which fights with and strains against the Reason.... There is in\n the soul also somewhat besides the Reason which is opposed to this\n and goes against it.\u2019\u2014Compare this passage with Paul, in _Rom.\n 7:23_\u2014\u2018_I see a different law in my members, warring against the\n law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of\n sin which is in my members._\u2019 But as Aristotle does not explain\n the cause, so he suggests no cure. Revelation alone can account\n for the disease, or point out the remedy.\u201d\n\n Wuttke, Christian Ethics, 1:102\u2014\u201cAristotle makes the significant\n and almost surprising observation, that the character which has\n become evil by guilt can just as little be thrown off again at\n mere volition, as the person who has made himself sick by his own\n fault can become well again at mere volition; once become evil or\n sick, it stands no longer within his discretion to cease to be so;\n a stone, when once cast, cannot be caught back from its flight;\n and so is it with the character that has become evil.\u201d He does not\n tell \u201chow a reformation in character is possible,\u2014moreover, he\n does not concede to evil any other than an individual\n effect,\u2014knows nothing of any natural solidarity of evil in\n self-propagating, morally degenerated races\u201d (Nic. Eth., 3:6, 7;\n 5:12; 7:2, 3; 10:10). The good nature, he says, \u201cis evidently not\n within our power, but is by some kind of divine causality\n conferred upon the truly happy.\u201d\n\n Plato speaks of \u201cthat blind, many-headed wild beast of all that is\n evil within thee.\u201d He repudiates the idea that men are naturally\n good, and says that, if this were true, all that would be needed\n to make them holy would be to shut them up, from their earliest\n years, so that they might not be corrupted by others. Republic, 4\n (Jowett\u2019s translation, 11:276)\u2014\u201cThere is a rising up of part of\n the soul against the whole of the soul.\u201d Meno, 89\u2014\u201cThe cause of\n corruption is from our parents, so that we never relinquish their\n evil way, or escape the blemish of their evil habit.\u201d Horace, Ep.,\n 1:10\u2014\u201cNaturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret.\u201d Latin\n proverb: \u201cNemo repente fuit turpissimus.\u201d Pascal: \u201cWe are born\n unrighteous; for each one tends to himself, and the bent toward\n self is the beginning of all disorder.\u201d Kant, in his Metaphysical\n Principles of Human Morals, speaks of \u201cthe indwelling of an evil\n principle side by side with the good one, or the radical evil of\n human nature,\u201d and of \u201cthe contest between the good and the evil\n principles for the control of man.\u201d \u201cHegel, pantheist as he was,\n declared that original sin is the nature of every man,\u2014every man\n begins with it\u201d (H. B. Smith).\n\n Shakespeare, Timon of Athens, 4:3\u2014\u201cAll is oblique: There\u2019s nothing\n level in our cursed natures, But direct villainy.\u201d All\u2019s Well,\n 4:3\u2014\u201cAs we are in ourselves, how weak we are! Merely our own\n traitors.\u201d Measure for Measure, 1:2\u2014\u201cOur natures do pursue, Like\n rats that ravin down their proper bane, A thirsty evil, and when\n we drink, we die.\u201d Hamlet, 3:1\u2014\u201cVirtue cannot so inoculate our old\n stock, but we shall relish of it.\u201d Love\u2019s Labor Lost, 1:1\u2014\u201cEvery\n man with his affects is born, Not by might mastered, but by\n special grace.\u201d Winter\u2019s Tale, 1:2\u2014\u201cWe should have answered Heaven\n boldly, Not guilty; the imposition cleared Hereditary ours\u201d\u2014that\n is, provided our hereditary connection with Adam had not made us\n guilty. On the theology of Shakespeare, see A. H. Strong, Great\n Poets, 196-211\u2014\u201cIf any think it irrational to believe in man\u2019s\n depravity, guilt, and need of supernatural redemption, they must\n also be prepared to say that Shakespeare did not understand human\n nature.\u201d\n\n S. T. Coleridge, Omniana, at the end: \u201cIt is a fundamental article\n of Christianity that I am a fallen creature ... that an evil\n ground existed in my will, previously to any act or assignable\n moment of time in my consciousness; I am born a child of wrath.\n This fearful mystery I pretend not to understand. I cannot even\n conceive the possibility of it; but I know that it is so, ... and\n what is real must be possible.\u201d A sceptic who gave his children no\n religious training, with the view of letting them each in mature\n years choose a faith for himself, reproved Coleridge for letting\n his garden run to weeds; but Coleridge replied, that he did not\n think it right to prejudice the soil in favor of roses and\n strawberries. Van Oosterzee: Rain and sunshine make weeds grow\n more quickly, but could not draw them out of the soil if the seeds\n did not lie there already; so evil education and example draw out\n sin, but do not implant it. Tennyson, Two Voices: \u201cHe finds a\n baseness in his blood, At such strange war with what is good, He\n cannot do the thing he would.\u201d Robert Browning, Gold Hair: a\n Legend of Pornic: \u201cThe faith that launched point-blank her dart At\n the head of a lie\u2014taught Original Sin, The corruption of Man\u2019s\n Heart.\u201d Taine, Ancien R\u00e9gime: \u201cSavage, brigand and madman each of\n us harbors, in repose or manacled, but always living, in the\n recesses of his own heart.\u201d Alexander Maclaren: \u201cA great mass of\n knotted weeds growing in a stagnant pool is dragged toward you as\n you drag one filament.\u201d Draw out one sin, and it brings with it\n the whole matted nature of sin.\n\n Chief Justice Thompson, of Pennsylvania: \u201cIf those who preach had\n been lawyers previous to entering the ministry, they would know\n and say far more about the depravity of the human heart than they\n do. The old doctrine of total depravity is the only thing that can\n explain the falsehoods, the dishonesties, the licentiousness, and\n the murders which are so rife in the world. Education, refinement,\n and even a high order of talent, cannot overcome the inclination\n to evil which exists in the heart, and has taken possession of the\n very fibres of our nature.\u201d See Edwards, Original Sin, in Works,\n 2:309-510; Julius M\u00fcller, Doct. Sin, 2:259-307; Hodge, Syst.\n Theol., 2:231-238; Shedd, Discourses and Essays, 226-236.\n\n\n\nSection IV.\u2014Origin Of Sin In The Personal Act Of Adam.\n\n\nWith regard to the origin of this sinful nature which is common to the\nrace, and which is the occasion of all actual transgressions, reason\naffords no light. The Scriptures, however, refer the origin of this nature\nto that free act of our first parents by which they turned away from God,\ncorrupted themselves, and brought themselves under the penalties of the\nlaw.\n\n\n Chandler, Spirit of Man, 76\u2014\u201cIt is vain to attempt to sever the\n moral life of Christianity from the historical fact in which it is\n rooted. We may cordially assent to the assertion that the whole\n value of historical events is in their ideal significance. But in\n many cases, part of that which the idea signifies is the fact that\n it has been exhibited in history. The value and interest of the\n conquest of Greece over Persia lie in the significant idea of\n freedom and intelligence triumphing over despotic force; but\n surely a part, and a very important part, of the idea, is the fact\n that this triumph was won in a historical past, and the\n encouragement for the present which rests upon that fact. So too,\n the value of Christ\u2019s resurrection lies in its immense moral\n significance as a principle of life; but an essential part of that\n very significance is the fact that the principle was actually\n realized by One in whom mankind was summed up and expressed, and\n by whom, therefore, the power of realizing it is conferred on all\n who receive him.\u201d\n\n As it is important for us to know that redemption is not only\n ideal but actual, so it is important for us to know that sin is\n not an inevitable accompaniment of human nature, but that it had a\n historical beginning. Yet no _a priori_ theory should prejudice\n our examination of the facts. We would preface our consideration\n of the Scriptural account, therefore, by stating that our view of\n inspiration would permit us to regard that account as inspired,\n even if it were mythical or allegorical. As God can use all\n methods of literary composition, so he can use all methods of\n instructing mankind that are consistent with essential truth.\n George Adam Smith observes that the myths and legends of primitive\n folk-lore are the intellectual equivalents of later philosophies\n and theories of the universe, and that \u201cat no time has revelation\n refused to employ such human conceptions for the investiture and\n conveyance of the higher spiritual truths.\u201d Sylvester Burnham:\n \u201cFiction and myth have not yet lost their value for the moral and\n religious teacher. What a knowledge of his own nature has shown\n man to be good for his own use, God surely may also have found to\n be good for his use. Nor would it of necessity affect the value of\n the Bible if the writer, in using for his purpose myth or fiction,\n supposed that he was using history. Only when the value of the\n truth of the teaching depends upon the historicity of the alleged\n fact, does it become impossible to use myth or fiction for the\n purpose of teaching.\u201d See vol. 1, page 241 of this work, with\n quotations from Denney, Studies in Theology, 218, and Gore, in Lux\n Mundi, 356. Euripides: \u201cThou God of all! infuse light into the\n souls of men, whereby they may be enabled to know what is the root\n from which all their evils spring, and by what means they may\n avoid them!\u201d\n\n\nI. The Scriptural Account of the Temptation and Fall in Genesis 3:1-7.\n\n\n1. Its general, character not mythical or allegorical, but historical.\n\n\nWe adopt this view for the following reasons:\u2014(_a_) There is no intimation\nin the account itself that it is not historical. (_b_) As a part of a\nhistorical book, the presumption is that it is itself historical. (_c_)\nThe later Scripture writers refer to it as a veritable history even in its\ndetails. (_d_) Particular features of the narrative, such as the placing\nof our first parents in a garden and the speaking of the tempter through a\nserpent-form, are incidents suitable to man\u2019s condition of innocent but\nuntried childhood. (_e_) This view that the narrative is historical does\nnot forbid our assuming that the trees of life and of knowledge were\nsymbols of spiritual truths, while at the same time they were outward\nrealities.\n\n\n See _John 8:44_\u2014\u201c_Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts\n of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the\n beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no\n truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for\n he is a liar and the father thereof_\u201d; _2 Cor. 11:3_\u2014\u201c_the serpent\n beguiled Eve in his craftiness_\u201d; _Rev. 20:2_\u2014\u201c_the dragon, the\n old serpent, which is the Devil and Satan._\u201d H. B. Smith, System,\n 261\u2014\u201cIf Christ\u2019s temptation and victory over Satan were historical\n events, there seems to be no ground for supposing that the first\n temptation was not a historical event.\u201d We believe in the unity\n and sufficiency of Scripture. We moreover regard the testimony of\n Christ and the apostles as conclusive with regard to the\n historicity of the account in Genesis. We assume a divine\n superintendence in the choice of material by its author, and the\n fulfilment to the apostles of Christ\u2019s promise that they should be\n guided into the truth. Paul\u2019s doctrine of sin is so manifestly\n based upon the historical character of the Genesis story, that the\n denial of the one must naturally lead to the denial of the other.\n John Milton writes, in his Areopagitica: \u201cIt was from out of the\n rind of one apple tasted that the knowledge of good and evil, as\n two twins cleaving together, leaped forth into the world. And\n perhaps this is that doom which Adam fell into, that is to say, of\n knowing good by evil.\u201d He should have learned to know evil as God\n knows it\u2014as a thing possible, hateful, and forever rejected. He\n actually learned to know evil as Satan knows it\u2014by making it\n actual and matter of bitter experience.\n\n Infantile and innocent man found his fit place and work in a\n garden. The language of appearances is doubtless used. Satan might\n enter into a brute-form, and might appear to speak through it. In\n all languages, the stories of brutes speaking show that such a\n temptation is congruous with the condition of early man. Asiatic\n myths agree in representing the serpent as the emblem of the\n spirit of evil. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the\n symbol of God\u2019s right of eminent domain, and indicated that all\n belonged to him. It is not necessary to suppose that it was known\n by this name before the Fall. By means of it man came to know\n good, by the loss of it; to know evil, by bitter experience; C. H.\n M.: \u201cTo know good, without the power to do it; to know evil,\n without the power to avoid it.\u201d Bible Com., 1:40\u2014The tree of life\n was symbol of the fact that \u201clife is to be sought, not from\n within, from himself, in his own powers or faculties; but from\n that which is without him, even from him who hath life in\n himself.\u201d\n\n As the water of baptism and the bread of the Lord\u2019s supper, though\n themselves common things, are symbolic of the greatest truths, so\n the tree of knowledge and the tree of life were sacramental.\n McIlvaine, Wisdom of Holy Scripture, 99-141\u2014\u201cThe two trees\n represented good and evil. The prohibition of the latter was a\n declaration that man of himself could not distinguish between good\n and evil, and must trust divine guidance. Satan urged man to\n discern between good and evil by his own wisdom, and so become\n independent of God. Sin is the attempt of the creature to exercise\n God\u2019s attribute of discerning and choosing between good and evil\n by his own wisdom. It is therefore self-conceit, self-trust,\n self-assertion, the preference of his own wisdom and will to the\n wisdom and will of God.\u201d McIlvaine refers to Lord Bacon, Works,\n 1:82, 162. See also Pope, Theology, 2:10, 11; Boston Lectures for\n 1871:80, 81.\n\n Griffith-Jones, Ascent through Christ, 142, on the tree of the\n knowledge of good and evil\u2014\u201cWhen for the first time man stood face\n to face with definite conscious temptation to do that which he\n knew to be wrong, he held in his hand the fruit of that tree, and\n his destiny as a moral being hung trembling in the balance. And\n when for the first time he succumbed to temptation and faint\n dawnings of remorse visited his heart, at that moment he was\n banished from the Eden of innocence, in which his nature had\n hitherto dwelt, and he was driven forth from the presence of the\n Lord.\u201d With the first sin, was started another and a downward\n course of development. For the mythical or allegorical explanation\n of the narrative, see also Hase, Hutterus Redivivus, 164, 165, and\n Nitzsch, Christian Doctrine, 218.\n\n\n2. The course of the temptation, and the resulting fall.\n\n\nThe stages of the temptation appear to have been as follows:\n\n(_a_) An appeal on the part of Satan to innocent appetites, together with\nan implied suggestion that God was arbitrarily withholding the means of\ntheir gratification (Gen. 3:1). The first sin was in Eve\u2019s isolating\nherself and choosing to seek her own pleasure without regard to God\u2019s\nwill. This initial selfishness it was, which led her to listen to the\ntempter instead of rebuking him or flying from him, and to exaggerate the\ndivine command in her response (Gen. 3:3).\n\n\n _Gen. 3:1_\u2014\u201c_Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of any tree of\n the garden?_\u201d Satan emphasizes the _limitation_, but is silent\n with regard to the generous _permission_\u2014\u201c_Of every tree of the\n garden_ [but one] _thou mayest freely eat_\u201d (_2:16_). C. H. M.,\n _in loco_: \u201cTo admit the question \u2018_hath God said?_\u2019 is already\n positive infidelity. To add to God\u2019s word is as bad as to take\n from it. \u2018_Hath God said?_\u2019 is quickly followed by \u2018_Ye shall not\n surely die._\u2019 Questioning whether God has spoken, results in open\n contradiction of what God has said. Eve suffered God\u2019s word to be\n contradicted by a creature, only because she had abjured its\n authority over her conscience and heart.\u201d The command was simply:\n \u201c_thou shalt not eat of it_\u201d (_Gen. 2:17_). In her rising dislike\n to the authority she had renounced, she exaggerates the command\n into: \u201c_Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it_\u201d (_Gen.\n 3:3_). Here is already self-isolation, instead of love. Matheson,\n Messages of the Old Religions, 318\u2014\u201cEre ever the human soul\n disobeyed, it had learned to distrust.... Before it violated the\n existing law, it had come to think of the Lawgiver as one who was\n jealous of his creatures.\u201d Dr. C. H. Parkhurst: \u201cThe first\n question ever asked in human history was asked by the devil, and\n the interrogation point still has in it the trail of the serpent.\u201d\n\n\n(_b_) A denial of the veracity of God, on the part of the tempter, with a\ncharge against the Almighty of jealousy and fraud in keeping his creatures\nin a position of ignorance and dependence (Gen. 3:4, 5). This was\nfollowed, on the part of the woman, by positive unbelief, and by a\nconscious and presumptuous cherishing of desire for the forbidden fruit,\nas a means of independence and knowledge. Thus unbelief, pride, and lust\nall sprang from the self-isolating, self-seeking spirit, and fastened upon\nthe means of gratifying it (Gen. 3:6).\n\n\n _Gen. 3:4, 5_\u2014\u201c_And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not\n surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then\n your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good\n and evil_\u201d; _3:6_\u2014\u201c_And when the woman saw that the tree was good\n for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree\n was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof,\n and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he\n did eat_\u201d\u2014so \u201ctaking the word of a Professor of Lying, that he\n does not lie\u201d (John Henry Newman). Hooker, Eccl. Polity, book\n I\u2014\u201cTo live by one man\u2019s will became the cause of all men\u2019s\n misery.\u201d Godet on _John 1:4_\u2014\u201cIn the words \u2018_life_\u2019 and \u2018_light_\u2019\n it is natural to see an allusion to the tree of life and to that\n of knowledge. After having eaten of the former, man would have\n been called to feed on the second. John initiates us into the real\n essence of these primordial and mysterious facts and gives us in\n this verse, as it were, the philosophy of Paradise.\u201d Obedience is\n the way to knowledge, and the sin of Paradise was the seeking of\n light without life; _cf._ _John 7:17_\u2014\u201c_If any man willeth to do\n his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or\n whether I speak from myself._\u201d\n\n\n(_c_) The tempter needed no longer to urge his suit. Having poisoned the\nfountain, the stream would naturally be evil. Since the heart and its\ndesires had become corrupt, the inward disposition manifested itself in\nact (Gen. 3:6\u2014\u201cdid eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her\u201d = who\nhad been with her, and had shared her choice and longing). Thus man fell\ninwardly, before the outward act of eating the forbidden fruit,\u2014fell in\nthat one fundamental determination whereby he made supreme choice of self\ninstead of God. This sin of the inmost nature gave rise to sins of the\ndesires, and sins of the desires led to the outward act of transgression\n(James 1:15).\n\n\n _James 1:15_\u2014\u201c_Then the lust, when it hath conceived, beareth\n sin._\u201d Baird, Elohim Revealed, 888\u2014\u201cThe law of God had already\n been violated; man was fallen before the fruit had been plucked,\n or the rebellion had been thus signalized. The law required not\n only outward obedience but fealty of the heart, and this was\n withdrawn before any outward token indicated the change.\u201d Would he\n part company with God, or with his wife? When the Indian asked the\n missionary where his ancestors were, and was told that they were\n in hell, he replied that he would go with his ancestors. He\n preferred hell with his tribe to heaven with God. Sapphira, in\n like manner, had opportunity given her to part company with her\n husband, but she preferred him to God; _Acts 5:7-11_.\n\n Philippi, Glaubenslehre: \u201cSo man became like God, a setter of law\n to himself. Man\u2019s self-elevation to godhood was his fall. God\u2019s\n self-humiliation to manhood was man\u2019s restoration and\n elevation.... _Gen. 3:22_\u2014\u2018_The man has become as one of us_\u2019 in\n his condition of self-centered activity,\u2014thereby losing all real\n likeness to God, which consists in having the same aim with God\n himself. _De te fabula narratur_; it is the condition, not of one\n alone, but of all the race.\u201d Sin once brought into being is\n self-propagating; its seed is in itself: the centuries of misery\n and crime that have followed have only shown what endless\n possibilities of evil were wrapped up in that single sin. Keble:\n \u201c\u2019Twas but a little drop of sin We saw this morning enter in, And\n lo, at eventide a world is drowned!\u201d Farrar, Fall of Man: \u201cThe\n guilty wish of one woman has swollen into the irremediable\n corruption of a world.\u201d See Oehler, O.T. Theology, 1:231; M\u00fcller,\n Doct. Sin, 2:381-385; Edwards, on Original Sin, part 4, chap. 2;\n Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:168-180.\n\n\nII. Difficulties connected with the Fall considered as the personal Act of\nAdam.\n\n\n1. How could a holy being fall?\n\n\nHere we must acknowledge that we cannot understand how the first unholy\nemotion could have found lodgment in a mind that was set supremely upon\nGod, nor how temptation could have overcome a soul in which there were no\nunholy propensities to which it could appeal. The mere power of choice\ndoes not explain the fact of an unholy choice. The fact of natural desire\nfor sensuous and intellectual gratification does not explain how this\ndesire came to be inordinate. Nor does it throw light upon the matter, to\nresolve this fall into a deception of our first parents by Satan. Their\nyielding to such deception presupposes distrust of God and alienation from\nhim. Satan\u2019s fall, moreover, since it must have been uncaused by\ntemptation from without, is more difficult to explain than Adam\u2019s fall.\n\n\n We may distinguish six incorrect explanations of the origin of\n sin: 1. Emmons: Sin is due to God\u2019s efficiency\u2014God wrought the sin\n in man\u2019s heart. This is the \u201cexercise system,\u201d and is essentially\n pantheistic. 2. Edwards: Sin is due to God\u2019s providence\u2014God caused\n the sin indirectly by presenting motives. This explanation has all\n the difficulties of determinism. 3. Augustine: Sin is the result\n of God\u2019s withdrawal from man\u2019s soul. But inevitable sin is not\n sin, and the blame of it rests on God who withdrew the grace\n needed for obedience, 4. Pfleiderer: The fall results from man\u2019s\n already existing sinfulness. The fault then belongs, not to man,\n but to God who made man sinful. 5. Hadley: Sin is due to man\u2019s\n moral insanity. But such concreated ethical defect would render\n sin impossible. Insanity is the effect of sin, but not its cause.\n 6. Newman: Sin is due to man\u2019s weakness. It is a negative, not a\n positive, thing, an incident of finiteness. But conscience and\n Scripture testify that it is positive as well as negative,\n opposition to God as well as non-conformity to God.\n\n Emmons was really a pantheist: \u201cSince God,\u201d he says, \u201cworks in all\n men both to will and to do of his good pleasure, it is as easy to\n account for the first offence of Adam as for any other sin....\n There is no difficulty respecting the fall of Adam from his\n original state of perfection and purity into a state of sin and\n guilt, which is in any way peculiar.... It is as consistent with\n the moral rectitude of the Deity to produce sinful as holy\n exercises in the minds of men. He puts forth a positive influence\n to make moral agents act, in every instance of their conduct, as\n he pleases.... There is but one satisfactory answer to the\n question _Whence came evil?_ and that is: It came from the great\n first Cause of all things\u201d; see Nathaniel Emmons, Works, 2:683.\n\n Jonathan Edwards also denied power to the contrary even in Adam\u2019s\n first sin. God did not immediately cause that sin. But God was\n active in the region of motives though his action was not seen.\n Freedom of the Will, 161\u2014\u201cIt was fitting that the transaction\n should so take place that it might not appear to be from God as\n the apparent fountain.\u201d Yet \u201cGod may actually in his providence so\n dispose and permit things that the event may be certainly and\n infallibly connected with such disposal and permission\u201d; see\n Allen, Jonathan Edwards, 304. Encyc. Britannica, 7:690\u2014\u201cAccording\n to Edwards, Adam had two principles,\u2014natural and supernatural.\n When Adam sinned, the supernatural or divine principle was\n withdrawn from him, and thus his nature became corrupt without God\n infusing any evil thing into it. His posterity came into being\n entirely under the government of natural and inferior principles.\n But this solves the difficulty of making God the author of sin\n only at the expense of denying to sin any real existence, and also\n destroys Edwards\u2019s essential distinction between natural and moral\n ability.\u201d Edwards on Trinity, Fisher\u2019s edition, 44\u2014\u201cThe sun does\n not cause darkness and cold, when these follow infallibly upon the\n withdrawal of his beams. God\u2019s disposing the result is not a\n positive exertion on his part.\u201d Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:50\u2014\u201cGod did\n not withdraw the common supporting grace of his Spirit from Adam\n until after transgression.\u201d To us Adam\u2019s act was irrational, but\n not impossible; to a determinist like Edwards, who held that men\n simply act out their characters, Adam\u2019s act should have been not\n only irrational, but impossible. Edwards nowhere shows how,\n according to his principles, a holy being could possibly fall.\n\n Pfleiderer, Grundriss, 123\u2014\u201cThe account of the fall is the first\n appearance of an already existing sinfulness, and a typical\n example of the way in which every individual becomes sinful.\n Original sin is simply the universality and originality of sin.\n There is no such thing as indeterminism. The will can lift itself\n from natural unfreedom, the unfreedom of the natural impulses, to\n real spiritual freedom, only by distinguishing itself from the law\n which sets before it its true end of being. The opposition of\n nature to the law reveals an original nature power which precedes\n all free self-determination. Sin is the evil bent of lawless\n self-willed selfishness.\u201d Pfleiderer appears to make this\n sinfulness concreated, and guiltless, because proceeding from God.\n Hill, Genetic Philosophy, 288\u2014\u201cThe wide discrepancy between\n precept and practice gives rise to the theological conception of\n _sin_, which, in low types of religion, is as often a violation of\n some trivial prescription as it is of an ethical principle. The\n presence of sin, contrasted with a state of innocence, occasions\n the idea of a fall, or lapse from a sinless condition. This is not\n incompatible with man\u2019s derivation from an animal ancestry, which\n prior to the rise of self-consciousness may be regarded as having\n been in a state of moral _innocence_, the sense and reality of sin\n being impossible to the animal.... The existence of sin, both as\n an inherent disposition, and as a perverted form of action, may be\n explained as a survival of animal propensity in human life.... Sin\n is the disturbance of higher life by the intrusion of lower.\u201d\n\n Professor James Hadley: \u201cEvery man is more or less insane.\u201d We\n prefer to say: Every man, so far as he is apart from God, is\n morally insane. But we must not make sin the result of insanity.\n Insanity is the result of sin. Insanity, moreover, is a physical\n disease,\u2014sin is a perversion of the will. John Henry Newman, Idea\n of a University, 60\u2014\u201cEvil has no substance of its own, but is only\n the defect, excess, perversion or corruption of that which has\n substance.\u201d Augustine seems at times to favor this view. He\n maintains that evil has no origin, inasmuch as it is negative, not\n positive; that it is merely defect or failure. He illustrates it\n by the damaged state of a discordant harp; see Moule, Outlines of\n Theology, 171. So too A. A. Hodge, Popular Lectures, 190, tells us\n that Adam\u2019s will was like a violin in tune, which through mere\n inattention and neglect got out of tune at last. But here, too, we\n must say with E. G. Robinson, Christ. Theology, 124\u2014\u201cSin explained\n is sin defended.\u201d All these explanations fail to explain, and\n throw the blame of sin upon God, as directly or indirectly its\n cause.\n\n\nBut sin is an existing fact. God cannot be its author, either by creating\nman\u2019s nature so that sin was a necessary incident of its development, or\nby withdrawing a supernatural grace which was necessary to keep man holy.\nReason, therefore, has no other recourse than to accept the Scripture\ndoctrine that sin originated in man\u2019s free act of revolt from God\u2014the act\nof a will which, though inclined toward God, was not yet confirmed in\nvirtue and was still capable of a contrary choice. The original possession\nof such power to the contrary seems to be the necessary condition of\nprobation and moral development. Yet the exercise of this power in a\nsinful direction can never be explained upon grounds of reason, since sin\nis essentially unreason. It is an act of wicked arbitrariness, the only\nmotive of which is the desire to depart from God and to render self\nsupreme.\n\n\n Sin is a \u201c_mystery of lawlessness_\u201d (_2 Thess. 2:7_), at the\n beginning, as well as at the end. Neander, Planting and Training,\n 388\u2014\u201cWhoever explains sin nullifies it.\u201d Man\u2019s power at the\n beginning to choose evil does not prove that, now that he has\n fallen, he has equal power of himself permanently to choose good.\n Because man has power to cast himself from the top of a precipice\n to the bottom, it does not follow that he has equal power to\n transport himself from the bottom to the top.\n\n Man fell by wilful resistance to the inworking God. Christ is in\n all men as he was in Adam, and all good impulses are due to him.\n Since the Holy Spirit is the Christ within, all men are the\n subjects of his striving. He does not withdraw from them except\n upon, and in consequence of, their withdrawing from him. John\n Milton makes the Almighty say of Adam\u2019s sin: \u201cWhose fault? Whose\n but his own? Ingrate, he had of me All he could have; I made him\n just and right, Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall.\n Such I created all the Etherial Powers, And Spirits, both them who\n stood and them who failed; Freely they stood who stood, and fell\n who failed.\u201d The word \u201ccussedness\u201d has become an apt word here.\n The Standard Dictionary defines it as \u201c1. Cursedness, meanness,\n perverseness; 2. resolute courage, endurance: \u2018Jim Bludsoe\u2019s voice\n was heard, And they all had trust in his cussedness And knowed he\n would keep his word.\u2019 \u201d (John Hay, Jim Bludsoe, stanza 6). Not the\n last, but the first, of these definitions best describes the first\n sin. The most thorough and satisfactory treatment of the fall of\n man in connection with the doctrine of evolution is found in\n Griffith-Jones, Ascent through Christ, 73-240.\n\n Hodge, Essays and Reviews, 30\u2014\u201cThere is a broad difference between\n the commencement of holiness and the commencement of sin, and more\n is necessary for the former than for the latter. An act of\n obedience, if it is performed under the mere impulse of self-love,\n is virtually no act of obedience. It is not performed with any\n intention to obey, for that is holy, and cannot, according to the\n theory, precede the act. But an act of disobedience, performed\n from the desire of happiness, is rebellion. The cases are surely\n different. If, to please myself, I do what God commands, it is not\n holiness; but if, to please myself, I do what he forbids, it is\n sin. Besides, no creature is immutable. Though created holy, the\n taste for holy enjoyments may be overcome by a temptation\n sufficiently insidious and powerful, and a selfish motive or\n feeling excited in the mind. Neither is a sinful character\n immutable. By the power of the Holy Spirit, the truth may be\n clearly presented and so effectually applied as to produce that\n change which is called regeneration; that is, to call into\n existence a taste for holiness, so that it is chosen for its own\n sake, and not as a means of happiness.\u201d\n\n H. B. Smith, System, 262\u2014\u201cThe state of the case, as far as we can\n enter into Adam\u2019s experience, is this: Before the command, there\n was the state of love without the thought of the opposite: a\n knowledge of good only, a yet unconscious goodness: there was also\n the knowledge that the eating of the fruit was against the divine\n command. The temptation aroused pride; the yielding to that was\n the sin. The change was there. The change was not in the choice as\n an executive act, nor in the result of that act\u2014the eating; but in\n the choice of supreme love to the world and self, rather than\n supreme devotion to God. It was an immanent preference of the\n world,\u2014not a love of the world following the choice, but a love of\n the world which is the choice itself.\u201d\n\n 263\u2014\u201cWe cannot account for Adam\u2019s fall, psychologically. In saying\n this we mean: It is inexplicable by anything outside itself. We\n must receive the fact as ultimate, and rest there. Of course we do\n not mean that it was not in accordance with the laws of moral\n agency\u2014that it was a violation of those laws: but only that we do\n not see the mode, that we cannot construct it for ourselves in a\n rational way. It differs from all other similar cases of ultimate\n preference _which we know_; _viz._, the sinner\u2019s immanent\n preference of the world, where we know there is an antecedent\n ground in the bias to sin, and the Christian\u2019s regeneration, or\n immanent preference of God, where we know there is an influence\n from without, the working of the Holy Spirit.\u201d 264\u2014\u201cWe must leave\n the whole question with the immanent preference standing forth as\n the ultimate fact in the case, which is not to be constructed\n philosophically, as far as the processes of Adam\u2019s soul are\n concerned: we must regard that immanent preference as both a\n choice and an affection, not an affection the result of a choice,\n not a choice which is the consequence of an affection, but both\n together.\u201d\n\n In one particular, however, we must differ with H. B. Smith: Since\n the power of voluntary internal movement is the power of the will,\n we must regard the change from good to evil as primarily a choice,\n and only secondarily a state of affection caused thereby. Only by\n postulating a free and conscious act of transgression on the part\n of Adam, an act which bears to evil affection the relation not of\n effect but of cause, do we reach, at the beginning of human\n development, a proper basis for the responsibility and guilt of\n Adam and the race. See Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:148-167.\n\n\n2. How could God justly permit Satanic temptation?\n\n\nWe see in this permission not justice but benevolence.\n\n(_a_) Since Satan fell without external temptation, it is probable that\nman\u2019s trial would have been substantially the same, even though there had\nbeen no Satan to tempt him.\n\n\n Angels had no animal nature to obscure the vision; they could not\n be influenced through sense; yet they were tempted and they fell.\n As Satan and Adam sinned under the best possible circumstances, we\n may conclude that the human race would have sinned with equal\n certainty. The only question at the time of their creation,\n therefore, was how to modify the conditions so as best to pave the\n way for repentance and pardon. These conditions are: 1. a material\n body\u2014which means confinement, limitation, need of self-restraint;\n 2. infancy\u2014which means development, deliberation, with no memory\n of the first sin; 3. the parental relation\u2014repressing the\n wilfulness of the child, and teaching submission to authority.\n\n\n(_b_) In this case, however, man\u2019s fall would perhaps have been without\nwhat now constitutes its single mitigating circumstance. Self-originated\nsin would have made man himself a Satan.\n\n\n _Mat. 13:28_\u2014\u201c_An enemy hath done this._\u201d \u201cGod permitted Satan to\n divide the guilt with man, so that man might be saved from\n despair.\u201d See Trench, Studies in the Gospels, 16-29. Mason, Faith\n of the Gospel, 103\u2014\u201cWhy was not the tree made outwardly repulsive?\n Because only the abuse of that which was positively good and\n desirable could have attractiveness for Adam or could constitute a\n real temptation.\u201d\n\n\n(_c_) As, in the conflict with temptation, it is an advantage to objectify\nevil under the image of corruptible flesh, so it is an advantage to meet\nit as embodied in a personal and seducing spirit.\n\n\n Man\u2019s body, corruptible and perishable as it is, furnishes him\n with an illustration and reminder of the condition of soul to\n which sin has reduced him. The flesh, with its burdens and pains,\n is thus, under God, a help to the distinct recognition and\n overcoming of sin. So it was an advantage to man to have\n temptation confined to a single external voice. We may say of the\n influence of the tempter, as Birks, in his Difficulties of Belief,\n 101, says of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:\n \u201cTemptation did not depend upon the tree. Temptation was certain\n in any event. The tree was a type into which God contracted the\n possibilities of evil, so as to strip them of delusive vastness,\n and connect them with definite and palpable warning,\u2014to show man\n that it was only one of the many possible activities of his spirit\n which was forbidden, that God had right to all and could forbid\n all.\u201d The originality of sin was the most fascinating element in\n it. It afforded boundless range for the imagination. Luther did\n well to throw his inkstand at the devil. It was an advantage to\n localize him. The concentration of the human powers upon a\n definite offer of evil helps our understanding of the evil and\n increases our disposition to resist it.\n\n\n(_d_) Such temptation has in itself no tendency to lead the soul astray.\nIf the soul be holy, temptation may only confirm it in virtue. Only the\nevil will, self-determined against God, can turn temptation into an\noccasion of ruin.\n\n\n As the sun\u2019s heat has no tendency to wither the plant rooted in\n deep and moist soil, but only causes it to send down its roots the\n deeper and to fasten itself the more strongly, so temptation has\n in itself no tendency to pervert the soul. It was only the seeds\n that \u201c_fell upon the rocky places, where they had not much earth_\u201d\n (_Mat. 13:5, 6_), that \u201c_were scorched_\u201d when \u201c_the sun was\n risen_\u201d; and our Lord attributes their failure, not to the sun,\n but to their lack of root and of soil: \u201c_because they had no\n root_,\u201d \u201c_because they had no deepness of earth._\u201d The same\n temptation which occasions the ruin of the false disciple\n stimulates to sturdy growth the virtue of the true Christian.\n Contrast with the temptation of Adam the temptation of Christ.\n Adam had everything to plead for God, the garden and its delights,\n while Christ had everything to plead against him, the wilderness\n and its privations. But Adam had confidence in Satan, while Christ\n had confidence in God; and the result was in the former case\n defeat, in the latter victory. See Baird, Elohim Revealed,\n 385-396.\n\n C. H. Spurgeon: \u201cAll the sea outside a ship can do it no damage\n till the water enters and fills the hold. Hence, it is clear, our\n greatest danger is within. All the devils in hell and tempters on\n earth could do us no injury, if there were no corruption in our\n own natures. The sparks will fly harmlessly, if there is no\n tinder. Alas, our heart is our greatest enemy; this is the little\n home-born thief. Lord, save me from that evil man, myself!\u201d\n\n Lyman Abbott: \u201cThe scorn of goody-goody is justified; for\n goody-goody is innocence, not virtue; and the boy who never does\n anything wrong because he never does anything at all is of no use\n in the world.... Sin is not a help in development; it is a\n hindrance. But temptation is a help; it is an indispensable\n means.\u201d E. G. Robinson, Christ. Theology, 123\u2014\u201cTemptation in the\n bad sense and a fall from innocence were no more necessary to the\n perfection of the first man, than a marring of any one\u2019s character\n is now necessary to its completeness.\u201d John Milton, Areopagitica:\n \u201cMany there be that complain of divine providence for suffering\n Adam to transgress. Foolish tongues! When God gave him reason, he\n gave him freedom to choose, for reason is but choosing; he had\n been else a mere artificial Adam, such an Adam as he is in the\n motions\u201d (puppet shows). Robert Browning, Ring and the Book, 204\n (Pope, 1183)\u2014\u201cTemptation sharp? Thank God a second time! Why comes\n temptation but for man to meet And master and make crouch beneath\n his foot, And so be pedestaled in triumph? Pray \u2018Lead us into no\n such temptations. Lord\u2019? Yea, but, O thou whose servants are the\n bold, Lead such temptations by the head and hair, Reluctant\n dragons, up to who dares fight, That so he may do battle and have\n praise!\u201d\n\n\n3. How could a penalty so great be justly connected with disobedience to\nso slight a command?\n\n\nTo this question we may reply:\n\n(_a_) So slight a command presented the best test of the spirit of\nobedience.\n\n\n Cicero: \u201cParva res est, at magna culpa.\u201d The child\u2019s persistent\n disobedience in one single respect to the mother\u2019s command shows\n that in all his other acts of seeming obedience he does nothing\n for his mother\u2019s sake, but all for his own,\u2014shows, in other words,\n that he does not possess the spirit of obedience in a single act.\n S. S. Times: \u201cTrifles are trifles only to triflers. Awake to the\n significance of the insignificant! for you are in a world that\n belongs not alone to the God of the Infinite, but also to the God\n of the infinitesimal.\u201d\n\n\n(_b_) The external command was not arbitrary or insignificant in its\nsubstance. It was a concrete presentation to the human will of God\u2019s claim\nto eminent domain or absolute ownership.\n\n\n John Hall, Lectures on the Religious rise of Property, 10\u2014\u201cIt\n sometimes happens that owners of land, meaning to give the use of\n it to others, without alienating it, impose a nominal rent\u2014a\n quit-rent, the passing of which acknowledges the recipient as\n owner and the occupier as tenant. This is understood in all lands.\n In many an old English deed, \u2018three barley-corns,\u2019 \u2018a fat capon,\u2019\n or \u2018a shilling,\u2019 is the consideration which permanently recognizes\n the rights of lordship. God taught men by the forbidden tree that\n he was owner, that man was occupier. He selected the matter of\n property to be the test of man\u2019s obedience, the outward and\n sensible sign of a right state of heart toward God; and when man\n put forth his hand and did eat, he denied God\u2019s ownership and\n asserted his own. Nothing remained but to eject him.\u201d\n\n\n(_c_) The sanction attached to the command shows that man was not left\nignorant of its meaning or importance.\n\n\n _Gen. 2:17_\u2014\u201c_in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt\n surely die._\u201d _Cf._ _Gen. 3:3_\u2014\u201c_the tree which is in the midst of\n the garden_\u201d; and see Dodge, Christian Theology, 206, 207\u2014\u201cThe\n tree was central, as the commandment was central. The choice was\n between the tree of life and the tree of death,\u2014between self and\n God. Taking the one was rejecting the other.\u201d\n\n\n(_d_) The act of disobedience was therefore the revelation of a will\nthoroughly corrupted and alienated from God\u2014a will given over to\ningratitude, unbelief, ambition, and rebellion.\n\n\n The motive to disobedience was not appetite, but the ambition to\n be as God. The outward act of eating the forbidden fruit was only\n the thin edge of the wedge, behind which lay the whole mass\u2014the\n fundamental determination to isolate self and to seek personal\n pleasure regardless of God and his law. So the man under\n conviction for sin commonly clings to some single passion or plan,\n only half-conscious of the fact that opposition to God in one\n thing is opposition in all.\n\n\nIII. Consequences of the Fall, so far as respects Adam.\n\n\n1. Death.\n\n\nThis death was twofold. It was partly:\n\nA. Physical death, or the separation of the soul from the body.\u2014The seeds\nof death, naturally implanted in man\u2019s constitution, began to develop\nthemselves the moment that access to the tree of life was denied him. Man\nfrom that moment was a dying creature.\n\n\n In a true sense death began at once. To it belonged the pains\n which both man and woman should suffer in their appointed\n callings. The fact that man\u2019s earthly existence did not at once\n end, was due to God\u2019s counsel of redemption. \u201c_The law of the\n Spirit of life_\u201d (_Rom. 8:2_) began to work even then, and grace\n began to counteract the effects of the Fall. Christ has now\n \u201c_abolished death_\u201d (_2 Tim. 1:10_) by taking its terrors away,\n and by turning it into the portal of heaven. He will destroy it\n utterly (_1 Cor. 15:26_) when by resurrection from the dead, the\n bodies of the saints shall be made immortal. Dr. William A.\n Hammond, following a French scientist, declares that there is no\n reason in a normal physical system why man should not live\n forever.\n\n That death is not a physical necessity is evident if we once\n remember that life is, not fuel, but fire. Weismann, Heredity, 8,\n 24, 72, 159\u2014\u201cThe organism must not be looked upon as a heap of\n combustible material, which is completely reduced to ashes in a\n certain time, the length of which is determined by its size and by\n the rate at which it burns; but it should be compared to a fire,\n to which fresh fuel can be continually added, and which, whether\n it burns quickly or slowly, can be kept burning as long as\n necessity demands.... Death is not a primary necessity, but it has\n been acquired secondarily, as an adaptation.... Unicellular\n organisms, increasing by means of fission, in a certain sense\n possess immortality. No Am\u0153ba has ever lost an ancestor by\n death.... Each individual now living is far older than mankind,\n and is almost as old as life itself.... Death is not an essential\n attribute of living matter.\u201d\n\n If we regard man as primarily spirit, the possibility of life\n without death is plain. God lives on eternally, and the future\n physical organism of the righteous will have in it no seed of\n death. Man might have been created without being mortal. That he\n is mortal is due to anticipated sin. Regard body as simply the\n constant energizing of God, and we see that there is no inherent\n necessity of death. Denney, Studies in Theology, 98\u2014\u201cMan, it is\n said, must die because he is a natural being, and what belongs to\n nature belongs to him. But we assert, on the contrary, that he was\n created a supernatural being, with a primacy over nature, so\n related to God as to be immortal. Death is an intrusion, and it is\n finally to be abolished.\u201d Chandler, The Spirit of Man, 45-47\u2014\u201cThe\n first stage in the fall was the disintegration of spirit into body\n and mind; and the second was the enslavement of mind to body.\u201d\n\n Some recent writers, however, deny that death is a consequence of\n the Fall, except in the sense that man\u2019s fear of death results\n from his sin. Newman Smyth, Place of Death in Evolution, 19-22,\n indeed, asserts the value and propriety of death as an element of\n the normal universe. He would oppose to the doctrine of Weismann\n the conclusions of Maupas, the French biologist, who has followed\n infusoria through 600 generations. Fission, says Maupas,\n reproduces for many generations, but the unicellular germ\n ultimately weakens and dies out. The asexual reproduction must be\n supplemented by a higher conjugation, the meeting and partial\n blending of the contents of two cells. This is only occasional,\n but it is necessary to the permanence of the species. Isolation is\n ultimate death. Newman Smyth adds that death and sex appear\n together. When sex enters to enrich and diversify life, all that\n will not take advantage of it dies out. Survival of the fittest is\n accompanied by death of that which will not improve. Death is a\n secondary thing\u2014a consequence of life. A living form acquired the\n power of giving up its life for another. It died in order that its\n offspring might survive in a higher form. Death helps life on and\n up. It does not put a stop to life. It became an advantage to life\n as a whole that certain primitive forms should be left by the way\n to perish. We owe our human birth to death in nature. The earth\n before us has died that we might live. We are the living children\n of a world that has died for us. Death is a means of life, of\n increasing specialization of function. Some cells are born to give\n up their life sacrificially for the organism to which they belong.\n\n While we regard Newman Smyth\u2019s view as an ingenious and valuable\n explanation of the incidental results of death, we do not regard\n it as an explanation of death\u2019s origin. God has overruled death\n for good, and we can assent to much of Dr. Smyth\u2019s exposition. But\n that this good could be gained only by death seems to us wholly\n unproved and unprovable. Biology shows us that other methods of\n reproduction are possible, and that death is an incident and not a\n primary requisite to development. We regard Dr. Smyth\u2019s theory as\n incompatible with the Scripture representations of death as the\n consequence of sin, as the sign of God\u2019s displeasure, as a means\n of discipline for the fallen, as destined to complete abolition\n when sin itself has been done away. We reserve, however, the full\n proof that physical death is part of the penalty of sin until we\n discuss the Consequences of Sin to Adam\u2019s Posterity.\n\n\nBut this death was also, and chiefly,\n\nB. Spiritual death, or the separation of the soul from God.\u2014In this are\nincluded: (_a_) Negatively, the loss of man\u2019s moral likeness to God, or\nthat underlying tendency of his whole nature toward God which constituted\nhis original righteousness. (_b_) Positively, the depraving of all those\npowers which, in their united action with reference to moral and religious\ntruth, we call man\u2019s moral and religious nature; or, in other words, the\nblinding of his intellect, the corruption of his affections, and the\nenslavement of his will.\n\n\n Seeking to be a god, man became a slave; seeking independence, he\n ceased to be master of himself. Once his intellect was pure,\u2014he\n was supremely conscious of God, and saw all things also in God\u2019s\n light. Now he was supremely conscious of self, and saw all things\n as they affected self. This self-consciousness\u2014how unlike the\n objective life of the first apostles, of Christ and of every\n loving soul! Once man\u2019s affections were pure,\u2014he loved God\n supremely, and other things in subordination to God\u2019s will. Now he\n loved self supremely, and was ruled by inordinate affections\n toward the creatures which could minister to his selfish\n gratification. Now man could do nothing pleasing to God, because\n he lacked the love which is necessary to all true obedience.\n\n G. F. Wilkin, Control in Evolution, shows that the will may\n initiate a counter-evolution which shall reverse the normal course\n of man\u2019s development. First comes an act, then a habit, of\n surrender to animalism; then subversion of faith in the true and\n the good; then active championship of evil; then transmission of\n evil disposition and tendencies to posterity. This subversion of\n the rational will by an evil choice took place very early, indeed\n in the first man. All human history has been a conflict between\n these two antagonistic evolutions, the upward and the downward.\n Biological rather than moral phenomena predominate. No human being\n escapes transgressing the law of his evolutionary nature. There is\n a moral deadness and torpor resulting. The rational will must be\n restored before man can go right again. Man must commit himself to\n a true life; then to the restoration of other men to that same\n life; then there must be co\u00f6peration of society; this work must\n extend to the limits of the human species. But this will be\n practicable and rational only as it is shown that the unfolding\n plan of the universe has destined the righteous to a future\n incomparably more desirable than that of the wicked; in other\n words, immortality is necessary to evolution.\n\n \u201cIf immortality be necessary to evolution, then immortality\n becomes scientific. Jesus has the authority and omnipresence of\n the power behind evolution. He imposes upon his followers the same\n normal evolutionary mission that sent him into the world. He\n organizes them into churches. He teaches a moral evolution of\n society through the united voluntary efforts of his followers.\n They are \u2018_the good seed ... the sons of the kingdom_\u2019 (_Mat.\n 13:38_). Theism makes a definite attempt to counteract the evil of\n the counter-evolution, and the attempt justifies itself by its\n results. Christianity is scientific (1) in that it satisfies the\n conditions of _knowledge_: the persisting and comprehensive\n harmony of phenomena, and the interpretation of all the facts; (2)\n in its _aim_, the moral regeneration of the world; (3) in its\n _methods_, adapting itself to man as an ethical being, capable of\n endless progress; (4) in its conception of normal _society_, as of\n sinners uniting together to help one another to depend on God and\n conquer self, so recognizing the ethical bond as the most\n essential. This doctrine harmonizes science and religion,\n revealing the new species of control which marks the highest stage\n of evolution; shows that the religion of the N. T. is essentially\n scientific and its truths capable of practical verification; that\n Christianity is not any particular church, but the teachings of\n the Bible; that Christianity is the true system of ethics, and\n should be taught in public institutions; that cosmic evolution\n comes at last to depend on the wisdom and will of man, the\n immanent God working in finite and redeemed humanity.\u201d\n\n\nIn fine, man no longer made God the end of his life, but chose self\ninstead. While he retained the power of self-determination in subordinate\nthings, he lost that freedom which consisted in the power of choosing God\nas his ultimate aim, and became fettered by a fundamental inclination of\nhis will toward evil. The intuitions of the reason were abnormally\nobscured, since these intuitions, so far as they are concerned with moral\nand religious truth, are conditioned upon a right state of the affections;\nand\u2014as a necessary result of this obscuring of reason\u2014conscience, which,\nas the normal judiciary of the soul, decides upon the basis of the law\ngiven to it by reason, became perverse in its deliverances. Yet this\ninability to judge or act aright, since it was a moral inability springing\nultimately from will, was itself hateful and condemnable.\n\n\n See Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 3:61-73; Shedd, Sermons to the\n Natural Man, 202-230, esp. 205\u2014\u201cWhatsoever springs from will we\n are responsible for. Man\u2019s inability to love God supremely results\n from his intense self-will and self-love, and therefore his\n impotence is a part and element of his sin, and not an excuse for\n it.\u201d And yet the question \u201c_Adam, where art thou?_\u201d (_Gen. 3:9_),\n says C. J. Baldwin, \u201cwas, (1) a question, not as to Adam\u2019s\n physical locality, but as to his moral condition; (2) a question,\n not of justice threatening, but of love inviting to repentance and\n return; (3) a question, not to Adam as an individual only, but to\n the whole humanity of which he was the representative.\u201d\n\n Dale, Ephesians, 40\u2014\u201cChrist is the eternal Son of God; and it was\n the first, the primeval purpose of the divine grace that his life\n and sonship should be shared by all mankind; that through Christ\n all men should rise to a loftier rank than that which belonged to\n them by their creation; should be \u2018_partakers of the divine\n nature_\u2019 (_2 Pet. 1:4_), and share the divine righteousness and\n joy. Or rather, the race was actually created in Christ; and it\n was created that the whole race might in Christ inherit the life\n and glory of God. The divine purpose has been thwarted and\n obstructed and partially defeated by human sin. But it is being\n fulfilled in all who are \u2018_in Christ_\u2019 (_Eph. 1:3_).\u201d\n\n\n2. Positive and formal exclusion from God\u2019s presence.\n\n\nThis included:\n\n(_a_) The cessation of man\u2019s former familiar intercourse with God, and the\nsetting up of outward barriers between man and his Maker (cherubim and\nsacrifice).\n\n\n \u201cIn die Welt hinausgestossen, Steht der Mensch verlassen da.\u201d\n Though God punished Adam and Eve, he did not curse them as he did\n the serpent. Their exclusion from the tree of life was a matter of\n benevolence as well as of justice, for it prevented the\n immortality of sin.\n\n\n(_b_) Banishment from the garden, where God had specially manifested his\npresence.\u2014Eden was perhaps a spot reserved, as Adam\u2019s body had been, to\nshow what a _sinless_ world would be. This positive exclusion from God\u2019s\npresence, with the sorrow and pain which it involved, may have been\nintended to illustrate to man the nature of that eternal death from which\nhe now needed to seek deliverance.\n\n\n At the gates of Eden, there seems to have been a manifestation of\n God\u2019s presence, in the cherubim, which constituted the place a\n sanctuary. Both Cain and Abel brought offerings \u201c_unto the Lord_\u201d\n (_Gen. 4:3, 4_), and when Cain fled, he is said to have gone out\n \u201c_from the presence of the Lord_\u201d (_Gen. 4:16_). On the\n consequences of the Fall to Adam, see Edwards, Works, 2:390-405;\n Hopkins, Works, 1:206-246; Dwight, Theology, 1:393-434; Watson,\n Institutes, 2:19-42; Martensen, Dogmatics, 155-173; Van Oosterzee,\n Dogmatics, 402-412.\n\n\n\nSection V.\u2014Imputation Of Adam\u2019s Sin To His Posterity.\n\n\nWe have seen that all mankind are sinners; that all men are by nature\ndepraved, guilty, and condemnable; and that the transgression of our first\nparents, so far as respects the human race, was the first sin. We have\nstill to consider the connection between Adam\u2019s sin and the depravity,\nguilt, and condemnation of the race.\n\n(_a_) The Scriptures teach that the transgression of our first parents\nconstituted their posterity sinners (Rom. 5:19\u2014\u201cthrough the one man\u2019s\ndisobedience the many were made sinners\u201d), so that Adam\u2019s sin is imputed,\nreckoned, or charged to every member of the race of which he was the germ\nand head (Rom. 5:16\u2014\u201cthe judgment came of one [offence] unto\ncondemnation\u201d). It is because of Adam\u2019s sin that we are born depraved and\nsubject to God\u2019s penal inflictions (Rom. 5:12\u2014\u201cthrough one man sin entered\ninto the world, and death through sin\u201d; Eph. 2:3\u2014\u201cby nature children of\nwrath\u201d). Two questions demand answer,\u2014first, how we can be responsible for\na depraved nature which we did not personally and consciously originate;\nand, secondly, how God can justly charge to our account the sin of the\nfirst father of the race. These questions are substantially the same, and\nthe Scriptures intimate the true answer to the problem when they declare\nthat \u201cin Adam all die\u201d (1 Cor. 15:22) and \u201cthat death passed unto all men,\nfor that all sinned\u201d when \u201cthrough one man sin entered into the world\u201d\n(Rom. 5:12). In other words, Adam\u2019s sin is the cause and ground of the\ndepravity, guilt, and condemnation of all his posterity, simply because\nAdam and his posterity are one, and, by virtue of their organic unity, the\nsin of Adam is the sin of the race.\n\n\n Amiel says that \u201cthe best measure of the profundity of any\n religious doctrine is given by its conception of sin and of the\n cure of sin.\u201d We have seen that sin is a state; a state of the\n will; a selfish state of the will; a selfish state of the will\n inborn and universal; a selfish state of the will inborn and\n universal by reason of man\u2019s free act. Connecting the present\n discussion with the preceding doctrines of theology, the steps of\n our treatment thus far are as follows: 1. God\u2019s holiness is purity\n of nature. 2. God\u2019s law demands purity of nature. 3. Sin is impure\n nature. 4. All men have this impure nature. 5. Adam originated\n this impure nature. In the present section we expect to add: 6.\n Adam and we are one; and, in the succeeding section, to complete\n the doctrine with: 7. The guilt and penalty of Adam\u2019s sin are\n ours.\n\n\n(_b_) According as we regard this twofold problem from the point of view\nof the abnormal human condition, or of the divine treatment of it, we may\ncall it the problem of original sin, or the problem of imputation. Neither\nof these terms is objectionable when its meaning is defined. By imputation\nof sin we mean, not the arbitrary and mechanical charging to a man of that\nfor which he is not naturally responsible, but the reckoning to a man of a\nguilt which is properly his own, whether by virtue of his individual acts,\nor by virtue of his connection with the race. By original sin we mean that\nparticipation in the common sin of the race with which God charges us, in\nvirtue of our descent from Adam, its first father and head.\n\n\n We should not permit our use of the term \u201cimputation\u201d to be\n hindered or prejudiced by the fact that certain schools of\n theology, notably the Federal school, have attached to it an\n arbitrary, external, and mechanical meaning\u2014holding that God\n imputes sin to men, not because they are sinners, but upon the\n ground of a legal fiction whereby Adam, without their consent, was\n made their representative. We shall see, on the contrary, that (1)\n in the case of Adam\u2019s sin imputed to us, (2) in the case of our\n sins imputed to Christ, and (3) in the case of Christ\u2019s\n righteousness imputed to the believer, there is always a realistic\n basis for the imputation, namely, a real union, (1) between Adam\n and his descendants, (2) between Christ and the race, and (3)\n between believers and Christ, such as gives in each case community\n of life, and enables us to say that God imputes to no man what\n does not properly belong to him.\n\n Dr. E. G. Robinson used to say that \u201cimputed righteousness and\n imputed sin are as absurd as any notion that ever took possession\n of human nature.\u201d He had in mind, however, only that constructive\n guilt and merit which was advocated by Princeton theologians. He\n did not mean to deny the imputation to men of that which is their\n own. He recognized the fact that all men are sinners by\n inheritance as well as by voluntary act, and he found this taught\n in Scripture, both in the O. T. and in the N. T.; _e. g._, _Neh.\n 1:6_\u2014\u201c_I confess the sins of the children of Israel, which we have\n sinned against thee. Yea, I and my father\u2019s house have sinned_\u201d;\n _Jer. 3:25_\u2014\u201c_Let us lie down in our shame, and let our confusion\n cover us; for we have sinned against Jehovah our God, we and our\n fathers_\u201d; _14:20_\u2014\u201c_We acknowledge, O Jehovah, our wickedness,\n and the iniquity of our fathers; for we have sinned against\n thee._\u201d The word \u201c_imputed_\u201d is itself found in the N. T.; _e.\n g._, _2 Tim. 4:16_\u2014\u201c_At my first defence no one took my part: may\n it not be laid to their account,_\u201d or \u201c_imputed to them_\u201d\u2014\u03bc\u1f74\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b7. _Rom. 5:13_\u2014\u201c_sin is not imputed when there is\n no law_\u201d\u2014\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n Not only the saints of Scripture times, but modern saints also,\n have imputed to themselves the sins of others, of their people, of\n their times, of the whole world. Jonathan Edwards, Resolutions,\n quoted by Allen, 28\u2014\u201cI will take it for granted that no one is so\n evil as myself; I will identify myself with all men and act as if\n their evil were my own, as if I had committed the same sins and\n had the same infirmities, so that the knowledge of their failings\n will promote in me nothing but a sense of shame.\u201d Frederick\n Denison Maurice: \u201cI wish to confess the sins of the time as my\n own.\u201d Moberly, Atonement and Personality, 87\u2014\u201cThe phrase\n \u2018solidarity of humanity\u2019 is growing every day in depth and\n significance. Whatever we do, we do not for ourselves alone. It is\n not as an individual alone that I can be measured or judged.\u201d\n Royce, World and Individual, 2:404\u2014\u201cThe problem of evil indeed\n demands the presence of free will in the world; while, on the\n other hand, it is equally true that no moral world whatever can be\n made consistent with the realistic thesis according to which free\n will agents are, in fortune and in penalty, independent of the\n deeds of other moral agents. It follows that, in our moral world,\n the righteous can suffer without individually deserving their\n suffering, just because their lives have no independent being, but\n are linked with all life\u2014God himself also sharing in their\n suffering.\u201d\n\n The above quotations illustrate the belief in a human\n responsibility that goes beyond the bounds of personal sins. What\n this responsibility is, and what its limits are, we have yet to\n define. The problem is stated, but not solved, by A. H. Bradford,\n Heredity, 198, and The Age of Faith, 235\u2014\u201cStephen prays: \u2018_Lord,\n lay not this sin to their charge_\u2019 (_Acts 7:60_). To whose charge\n then? We all have a share in one another\u2019s sins. We too stood by\n and consented, as Paul did. \u2018My sins gave sharpness to the nails,\n And pointed every thorn\u2019 that pierced the brow of Jesus.... Yet in\n England and Wales the severer forms of this teaching [with regard\n to sin] have almost disappeared; not because of more thorough\n study of the Scripture, but because the awful congestion of\n population, with its attendant miseries, has convinced the\n majority of Christian thinkers that the old interpretations were\n too small for the near and terrible facts of human life, such as\n women with babies in their arms at the London gin-shops giving the\n infants sips of liquor out of their glasses, and a tavern keeper\n setting his four or five year old boy upon the counter to drink\n and swear and fight in imitation of his elders.\u201d\n\n\n(_c_) There are two fundamental principles which the Scriptures already\ncited seem clearly to substantiate, and which other Scriptures\ncorroborate. The first is that man\u2019s relations to moral law extend beyond\nthe sphere of conscious and actual transgression, and embrace those moral\ntendencies and qualities of his being which he has in common with every\nother member of the race. The second is, that God\u2019s moral government is a\ngovernment which not only takes account of persons and personal acts, but\nalso recognizes race responsibilities and inflicts race-penalties; or, in\nother words, judges mankind, not simply as a collection of separate\nindividuals, but also as an organic whole, which can collectively revolt\nfrom God and incur the curse of the violated law.\n\n\n On race-responsibility, see H. R. Smith, System of Theology,\n 288-302\u2014\u201cNo one can apprehend the doctrine of original sin, nor\n the doctrine of redemption, who insists that the whole moral\n government of God has respect only to individual desert, who does\n not allow that the moral government of God, _as_ moral, has a\n wider scope and larger relations, so that God may dispense\n suffering and happiness (in his all-wise and inscrutable\n providence) on other grounds than that of personal merit and\n demerit. The dilemma here is: the facts connected with native\n depravity and with the redemption through Christ either belong to\n the moral government of God, or not. If they do, then that\n government has to do with other considerations than those of\n personal merit and demerit (since our disabilities in consequence\n of sin and the grace offered in Christ are not in any sense the\n result of our personal choice, though we do choose in our\n relations to both). If they do not belong to the moral government\n of God, where shall we assign them? To the physical? That\n certainly can not be. To the divine sovereignty? But that does not\n relieve any difficulty; for the question still remains, Is that\n sovereignty, as thus exercised, just or unjust? We must take one\n or the other of these. The whole (of sin and grace) is either a\n mystery of sovereignty\u2014of mere omnipotence\u2014or a proceeding of\n moral government. The question will arise with respect to grace as\n well as to sin: How can the theory that all moral government has\n respect only to the merit or demerit of personal acts be applied\n to our justification? If all sin is in sinning, with a personal\n desert of everlasting death, by parity of reasoning all holiness\n must consist in a holy choice with personal merit of eternal life.\n We say then, generally, that all definitions of sin which mean _a_\n sin are irrelevant here.\u201d Dr. Smith quotes Edwards,\n 2:309\u2014\u201cOriginal sin, the innate sinful depravity of the heart,\n includes not only the depravity of nature but the imputation of\n Adam\u2019s first sin, or, in other words, the liableness or\n exposedness of Adam\u2019s posterity, in the divine judgment, to\n partake of the punishment of that sin.\u201d\n\n The watchword of a large class of theologians\u2014popularly called\n \u201cNew School\u201d\u2014is that \u201call sin consists in sinning,\u201d\u2014that is, all\n sin is sin of act. But we have seen that the dispositions and\n states in which a man is unlike God and his purity are also sin\n according to the meaning of the law. We have now to add that each\n man is responsible also for that sin of our first father in which\n the human race apostatized from God. In other words, we recognize\n the guilt of race-sin as well as of personal sin. We desire to say\n at the outset, however, that our view, and, as we believe, the\n Scriptural view, requires us also to hold to certain\n qualifications of the doctrine which to some extent alleviate its\n harshness and furnish its proper explanation. These qualifications\n we now proceed to mention.\n\n\n(_d_) In recognizing the guilt of race-sin, we are to bear in mind: (1)\nthat actual sin, in which the personal agent reaffirms the underlying\ndetermination of his will, is more guilty than original sin alone; (2)\nthat no human being is finally condemned solely on account of original\nsin; but that all who, like infants, do not commit personal\ntransgressions, are saved through the application of Christ\u2019s atonement;\n(3) that our responsibility for inborn evil dispositions, or for the\ndepravity common to the race, can be maintained only upon the ground that\nthis depravity was caused by an original and conscious act of free will,\nwhen the race revolted from God in Adam; (4) that the doctrine of original\nsin is only the ethical interpretation of biological facts\u2014the facts of\nheredity and of universal congenital ills, which demand an ethical ground\nand explanation; and (5) that the idea of original sin has for its\ncorrelate the idea of original grace, or the abiding presence and\noperation of Christ, the immanent God, in every member of the race, in\nspite of his sin, to counteract the evil and to prepare the way, so far as\nman will permit, for individual and collective salvation.\n\n\n Over against the maxim: \u201cAll sin consists in sinning,\u201d we put the\n more correct statement: Personal sin consists in sinning, but in\n Adam\u2019s first sinning the race also sinned, so that \u201c_in Adam all\n die_\u201d (_1 Cor. 15:22_). Denney, Studies in Theology, 86\u2014\u201cSin is\n not only personal but social; not only social but organic;\n character and all that is involved in character are capable of\n being attributed not only to individuals but to societies, and\n eventually to the human race itself; in short, there are not only\n isolated sins and individual sinners, but what has been called a\n kingdom of sin upon earth.\u201d Leslie Stephen: \u201cMan not dependent on\n a race is as meaningless a phrase as an apple that does not grow\n on a tree.\u201d \u201cYet Aaron Burr and Abraham Lincoln show how a man may\n throw away every advantage of the best heredity and environment,\n while another can triumph over the worst. Man does not take his\n character from external causes, but shapes it by his own willing\n submission to influences from beneath or from above.\u201d\n\n Wm. Adams Brown: \u201cThe idea of inherited guilt can be accepted only\n if paralleled by the idea of inherited good. The consequences of\n sin have often been regarded as social, while the consequences of\n good have been regarded as only individual. But heredity transmits\n both good and evil.\u201d Mrs. Lydia Avery Coonley Ward: \u201cWhy bowest\n thou, O soul of mine, Crushed by ancestral sin? Thou hast a noble\n heritage, That bids thee victory win. The tainted past may bring\n forth flowers, As blossomed Aaron\u2019s rod: No legacy of sin annuls\n Heredity from God.\u201d For further statements with regard to\n race-responsibility, see Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:29-39 (System\n Doctrine, 2:324-333). For the modern view of the Fall, and its\n reconciliation with the doctrine of evolution, see J. H. Bernard,\n art.: The Fall, in Hastings\u2019 Dict. of Bible; A. H. Strong, Christ\n in Creation, 163-180; Griffith-Jones, Ascent through Christ.\n\n\n(_e_) There is a race-sin, therefore, as well as a personal sin; and that\nrace-sin was committed by the first father of the race, when he comprised\nthe whole race in himself. All mankind since that time have been born in\nthe state into which he fell\u2014a state of depravity, guilt, and\ncondemnation. To vindicate God\u2019s justice in imputing to us the sin of our\nfirst father, many theories have been devised, a part of which must be\nregarded as only attempts to evade the problem by denying the facts set\nbefore us in the Scriptures. Among these attempted explanations of the\nScripture statements, we proceed to examine the six theories which seem\nmost worthy of attention.\n\n\n The first three of the theories which we discuss may be said to be\n evasions of the problem of original sin; all, in one form or\n another, deny that God imputes to all men Adam\u2019s sin, in such a\n sense that all are guilty for it. These theories are the Pelagian,\n the Arminian, and the New School. The last three of the theories\n which we are about to treat, namely, the Federal theory, the\n theory of Mediate Imputation, and the theory of Adam\u2019s Natural\n Headship, are all Old School theories, and have for their common\n characteristic that they assert the guilt of inborn depravity. All\n three, moreover, hold that we are in some way responsible for\n Adam\u2019s sin, though they differ as to the precise way in which we\n are related to Adam. We must grant that no one, even of these\n latter theories, is wholly satisfactory. We hope, however, to show\n that the last of them\u2014the Augustinian theory, the theory of Adam\u2019s\n natural headship, the theory that Adam and his descendants are\n naturally and organically one\u2014explains the largest number of\n facts, is least open to objection, and is most accordant with\n Scripture.\n\n\nI. Theories of Imputation.\n\n\n1. The Pelagian Theory, or Theory of Man\u2019s natural Innocence.\n\n\nPelagius, a British monk, propounded his doctrines at Rome, 409. They were\ncondemned by the Council of Carthage, 418. Pelagianism, however, as\nopposed to Augustinianism, designates a complete scheme of doctrine with\nregard to sin, of which Pelagius was the most thorough representative,\nalthough every feature of it cannot be ascribed to his authorship.\nSocinians and Unitarians are the more modern advocates of this general\nscheme.\n\nAccording to this theory, every human soul is immediately created by God,\nand created as innocent, as free from depraved tendencies, and as\nperfectly able to obey God, as Adam was at his creation. The only effect\nof Adam\u2019s sin upon his posterity is the effect of evil example; it has in\nno way corrupted human nature; the only corruption of human nature is that\nhabit of sinning which each individual contracts by persistent\ntransgression of known law.\n\nAdam\u2019s sin therefore injured only himself; the sin of Adam is imputed only\nto Adam,\u2014it is imputed in no sense to his descendants; God imputes to each\nof Adam\u2019s descendants only those acts of sin which he has personally and\nconsciously committed. Men can be saved by the law as well as by the\ngospel; and some have actually obeyed God perfectly, and have thus been\nsaved. Physical death is therefore not the penalty of sin, but an original\nlaw of nature; Adam would have died whether he had sinned or not; in Rom.\n5:12, \u201cdeath passed unto all men, for that all sinned,\u201d signifies: \u201call\nincurred eternal death by sinning after Adam\u2019s example.\u201d\n\n\n Wiggers, Augustinism and Pelagianism, 59, states the seven points\n of the Pelagian doctrine as follows: (1) Adam was created mortal,\n so that he would have died even if he had not sinned; (2) Adam\u2019s\n sin injured, not the human race, but only himself; (3) new-born\n infants are in the same condition as Adam before the Fall; (4) the\n whole human race neither dies on account of Adam\u2019s sin, nor rises\n on account of Christ\u2019s resurrection; (5) infants, even though not\n baptized, attain eternal life; (6) the law is as good a means of\n salvation as the gospel; (7) even before Christ some men lived who\n did not commit sin.\n\n In Pelagius\u2019 Com. on _Rom. 5:12_, published in Jerome\u2019s Works,\n vol. xi, we learn who these sinless men were, namely, Abel, Enoch,\n Joseph, Job, and, among the heathen, Socrates, Aristides, Numa.\n The virtues of the heathen entitle them to reward. Their worthies\n were not indeed without evil thoughts and inclinations; but, on\n the view of Pelagius that all sin consists in act, these evil\n thoughts and inclinations were not sin. \u201cNon pleni nascimur\u201d: we\n are born, not full, but vacant, of character. Holiness, Pelagius\n thought, could not be concreated. Adam\u2019s descendants are not\n weaker, but stronger, than he; since they have fulfilled many\n commands, while he did not fulfil so much as one. In every man\n there is a natural conscience; he has an ideal of life; he forms\n right resolves; he recognizes the claims of law; he accuses\n himself when he sins,\u2014all these things Pelagius regards as\n indications of a certain holiness in all men, and\n misinterpretation of these facts gives rise to his system; he\n ought to have seen in them evidences of a divine influence\n opposing man\u2019s bent to evil and leading him to repentance. Grace,\n on the Pelagian theory, is simply the grace of _creation_\u2014God\u2019s\n originally endowing man with his high powers of reason and will.\n While Augustinianism regards human nature as _dead_, and\n Semi-Pelagianism regards it as _sick_, Pelagianism proper declares\n it to be _well_.\n\n Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:43 (Syst. Doct., 2:338)\u2014\u201cNeither the\n body, man\u2019s surroundings, nor the inward operation of God, have\n any determining influence upon the will. God reaches man only\n through external means, such as Christ\u2019s doctrine, example, and\n promise. This clears God of the charge of evil, but also takes\n from him the authorship of good. It is Deism, applied to man\u2019s\n nature. God cannot enter man\u2019s being if he would, and he would not\n if he could. Free will is everything.\u201d _Ib._, 1:626 (Syst. Doct.,\n 2:188, 189)\u2014\u201cPelagianism at one time counts it too great an honor\n that man should be directly moved upon by God, and at another, too\n great a dishonor that man should not be able to do without God. In\n this inconsistent reasoning, it shows its desire to be rid of God\n as much as possible. The true conception of God requires a living\n relation to man, as well as to the external universe. The true\n conception of man requires satisfaction of his longings and powers\n by reception of impulses and strength from God. Pelagianism, in\n seeking for man a development only like that of nature, shows that\n its high estimate of man is only a delusive one; it really\n degrades him, by ignoring his true dignity and destiny.\u201d See\n _Ib._, 1:124, 125 (Syst. Doct., 1:136, 137); 2:43-45 (Syst. Doct.,\n 2:338, 339); 2:148 (Syst. Doct., 3:44). Also Schaff, Church\n History, 2:783-856; Doctrines of the Early Socinians, in Princeton\n Essays, 1:194-211; W\u00f6rter, Pelagianismus. For substantially\n Pelagian statements, see Sheldon, Sin and Redemption; Ellis, Half\n Century of Unitarian Controversy, 76.\n\n\nOf the Pelagian theory of sin, we may say:\n\nA. It has never been recognized as Scriptural, nor has it been formulated\nin confessions, by any branch of the Christian church. Held only\nsporadically and by individuals, it has ever been regarded by the church\nat large as heresy. This constitutes at least a presumption against its\ntruth.\n\n\n As slavery was \u201cthe sum of all villainy,\u201d so the Pelagian doctrine\n may be called the sum of all false doctrine. Pelagianism is a\n survival of paganism, in its majestic egoism and self-complacency.\n \u201cCicero, in his Natura Deorum, says that men thank the gods for\n external advantages, but no man ever thanks the gods for his\n virtues\u2014that he is honest or pure or merciful. Pelagius was first\n roused to opposition by hearing a bishop in the public services of\n the church quote Augustine\u2019s prayer: \u2018Da quod jubes, et jube quod\n vis\u2019\u2014\u2018Give what thou commandest, and command what thou wilt.\u2019 From\n this he was led to formulate the gospel according to St. Cicero,\n so perfectly does the Pelagian doctrine reproduce the Pagan\n teaching.\u201d The impulse of the Christian, on the other hand, is to\n refer all gifts and graces to a divine source in Christ and in the\n Holy Spirit. _Eph. 2:10_\u2014\u201c_For we are his workmanship, created in\n Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we\n should walk in them_\u201d; _John 15:16_\u2014\u201c_Ye did not choose me, but I\n chose you_\u201d; _1:13_\u2014\u201c_who were born, not of blood, nor of the will\n of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God._\u201d H. Auber: \u201cAnd\n every virtue we possess, And every victory won, And every thought\n of holiness, Are his alone.\u201d\n\n Augustine had said that \u201cMan is most free when controlled by God\n alone\u201d\u2014\u201c[Deo] solo dominante, liberrimus\u201d (De Mor. Eccl., xxi).\n Gore, in Lux Mundi, 320\u2014\u201cIn Christ humanity is perfect, because in\n him it retains no part of that false independence which, in all\n its manifold forms, is the secret of sin.\u201d Pelagianism, on the\n contrary, is man\u2019s declaration of independence. Harnack, Hist.\n Dogma, 5:200\u2014\u201cThe essence of Pelagianism, the key to its whole\n mode of thought, lies in this proposition of Julian: \u2018Homo libero\n arbitrio emancipatus a Deo\u2019\u2014man, created free, is in his whole\n being independent of God. He has no longer to do with God, but\n with himself alone. God re\u00ebnters man\u2019s life only at the end, at\n the judgment,\u2014a doctrine of the orphanage of humanity.\u201d\n\n\nB. It contradicts Scripture in denying: (_a_) that evil disposition and\nstate, as well as evil acts, are sin; (_b_) that such evil disposition and\nstate are inborn in all mankind; (_c_) that men universally are guilty of\novert transgression so soon as they come to moral consciousness; (_d_)\nthat no man is able without divine help to fulfil the law; (_e_) that all\nmen, without exception, are dependent for salvation upon God\u2019s atoning,\nregenerating, sanctifying grace; (_f_) that man\u2019s present state of\ncorruption, condemnation, and death, is the direct effect of Adam\u2019s\ntransgression.\n\n\n The Westminster Confession, ch. vi. \u00a7 4, declares that \u201cwe are\n utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and\n wholly inclined to all evil.\u201d To Pelagius, on the contrary, sin is\n a mere incident. He knows only of _sins_, not of _sin_. He holds\n the atomic, or atomistic, theory of sin, which regards it as\n consisting in isolated volitions. Pelegianism, holding, as it\n does, that virtue and vice consist only in single decisions, does\n not account for _character_ at all. There is no such thing as a\n state of sin, or a self-propagating power of sin. And yet upon\n these the Scriptures lay greater emphasis than upon mere acts of\n transgression. _John 3:6_\u2014\u201c_That which is born of the flesh is\n flesh_\u201d\u2014\u201cthat which comes of a sinful and guilty stock is itself,\n from the very beginning, sinful and guilty\u201d (Dorner). Witness the\n tendency to degradation in families and nations.\n\n Amiel says that the great defect of liberal Christianity is its\n superficial conception of sin. The tendency dates far back:\n Tertullian spoke of the soul as naturally Christian\u2014\u201canima\n naturaliter Christiana.\u201d The tendency has come down to modern\n times: Crane, The Religion of To-morrow, 246\u2014\u201cIt is only when\n children grow up, and begin to absorb their environment, that they\n lose their artless loveliness.\u201d A Rochester Unitarian preacher\n publicly declared it to be as much a duty to believe in the\n natural purity of man, as to believe in the natural purity of God.\n Dr. Lyman Abbott speaks of \u201cthe shadow which the Manich\u00e6an\n theology of Augustine, borrowed by Calvin, cast upon all children,\n in declaring them born to an inheritance of wrath as a viper\u2019s\n brood.\u201d Dr. Abbott forgets that Augustine was the greatest\n opponent of Manich\u00e6anism, and that his doctrine of inherited guilt\n may be supplemented by a doctrine of inherited divine influences\n tending to salvation.\n\n Prof. G. A. Coe tells us that \u201call children are within the\n household of God\u201d; that \u201cthey are already members of his kingdom\u201d;\n that \u201cthe adolescent change\u201d is \u201ca step not _into_ the Christian\n life, but _within_ the Christian life.\u201d We are taught that\n salvation is by education. But education is only a way of\n presenting truth. It still remains needful that the soul should\n accept the truth. Pelagianism ignores or denies the presence in\n every child of a congenital selfishness which hinders acceptance\n of the truth, and which, without the working of the divine Spirit,\n will absolutely counteract the influence of the truth. Augustine\n was taught his guilt and helplessness by transgression, while\n Pelagius remained ignorant of the evil of his own heart. Pelagius\n might have said with Wordsworth, Prelude, 534\u2014\u201cI had approached,\n like other youths, the shield Of human nature from the golden\n side; And would have fought, even unto the death, to attest The\n quality of the metal which I saw.\u201d\n\n Schaff, on the Pelagian controversy, in Bib. Sac., 5:205-243\u2014The\n controversy \u201cresolves itself into the question whether redemption\n and sanctification are the work of man or of God. Pelagianism in\n its whole mode of thinking starts from man and seeks to work\n itself upward gradually, by means of an imaginary good-will, to\n holiness and communion with God. Augustinianism pursues the\n opposite way, deriving from God\u2019s unconditioned and all-working\n grace a new life and all power of working good. The first is led\n from freedom into a legal, self-righteous piety; the other rises\n from the slavery of sin to the glorious liberty of the children of\n God. For the first, revelation is of force only as an outward\n help, or the power of a high example; for the last, it is the\n inmost life, the very marrow and blood of the new man. The first\n involves an Ebionitic view of Christ, as noble man, not\n high-priest or king; the second finds in him one in whom dwells\n all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. The first makes conversion\n a process of gradual moral purification on the ground of original\n nature; with the last, it is a total change, in which the old\n passes away and all becomes new.... Rationalism is simply the form\n in which Pelagianism becomes theoretically complete. The high\n opinion which the Pelagian holds of the natural will is\n transferred with equal right by the Rationalist to the natural\n reason. The one does without grace, as the other does without\n revelation. Pelagian divinity is rationalistic. Rationalistic\n morality is Pelagian.\u201d See this Compendium, page 89.\n\n Allen, Religious Progress, 98-100\u2014\u201cMost of the mischief of\n religious controversy springs from the desire and determination to\n impute to one\u2019s opponent positions which he does not hold, or to\n draw inferences from his principles, insisting that he shall be\n held responsible for them, even though he declares that he does\n not teach them. We say that he ought to accept them; that he is\n bound logically to do so; that they are necessary deductions from\n his system; that the tendency of his teaching is in these\n directions; and then we denounce and condemn him for what he\n disowns. It was in this way that Augustine filled out for Pelagius\n the gaps in his scheme, which he thought it necessary to do, in\n order to make Pelagius\u2019s teaching consistent and complete; and\n Pelagius, in his turn, drew inferences from the Augustinian\n theology, about which Augustine would have preferred to maintain a\n discreet silence. Neither Augustine nor Calvin was anxious to make\n prominent the doctrine of the reprobation of the wicked to\n damnation, but preferred to dwell on the more attractive, more\n rational tenet of the elect to salvation, as subjects of the\n divine choice and approbation; substituting for the obnoxious word\n reprobation the milder, euphemistic word preterition. It was their\n opponents who were bent on forcing them out of their reserve,\n pushing them into what seemed the consistent sequence of their\n attitude, and then holding it up before the world for execration.\n And the same remark would apply to almost every theological\n contention that has embittered the church\u2019s experience.\u201d\n\n\nC. It rests upon false philosophical principles; as, for example: (_a_)\nthat the human will is simply the faculty of volitions; whereas it is\nalso, and chiefly, the faculty of self-determination to an ultimate end;\n(_b_) that the power of a contrary choice is essential to the existence of\nwill; whereas the will fundamentally determined to self-gratification has\nthis power only with respect to subordinate choices, and cannot by a\nsingle volition reverse its moral state; (_c_) that ability is the measure\nof obligation,\u2014a principle which would diminish the sinner\u2019s\nresponsibility, just in proportion to his progress in sin; (_d_) that law\nconsists only in positive enactment; whereas it is the demand of perfect\nharmony with God, inwrought into man\u2019s moral nature; (_e_) that each human\nsoul is immediately created by God, and holds no other relations to moral\nlaw than those which are individual; whereas all human souls are\norganically connected with each other, and together have a corporate\nrelation to God\u2019s law, by virtue of their derivation from one common\nstock.\n\n(_a_) Neander, Church History, 2:564-625, holds one of the fundamental\nprinciples of Pelagianism to be \u201cthe ability to choose, equally and at any\nmoment, between good and evil.\u201d There is no recognition of the law by\nwhich acts produce states; the power which repeated acts of evil possess\nto give a definite character and tendency to the will itself.\u2014\u201cVolition is\nan everlasting \u2018tick,\u2019 \u2018tick,\u2019 and swinging of the pendulum, but no moving\nforward of the hands of the clock follows.\u201d \u201cThere is no continuity of\nmoral life\u2014no _character_, in man, angel, devil, or God.\u201d\u2014(_b_) See art.\non Power of Contrary Choice, in Princeton Essays, 1:212-233; Pelagianism\nholds that no confirmation in holiness is possible. Thornwell, Theology:\n\u201cThe sinner is as free as the saint; the devil as the angel.\u201d Harris,\nPhilos. Basis of Theism, 399\u2014\u201cThe theory that indifference is essential to\nfreedom implies that will never acquires character; that voluntary action\nis atomistic, every act disintegrated from every other; that character, if\nacquired, would be incompatible with freedom.\u201d \u201cBy mere volition the soul\nnow a _plenum_ can become a _vacuum_, or now a _vacuum_ can become a\n_plenum_.\u201d On the Pelagian view of freedom, see Julius M\u00fcller, Doctrine of\nSin, 37-44.\n\n\n (_c_) _Ps. 79:8_\u2014\u201c_Remember not against us the iniquities of our\n forefathers_\u201d; _106:6_\u2014\u201c_We have sinned with our fathers._\u201d Notice\n the analogy of individuals who suffer from the effects of parental\n mistakes or of national transgression. Julius M\u00fcller, Doct. Sin,\n 2:316, 317\u2014\u201cNeither the _atomistic_ nor the _organic_ view of\n human nature is the complete truth.\u201d Each must be complemented by\n the other. For statement of race-responsibility, see Dorner,\n Glaubenslehre, 2:30-39, 51-64, 161, 162 (System of Doctrine,\n 2:324-334, 345-359; 3:50-54)\u2014\u201cAmong the Scripture proofs of the\n moral connection of the individual with the race are the visiting\n of the sins of the fathers upon the children; the obligation of\n the people to punish the sin of the individual, that the whole\n land may not incur guilt; the offering of sacrifice for a murder,\n the perpetrator of which is unknown. Achan\u2019s crime is charged to\n the whole people. The Jewish race is the better for its parentage,\n and other nations are the worse for theirs. The Hebrew people\n become a legal personality.\n\n \u201cIs it said that none are punished for the sins of their fathers\n unless they are like their fathers? But to be unlike their fathers\n requires a new heart. They who are not held accountable for the\n sins of their fathers are those who have recognized their\n responsibility for them, and have repented for their likeness to\n their ancestors. Only the self-isolating spirit says: \u2018_Am I my\n brother\u2019s keeper?_\u2019 (_Gen. 4:9_), and thinks to construct a\n constant equation between individual misfortune and _individual_\n sin. The calamities of the righteous led to an ethical conception\n of the relation of the individual to the community. Such\n sufferings show that men can love God disinterestedly, that the\n good has unselfish friends. These sufferings are substitutionary,\n when borne as belonging to the sufferer, not foreign to him, the\n guilt of others attaching to him by virtue of his national or\n race-relation to them. So Moses in Ex. 34:9, David in Ps. 51:6,\n Isaiah in Is. 59:9-16, recognize the connection between personal\n sin and race-sin.\n\n \u201cChrist restores the bond between man and his fellows, turns the\n hearts of the fathers to the children. He is the creator of a new\n race-consciousness. In him as the head we see ourselves bound to,\n and responsible for others. Love finds it morally impossible to\n isolate itself. It restores the consciousness of unity and the\n recognition of common guilt. Does every man stand for himself in\n the N. T.? This would be so, only if each man became a sinner\n solely by free and conscious personal decision, either in the\n present, or in a past state of existence. But this is not\n Scriptural. Something comes before personal transgression: \u2018_That\n which is born of the flesh is flesh_\u2019 (_John 3:6_). Personality is\n the stronger for recognizing the race-sin. We have common joy in\n the victories of the good; so in shameful lapses we have sorrow.\n These are not our worst moments, but our best,\u2014there is something\n great in them. Original sin must be displeasing to God; for it\n perverts the reason, destroys likeness to God, excludes from\n communion with God, makes redemption necessary, leads to actual\n sin, influences future generations. But to complain of God for\n permitting its propagation is to complain of his not destroying\n the race,\u2014that is, to complain of one\u2019s own existence.\u201d See Shedd,\n Hist. Doctrine, 2:93-110; Hagenbach, Hist. Doctrine, 1:287,\n 296-310; Martensen, Dogmatics, 354-362; Princeton Essays, 1:74-97;\n Dabney, Theology, 296-302, 314, 315.\n\n\n2. The Arminian Theory, or Theory of voluntarily appropriated Depravity.\n\n\nArminius (1560-1609), professor in the University of Leyden, in South\nHolland, while formally accepting the doctrine of the Adamic unity of the\nrace propounded both by Luther and Calvin, gave a very different\ninterpretation to it\u2014an interpretation which verged toward\nSemi-Pelagianism and the anthropology of the Greek Church. The Methodist\nbody is the modern representative of this view.\n\nAccording to this theory, all men, as a divinely appointed sequence of\nAdam\u2019s transgression, are naturally destitute of original righteousness,\nand are exposed to misery and death. By virtue of the infirmity propagated\nfrom Adam to all his descendants, mankind are wholly unable without divine\nhelp perfectly to obey God or to attain eternal life. This inability,\nhowever, is physical and intellectual, but not voluntary. As matter of\njustice, therefore, God bestows upon each individual from the first dawn\nof consciousness a special influence of the Holy Spirit, which is\nsufficient to counteract the effect of the inherited depravity and to make\nobedience possible, provided the human will co\u00f6perates, which it still has\npower to do.\n\nThe evil tendency and state may be called sin; but they do not in\nthemselves involve guilt or punishment; still less are mankind accounted\nguilty of Adam\u2019s sin. God imputes to each man his inborn tendencies to\nevil, only when he consciously and voluntarily appropriates and ratifies\nthese in spite of the power to the contrary, which, in justice to man, God\nhas specially communicated. In Rom. 5:12, \u201cdeath passed unto all men, for\nthat all sinned,\u201d signifies that physical and spiritual death is inflicted\nupon all men, not as the penalty of a common sin in Adam, but because, by\ndivine decree, all suffer the consequences of that sin, and because all\npersonally consent to their inborn sinfulness by acts of transgression.\n\n\n See Arminius, Works, 1:252-254, 317-324, 325-327, 523-531,\n 575-583. The description given above is a description of\n Arminianism proper. The expressions of Arminius himself are so\n guarded that Moses Stuart (Bib. Repos., 1831) found it possible to\n construct an argument to prove that Arminius was not an Arminian.\n But it is plain that by inherited sin Arminius meant only\n inherited evil, and that it was not of a sort to justify God\u2019s\n condemnation. He denied any inbeing in Adam, such as made us\n justly chargeable with Adam\u2019s sin, except in the sense that we are\n obliged to endure certain consequences of it. This Shedd has shown\n in his History of Doctrine, 2:178-196. The system of Arminius was\n more fully expounded by Limborch and Episcopius. See Limborch,\n Theol. Christ., 3:4:6 (p. 189). The sin with which we are born\n \u201cdoes not inhere in the soul, for this [soul] is immediately\n created by God, and therefore, if it were infected with sin, that\n sin would be from God.\u201d Many so-called Arminians, such as Whitby\n and John Taylor, were rather Pelagians.\n\n John Wesley, however, greatly modified and improved the Arminian\n doctrine. Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:329, 330\u2014\u201cWesleyanism (1) admits\n entire moral depravity; (2) denies that men in this state have any\n power to co\u00f6perate with the grace of God; (3) asserts that the\n guilt of all through Adam was removed by the justification of all\n through Christ; (4) ability to co\u00f6perate is of the Holy Spirit,\n through the universal influence of the redemption of Christ. The\n order of the decrees is (1) to permit the fall of man; (2) to send\n the Son to be a full satisfaction for the sins of the whole world;\n (3) on that ground to remit all original sin, and to give such\n grace as would enable all to attain eternal life; (4) those who\n improve that grace and persevere to the end are ordained to be\n saved.\u201d We may add that Wesley made the bestowal upon our depraved\n nature of ability to co\u00f6perate with God to be a matter of grace,\n while Arminius regarded it as a matter of justice, man without it\n not being accountable.\n\n Wesleyanism was systematized by Watson, who, in his Institutes,\n 2:53-55, 59, 77, although denying the imputation of Adam\u2019s sin in\n any proper sense, yet declares that \u201cLimborch and others\n materially departed from the tenets of Arminius in denying inward\n lusts and tendencies to be sinful till complied with and augmented\n by the will. But men universally choose to ratify these\n tendencies; therefore they are corrupt in heart. If there be a\n universal depravity of will previous to the actual choice, then it\n inevitably follows that though infants do not commit actual sin,\n yet that theirs is a sinful nature....As to infants, they are not\n indeed born justified and regenerate; so that to say original sin\n is taken away, as to infants, by Christ, is not the correct view\n of the case, for the reasons before given; but they are all born\n under \u2018the free gift,\u2019 the effects of the \u2018righteousness\u2019 of one,\n which is extended to all men; and this free gift is bestowed on\n them in order to justification of life, the adjudging of the\n condemned to live....Justification in adults is connected with\n repentance and faith; in infants, we do not know how. The Holy\n Spirit may be given to children. Divine and effectual influence\n may be exerted on them, to cure the spiritual death and corrupt\n tendency of their nature.\u201d\n\n It will be observed that Watson\u2019s Wesleyanism is much more near to\n Scripture than what we have described, and properly described, as\n Arminianism proper. Pope, in his Theology, follows Wesley and\n Watson, and (2:70-86) gives a valuable synopsis of the differences\n between Arminius and Wesley. Whedon and Raymond, in America,\n better represent original Arminianism. They hold that God was\n under _obligation_ to restore man\u2019s ability, and yet they\n inconsistently speak of this ability as a _gracious_ ability. Two\n passages from Raymond\u2019s Theology show the inconsistency of calling\n that \u201cgrace,\u201d which God is bound in justice to bestow, in order to\n make man responsible: 2:84-86\u2014\u201cThe race came into existence under\n grace. Existence and justification are secured for it only through\n Christ; for, apart from Christ, punishment and destruction would\n have followed the first sin. So all gifts of the Spirit necessary\n to qualify him for the putting forth of free moral choices are\n secured for him through Christ. The Spirit of God is not a\n bystander, but a quickening power. So man is by grace, not by his\n fallen nature, a moral being capable of knowing, loving, obeying,\n and enjoying God. Such he ever will be, if he does not frustrate\n the grace of God. Not till the Spirit takes his final flight is he\n in a condition of total depravity.\u201d\n\n Compare with this the following passage of the same work in which\n this \u201cgrace\u201d is called a debt: 2:317\u2014\u201cThe relations of the\n posterity of Adam to God are substantially those of newly created\n beings. Each individual person is obligated to God, and God to\n him, precisely the same as if God had created him such as he is.\n Ability must equal obligation. God was not obligated to provide a\n Redeemer for the first transgressors, but having provided\n Redemption for them, and through it having permitted them to\n propagate a degenerate race, an adequate compensation is due. The\n gracious influences of the Spirit are then a debt due to man\u2014a\n compensation for the disabilities of inherited depravity.\u201d\n McClintock and Strong (Cyclop\u00e6dia, art.: Arminius) endorse\n Whedon\u2019s art. in the Bib. Sac., 19:241, as an exhibition of\n Arminianism, and Whedon himself claims it to be such. See\n Hagenbach, Hist. Doct., 2:214-216.\n\n\nWith regard to the Arminian theory we remark:\n\nA. We grant that there is a universal gift of the Holy Spirit, if by the\nHoly Spirit is meant the natural light of reason and conscience, and the\nmanifold impulses to good which struggle against the evil of man\u2019s nature.\nBut we regard as wholly unscriptural the assumptions: (_a_) that this gift\nof the Holy Spirit of itself removes the depravity or condemnation derived\nfrom Adam\u2019s fall; (_b_) that without this gift man would not be\nresponsible for being morally imperfect; and (_c_) that at the beginning\nof moral life men consciously appropriate their inborn tendencies to evil.\n\n\n John Wesley adduced in proof of universal grace the text: _John\n 1:9_\u2014\u201c_the light which lighteth every man_\u201d\u2014which refers to the\n natural light of reason and conscience which the preincarnate\n Logos bestowed on all men, though in different degrees, before his\n coming in the flesh. This light can be called the Holy Spirit,\n because it was \u201c_the Spirit of Christ_\u201d (_1 Pet. 1:11_). The\n Arminian view has a large element of truth in its recognition of\n an influence of Christ, the immanent God, which mitigates the\n effects of the Fall and strives to prepare men for salvation. But\n Arminianism does not fully recognize the evil to be removed, and\n it therefore exaggerates the effect of this divine working.\n Universal grace does not remove man\u2019s depravity or man\u2019s\n condemnation; as is evident from a proper interpretation of _Rom.\n 5:12-19_ and of _Eph. 2:3_; it only puts side by side with that\n depravity and condemnation influences and impulses which\n counteract the evil and urge the sinner to repentance: _John\n 1:5_\u2014\u201c_the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness\n apprehended it not._\u201d John Wesley also referred to _Rom.\n 5:18_\u2014\u201c_through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto\n all men to justification of life_\u201d\u2014but here the \u201call men\u201d is\n conterminous with \u201cthe many\u201d who are \u201c_made righteous_\u201d in _verse\n 19_, and with the \u201c_all_\u201d who are \u201c_made alive_\u201d in _1 Cor.\n 15:22_; in other words, the \u201c_all_\u201d in this case is \u201call\n believers\u201d: else the passage teaches, not universal gift of the\n Spirit, but universal salvation.\n\n Arminianism holds to inherited sin, in the sense of infirmity and\n evil tendency, but not to inherited guilt. John Wesley, however,\n by holding also that the giving of ability is a matter of grace\n and not of justice, seems to imply that there is a common guilt as\n well as a common sin, before consciousness. American Arminians are\n more logical, but less Scriptural. Sheldon, Syst. Christian\n Doctrine, 321, tells us that \u201cguilt cannot possibly be a matter of\n inheritance, and consequently original sin can be affirmed of the\n posterity of Adam only in the sense of hereditary corruption,\n which first becomes an occasion of guilt when it is embraced by\n the will of the individual.\u201d How little the Arminian means by\n \u201csin,\u201d can be inferred from the saying of Bishop Simpson that\n \u201cChrist inherited sin.\u201d He meant of course only physical and\n intellectual infirmity, without a tinge of guilt. \u201cA child\n inherits its parent\u2019s nature,\u201d it is said, \u201cnot as a punishment,\n but by natural law.\u201d But we reply that this natural law is itself\n an expression of God\u2019s moral nature, and the inheritance of evil\n can be justified only upon the ground of a common non-conformity\n to God in both the parent and the child, or a participation of\n each member in the common guilt of the race.\n\n In the light of our preceding treatment, we can estimate the\n element of good and the element of evil in Pfleiderer, Philos.\n Religion, 1:232\u2014\u201cIt is an exaggeration when original sin is\n considered as personally imputable guilt; and it is going too far\n when it is held to be the whole state of the natural man, and yet\n the actually present good, the \u2018original grace,\u2019 is\n overlooked....We may say, with Schleiermacher, that original sin\n is the common deed and common guilt of the human race. But the\n individual always participates in this collective guilt in the\n measure in which he takes part with his personal doing in the\n collective act that is directed to the furtherance of the bad.\u201d\n Dabney, Theology, 315, 316\u2014\u201cArminianism is orthodox as to the\n legal consequences of Adam\u2019s sin to his posterity; but what it\n gives with one hand, it takes back with the other, attributing to\n grace the restoration of this natural ability lost by the Fall. If\n the effects of Adam\u2019s Fall on his posterity are such that they\n would have been unjust if not repaired by a redeeming plan that\n was to follow it, then God\u2019s act in providing a Redeemer was not\n an act of pure grace. He was under obligation to do some such\n thing,\u2014salvation is not grace, but debt.\u201d A. J. Gordon, Ministry\n of the Spirit, 187 _sq._, denies the universal gift of the Spirit,\n quoting _John 14:17_\u2014\u201c_whom the world cannot receive; for it\n beholdeth him not, neither knoweth him_\u201d; _16:7_\u2014\u201c_if I go, I will\n send him unto you_\u201d; _i. e._, Christ\u2019s disciples were to be the\n recipients and distributers of the Holy Spirit, and his church the\n mediator between the Spirit and the world. Therefore _Mark\n 16:15_\u2014\u201c_Go ye into all the world, and preach,_\u201d implies that the\n Spirit shall go only with them. Conviction of the Spirit does not\n go beyond the church\u2019s evangelizing. But we reply that _Gen. 6:3_\n implies a wider striving of the Holy Spirit.\n\n\nB. It contradicts Scripture in maintaining: (_a_) that inherited moral\nevil does not involve guilt; (_b_) that the gift of the Spirit, and the\nregeneration of infants, are matters of justice; (_c_) that the effect of\ngrace is simply to restore man\u2019s natural ability, instead of disposing him\nto use that ability aright; (_d_) that election is God\u2019s choice of certain\nmen to be saved upon the ground of their foreseen faith, instead of being\nGod\u2019s choice to make certain men believers; (_e_) that physical death is\nnot the just penalty of sin, but is a matter of arbitrary decree.\n\n\n (_a_) See Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:58 (System of Doctrine,\n 2:352-359)\u2014\u201cWith Arminius, original sin is original _evil_ only,\n not _guilt_. He explained the problem of original sin by denying\n the fact, and turning the native sinfulness into a morally\n indifferent thing. No sin without consent; no consent at the\n beginning of human development; therefore, no guilt in evil\n desire. This is the same as the Romanist doctrine of\n concupiscence, and like that leads to blaming God for an\n originally bad constitution of our nature....Original sin is\n merely an enticement to evil addressed to the free will. All\n internal disorder and vitiosity is morally indifferent, and\n becomes sin only through appropriation by free will. But\n involuntary, loveless, proud thoughts are recognized in Scripture\n as sin; yet they spring from the heart without our conscious\n consent. Undeliberate and deliberate sins run into each other, so\n that it is impossible to draw a line between them. The doctrine\n that there is no sin without consent implies power to withhold\n consent. But this contradicts the universal need of redemption and\n our observation that none have ever thus entirely withheld consent\n from sin.\u201d\n\n (_b_) H. B. Smith\u2019s Review of Whedon on the Will, in Faith and\n Philosophy, 359-399\u2014\u201cA child, upon the old view, needs only growth\n to make him guilty of actual sin; whereas, upon this view, he\n needs growth and grace too.\u201d See Bib. Sac., 20:327, 328. According\n to Whedon, Com. on _Rom. 5:12_, \u201cthe condition of an infant apart\n from Christ is that of a sinner, _as one sure to sin_, yet never\n actually condemned before personal apostasy. This _would_ be its\n condition, rather, for in Christ the infant is regenerate and\n justified and endowed with the Holy Spirit. Hence all actual\n sinners are apostates from a state of grace.\u201d But we ask: 1. Why\n then do infants die before they have committed actual sin? Surely\n not on account of Adam\u2019s sin, for they are delivered from all the\n evils of that, through Christ. It must be because they are still\n somehow sinners. 2. How can we account for all infants sinning so\n soon as they begin morally to act, if, before they sin, they are\n in a state of grace and sanctification? It must be because they\n were still somehow sinners. In other words, the universal\n regeneration and justification of infants contradict Scripture and\n observation.\n\n (_c_) Notice that this \u201cgracious\u201d ability does not involve saving\n grace to the recipient, because it is given equally to all men.\n Nor is it more than a restoring to man of his natural ability lost\n by Adam\u2019s sin. It is not sufficient to explain why one man who has\n the gracious ability chooses God, while another who has the same\n gracious ability chooses self. _1 Cor. 4:7_\u2014\u201c_who maketh thee to\n differ?_\u201d Not God, but thyself. Over against this doctrine of\n Arminians, who hold to universal, resistible grace, restoring\n natural ability, Calvinists and Augustinians hold to particular,\n irresistible grace, giving moral ability, or, in other words,\n bestowing the disposition to use natural ability aright. \u201cGrace\u201d\n is a word much used by Arminians. Methodist Doctrine and\n Discipline, Articles of Religion, viii\u2014\u201cThe condition of man after\n the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself,\n by his own natural strength and works, to faith, and calling upon\n God; wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and\n acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing\n us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we\n have that good will.\u201d It is important to understand that, in\n Arminian usage, grace is simply the restoration of man\u2019s natural\n ability to act for himself; it never actually saves him, but only\n enables him to save himself\u2014if he will. Arminian grace is evenly\n bestowed grace of spiritual endowment, as Pelagian grace is evenly\n bestowed grace of creation. It regards redemption as a\n compensation for innate and consequently irresponsible depravity.\n\n (_d_) In the Arminian system, the order of salvation is, (1)\n faith\u2014by an unrenewed but convicted man; (2) justification; (3)\n regeneration, or a holy heart. God decrees not to _originate_\n faith, but to _reward_ it. Hence Wesleyans make faith a work, and\n regard election as God\u2019s ordaining those who, he foresees, will of\n their own accord believe. The Augustinian order, on the contrary,\n is (1) regeneration; (2) faith; (3) justification. Memoir of\n Adolph Saphir, 255\u2014\u201cMy objection to the Arminian or semi-Arminian\n is not that they make the entrance very wide; but that they do not\n give you anything definite, safe and real, when you have\n entered.... Do not believe the devil\u2019s gospel, which is a _chance_\n of salvation: chance of salvation is chance of damnation.\u201d Grace\n is not a _reward_ for good deeds done, but a _power_ enabling us\n to do them. Francis Rous of Truro, in the Parliament of 1629,\n spoke as a man nearly frantic with horror at the increase of that\n \u201cerror of Arminianism which makes the grace of God lackey it after\n the will of man\u201d; see Masson, Life of Milton, 1:277. Arminian\n converts say: \u201cI gave my heart to the Lord\u201d; Augustinian converts\n say: \u201cThe Holy Spirit convicted me of sin and renewed my heart.\u201d\n Arminianism tends to self-sufficiency; Augustinianism promotes\n dependence upon God.\n\n\nC. It rests upon false philosophical principles, as for example: (_a_)\nThat the will is simply the faculty of volitions. (_b_) That the power of\ncontrary choice, in the sense of power by a single act to reverse one\u2019s\nmoral state, is essential to will. (_c_) That previous certainty of any\ngiven moral act is incompatible with its freedom. (_d_) That ability is\nthe measure of obligation. (_e_) That law condemns only volitional\ntransgression. (_f_) That man has no organic moral connection with the\nrace.\n\n\n (_b_) Raymond says: \u201cMan is responsible for character, but only so\n far as that character is self-imposed. We are not responsible for\n character irrespective of its origin. Freedom _from_ an act is as\n essential to responsibility as freedom _to_ it. If power to the\n contrary is impossible, then freedom does not exist in God or man.\n Sin was a necessity, and God was the author of it.\u201d But this is a\n denial that there is any such thing as character; that the will\n can give itself a bent which no single volition can change; that\n the wicked man can become the slave of sin; that Satan, though\n without power now in himself to turn to God, is yet responsible\n for his sin. The power of contrary choice which Adam had exists no\n longer in its entirety; it is narrowed down to a power to the\n contrary in temporary and subordinate choices; it no longer is\n equal to the work of changing the fundamental determination of the\n being to selfishness as an ultimate end. Yet for this very\n inability, because originated by will, man is responsible.\n\n Julius M\u00fcller, Doctrine of Sin, 2:28\u2014\u201cFormal freedom leads the way\n to real freedom. The starting-point is a freedom which does not\n yet involve an inner necessity, but the possibility of something\n else; the goal is the freedom which is identical with necessity.\n The first is a means to the last. When the will has fully and\n truly chosen, the power of acting otherwise may still be said to\n exist in a metaphysical sense; but morally, _i. e._, with\n reference to the contrast of good and evil, it is entirely done\n away. Formal freedom is freedom of choice, in the sense of\n volition with the express consciousness of other possibilities.\u201d\n Real freedom is freedom to choose the good only, with no remaining\n possibility that evil will exert a counter attraction. But as the\n will can reach a \u201cmoral necessity\u201d of good, so it can through sin\n reach a \u201cmoral necessity\u201d of evil.\n\n (_c_) Park: \u201cThe great philosophical objection to Arminianism is\n its denial of the _certainty_ of human action\u2014the idea that a man\n may act either way without certainty how he will act\u2014power of a\n contrary choice in the sense of a moral indifference which can\n choose without motive, or contrary to the strongest motive. The\n New School view is better than this, for that holds to the\n certainty of wrong choice, while yet the soul has power to make a\n right one.... The Arminians believe that it is objectively\n uncertain whether a man shall act in this way or in that, right or\n wrong. There is nothing, antecedently to choice, to decide the\n choice. It was the whole aim of Edwards to refute the idea that\n man would not _certainly_ sin. The old Calvinists believe that\n antecedently to the Fall Adam was in this state of objective\n uncertainty, but that after the Fall it was certain he would sin,\n and his probation therefore was closed. Edwards affirms that no\n such objective uncertainty or power to the contrary ever existed,\n and that man now has all the liberty he ever had or could have.\n The truth in \u2018power to the contrary\u2019 is simply the power of the\n will to act contrary to the way it does act. President Edwards\n believed in this, though he is commonly understood as reasoning to\n the contrary. The false \u2018power to the contrary\u2019 is _uncertainty_\n how one will act, or a willingness to act otherwise than one does\n act. This is the Arminian power to the contrary, and it is this\n that Edwards opposes.\u201d\n\n (_e_) Whedon, On the Will, 338-360, 388-395\u2014\u201cPrior to free\n volition, man may be unconformed to law, yet not a subject of\n retribution. The law has two offices, one judicatory and critical,\n the other retributive and penal. Hereditary evil may not be\n visited with retribution, as Adam\u2019s concreated purity was not\n meritorious. Passive, prevolitional holiness is moral rectitude,\n but not moral desert. Passive, prevolitional impurity needs\n concurrence of active will to make it condemnable.\u201d\n\n\nD. It renders uncertain either the universality of sin or man\u2019s\nresponsibility for it. If man has full power to refuse consent to inborn\ndepravity, then the universality of sin and the universal need of a Savior\nare merely hypothetical. If sin, however, be universal, there must have\nbeen an absence of free consent; and the objective certainty of man\u2019s\nsinning, according to the theory, destroys his responsibility.\n\n\n Raymond, Syst. Theol., 2:86-89, holds it \u201ctheoretically possible\n that a child may be so trained and educated in the nurture and\n admonition of the Lord, as that he will never knowingly and\n willingly transgress the law of God; in which case he will\n certainly grow up into regeneration and final salvation. But it is\n grace that preserves him from sin\u2014[common grace?]. We do not know,\n either from experience or Scripture, that none have been free from\n known and wilful transgressions.\u201d J. J. Murphy, Nat. Selection and\n Spir. Freedom, 26-33\u2014\u201cIt is possible to walk from the cradle to\n the grave, not indeed altogether without sin, but without any\n period of alienation from God, and with the heavenly life\n developing along with the earthly, as it did in Christ, from the\n first.\u201d But, since grace merely restores ability without giving\n the disposition to use that ability aright, Arminianism does not\n logically provide for the certain salvation of any infant.\n Calvinism can provide for the salvation of all dying in infancy,\n for it knows of a divine power to renew the will, but Arminianism\n knows of no such power, and so is furthest from a solution of the\n problem of infant salvation. See Julius M\u00fcller, Doct. Sin,\n 2:320-326; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 479-494; Bib. Sac. 23:206;\n 28:279; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 3:56 _sq._\n\n\n3. The New School Theory, or Theory of uncondemnable Vitiosity.\n\n\nThis theory is called New School, because of its recession from the old\nPuritan anthropology of which Edwards and Bellamy in the last century were\nthe expounders. The New School theory is a general scheme built up by the\nsuccessive labors of Hopkins, Emmons, Dwight, Taylor, and Finney. It is\nheld at present by New School Presbyterians, and by the larger part of the\nCongregational body.\n\nAccording to this theory, all men are born with a physical and moral\nconstitution which predisposes them to sin, and all men do actually sin so\nsoon as they come to moral consciousness. This vitiosity of nature may be\ncalled sinful, because it uniformly leads to sin; but it is not itself\nsin, since nothing is to be properly denominated sin but the voluntary act\nof transgressing known law.\n\nGod imputes to men only their own acts of personal transgression; he does\nnot impute to them Adam\u2019s sin; neither original vitiosity nor physical\ndeath are penal inflictions; they are simply consequences which God has in\nhis sovereignty ordained to mark his displeasure at Adam\u2019s transgression,\nand subject to which evils God immediately creates each human soul. In\nRom. 5:12, \u201cdeath passed unto all men, for that all sinned,\u201d signifies:\n\u201cspiritual death passed on all men, because all men have actually and\npersonally sinned.\u201d\n\n\n Edwards held that God imputes Adam\u2019s sin to his posterity by\n arbitrarily identifying them with him,\u2014identity, on the theory of\n continuous creation (see pages 415-418), being only what God\n appoints. Since this did not furnish sufficient ground for\n imputation, Edwards joined the Placean doctrine to the other, and\n showed the justice of the condemnation by the fact that man is\n depraved. He adds, moreover, the consideration that man ratifies\n this depravity by his own act. So Edwards tried to combine three\n views. But all were vitiated by his doctrine of continuous\n creation, which logically made God the only cause in the universe,\n and left no freedom, guilt, or responsibility to man. He held that\n preservation is a continuous series of new divine volitions,\n personal identity consisting in consciousness or rather memory,\n with no necessity for identity of substance. He maintained that\n God could give to an absolutely new creation the consciousness of\n one just annihilated, and thereby the two would be identical. He\n maintained this not only as a possibility, but as the actual fact.\n See Lutheran Quarterly, April, 1901:149-169; and H. N. Gardiner,\n in Philos. Rev., Nov. 1900:573-596.\n\n The idealistic philosophy of Edwards enables us to understand his\n conception of the relation of the race to Adam. He believed in \u201ca\n real union between the root and the branches of the world of\n mankind, established by the author of the whole system of the\n universe ... the full consent of the hearts of Adam\u2019s posterity to\n the first apostasy ... and therefore the sin of the apostasy is\n not theirs merely because God imputes it to them, but it is truly\n and properly theirs, and _on that ground_ God imputes it to them.\u201d\n Hagenbach, Hist. Doct., 2:435-448, esp. 436, quotes from Edwards:\n \u201cThe guilt a man has upon his soul at his first existence is one\n and simple, _viz._: the guilt of the original apostasy, the guilt\n of the sin by which the species first rebelled against God.\u201d\n Interpret this by other words of Edwards: \u201cThe child and the\n acorn, which come into existence in the course of nature, are\n truly immediately created by God\u201d\u2014_i. e._, continuously created\n (quoted by Dodge, Christian Theology, 188). Allen, Jonathan\n Edwards, 310\u2014\u201cIt required but a step from the principle that each\n individual has an identity of consciousness with Adam, to reach\n the conclusion that each individual is Adam and repeats his\n experience. Of every man it might be said that like Adam he comes\n into the world attended by the divine nature, and like him sins\n and falls. In this sense the sin of every man becomes original\n sin.\u201d Adam becomes not the head of humanity but its generic type.\n Hence arises the New School doctrine of exclusively individual sin\n and guilt.\n\n Shedd, Hist. Doctrine, 2:25, claims Edwards as a Traducianist. But\n Fisher, Discussions, 240, shows that he was not. As we have seen\n (Prolegomena, pages 48, 49), Edwards thought too little of\n _nature_. He tended to Berkeleyanism as applied to mind. Hence the\n chief good was in happiness\u2014a form of _sensibility_. Virtue is\n voluntary _choice_ of this good. Hence union of _acts_ and\n _exercises_ with Adam was sufficient. This God\u2019s will might make\n identity of _being_ with him. Baird, Elohim Revealed, 250 _sq._,\n says well, that \u201cEdwards\u2019s idea that the character of an act was\n to be sought somewhere else than in its cause involves the\n fallacious assumption that acts have a subsistence and moral\n agency of their own apart from that of the actor.\u201d This divergence\n from the truth led to the Exercise-system of Hopkins and Emmons,\n who not only denied moral character prior to individual choices\n (_i. e._, denied sin of nature), but attributed all human acts and\n exercises to the direct efficiency of God. Hopkins declared that\n Adam\u2019s act, in eating the forbidden fruit, was not the act of his\n posterity; therefore they did not sin at the same time that he\n did. The sinfulness of that act could not be transferred to them\n afterwards; because the sinfulness of an act can no more be\n transferred from one person to another than an act itself.\n Therefore, though men became sinners by Adam, according to divine\n constitution, yet they have, and are accountable for, no sins but\n personal. See Woods, History of Andover Theological Seminary, 33.\n So the doctrine of continuous creation led to the Exercise-system,\n and the Exercise-system led to the theology of acts. On Emmons,\n see Works, 4:502-507, and Bib. Sac., 7:479; 20:317; also H. B.\n Smith, in Faith and Philosophy, 215-263.\n\n N. W. Taylor, of New Haven, agreed with Hopkins and Emmons that\n there is no imputation of Adam\u2019s sin or of inborn depravity. He\n called that depravity physical, not moral. But he repudiated the\n doctrine of divine efficiency in the production of man\u2019s acts and\n exercises, and made all sin to be personal. He held to the power\n of contrary choice. Adam had it, and contrary to the belief of\n Augustinians, he never lost it. Man \u201cnot only can if he will, but\n he can if he won\u2019t.\u201d He can, but, without the Spirit, will not. He\n said: \u201cMan can, whatever the Holy Spirit does or does not do\u201d; but\n also: \u201cMan will not, unless the Holy Spirit helps\u201d; \u201cIf I were as\n eloquent as the Holy Ghost, I could convert sinners as fast as\n he.\u201d Yet he did not hold to the Arminian liberty of indifference\n or contingence. He believed in the certainty of wrong action, yet\n in power to the contrary. See Moral Government, 2:132\u2014\u201cThe error\n of Pelagius was not in asserting that man _can_ obey God without\n grace, but in saying that man does _actually_ obey God without\n grace.\u201d There is a part of the sinner\u2019s nature to which the\n motives of the gospel may appeal\u2014a part of his nature which is\n neither holy nor unholy, _viz._, self-love, or innocent desire for\n happiness. Greatest happiness is the ground of obligation. Under\n the influence of motives appealing to happiness, the sinner can\n suspend his choice of the world as his chief good, and can give\n his heart to God. He can do this, whatever the Holy Spirit does,\n or does not do; but the _moral_ inability can be overcome only by\n the Holy Spirit, who moves the soul, without coercing, by means of\n the truth. On Dr. Taylor\u2019s system, and its connection with prior\n New England theology, see Fisher, Discussions, 285-354.\n\n This form of New School doctrine suggests the following questions:\n 1. Can the sinner suspend his selfishness before he is subdued by\n divine grace? 2. Can his choice of God from mere self-love be a\n holy choice? 3. Since God demands love in every choice, must it\n not be a positively unholy choice? 4. If it is not itself a holy\n choice, how can it be a beginning of holiness? 5. If the sinner\n can become regenerate by preferring God on the ground of\n self-interest, where is the necessity of the Holy Spirit to renew\n the heart? 6. Does not this asserted ability of the sinner to turn\n to God contradict consciousness and Scripture? For Taylor\u2019s Views,\n see his Revealed Theology, 134-309. For criticism of them, see\n Hodge, in Princeton Rev., Jan. 1868:63 sq., and 368-398; also,\n Tyler, Letters on the New Haven Theology. Neither Hopkins and\n Emmons on the one hand, nor Taylor on the other, represent most\n fully the general course of New England theology. Smalley, Dwight,\n Woods, all held to more conservative views than Taylor, or than\n Finney, whose system had much resemblance to Taylor\u2019s. All three\n of these denied the power of contrary choice which Dr. Taylor so\n strenuously maintained, although all agreed with him in denying\n the imputation of Adam\u2019s sin or of our hereditary depravity. These\n are not sinful, except in the sense of being occasions of actual\n sin.\n\n Dr. Park, of Andover, was understood to teach that the disordered\n state of the sensibilities and faculties with which we are born is\n the _immediate_ occasion of sin, while Adam\u2019s transgression is the\n _remote_ occasion of sin. The will, though influenced by an evil\n tendency, is still free; the evil tendency itself is not free, and\n therefore is not sin. The Statement of New School doctrine given\n in the text is intended to represent the common New England\n doctrine, as taught by Smalley, Dwight, Woods and Park; although\n the historical tendency, even among these theologians, has been to\n emphasize less and less the depraved tendencies prior to actual\n sin, and to maintain that moral character begins only with\n individual choice, most of them, however, holding that this\n individual choice begins at birth. See Bib. Sac., 7:552, 567;\n 8:607-647; 20:462-471, 576-593; Van Oosterzee, Christian\n Dogmatics, 407-412; Foster, Hist. N. E. Theology.\n\n Both Ritschl and Pfleiderer lean toward the New School\n interpretation of sin. Ritschl, Unterricht, 25\u2014\u201cUniversal death\n was the consequence of the sin of the first man, and the death of\n his posterity proved that they too had sinned.\u201d Thus death is\n universal, not because of natural generation from Adam, but\n because of the individual sins of Adam\u2019s posterity. Pfleiderer,\n Grundriss, 122\u2014\u201cSin is a direction of the will which contradicts\n the moral Idea. As preceding personal acts of the will, it is not\n personal guilt but imperfection or evil. When it persists in spite\n of awaking moral consciousness, and by indulgence become habit, it\n is guilty abnormity.\u201d\n\n\nTo the New School theory we object as follows:\n\nA. It contradicts Scripture in maintaining or implying: (_a_) That sin\nconsists solely in acts, and in the dispositions caused in each case by\nman\u2019s individual acts, and that the state which predisposes to acts of sin\nis not itself sin. (_b_) That the vitiosity which predisposes to sin is a\npart of each man\u2019s nature as it proceeds from the creative hand of God.\n(_c_) That physical death in the human race is not a penal consequence of\nAdam\u2019s transgression. (_d_) That infants, before moral consciousness, do\nnot need Christ\u2019s sacrifice to save them. Since they are innocent, no\npenalty rests upon them, and none needs to be removed. (_e_) That we are\nneither condemned upon the ground of actual inbeing in Adam, nor justified\nupon the ground of actual inbeing in Christ.\n\n\n If a child may not be unholy before he voluntarily transgresses,\n then, by parity of reasoning, Adam could not have been holy before\n he obeyed the law, nor can a change of heart precede Christian\n action. New School principles would compel us to assert that right\n action precedes change of heart, and that obedience in Adam must\n have preceded his holiness. Emmons held that, if children die\n before they become moral agents, it is most rational to conclude\n that they are annihilated. They are mere animals. The common New\n School doctrine would regard them as saved either on account of\n their innocence, or because the atonement of Christ avails to\n remove the _consequences_ as well as the _penalty_ of sin.\n\n But to say that infants are pure contradicts _Rom. 5:12_\u2014\u201c_all\n sinned_\u201d; _1 Cor. 7:14_\u2014\u201c_else were your children unclean_\u201d; _Eph.\n 2:3_\u2014\u201c_by nature children of wrath._\u201d That Christ\u2019s atonement\n removes natural consequences of sin is nowhere asserted or implied\n in Scripture. See, _per contra_, H. B. Smith, System, 271, where,\n however, it is only maintained that Christ saves from all the\n _just_ consequences of sin. But all _just_ consequences are\n penalty, and should be so called. The exigencies of New School\n doctrine compel it to put the beginning of sin in the infant at\n the very first moment of its separate existence,\u2014in order not to\n contradict those Scriptures which speak of sin as being universal,\n and of the atonement as being needed by all. Dr. Park held that\n infants sin so soon as they are born. He was obliged to hold this,\n or else to say that some members of the human race exist who are\n not sinners. But by putting sin thus early in human experience,\n all meaning is taken out of the New School definition of sin as\n the \u201cvoluntary transgression of known law.\u201d It is difficult to\n say, upon this theory, what sort of a _choice_ the infant makes of\n sin, or what sort of a _known law_ it violates.\n\n The first need in a theory of sin is that of satisfying the\n statements of Scripture. The second need is that it should point\n out an act of man which will justify the infliction of pain,\n suffering, and death upon the whole human race. Our moral sense\n refuses to accept the conclusion that all this is a matter of\n arbitrary sovereignty. We cannot find the act in each man\u2019s\n conscious transgression, nor in sin committed at birth. We do find\n such a voluntary transgression of known law in Adam; and we claim\n that the New School definition of sin is much more consistent with\n this last explanation of sin\u2019s origin than is the theory of a\n multitude of individual transgressions.\n\n The final test of every theory, however, is its conformity to\n Scripture. We claim that a false philosophy prevents the advocates\n of New School doctrine from understanding the utterances of Paul.\n Their philosophy is a modified survival of atomistic Pelagianism.\n They ignore nature in both God and man, and resolve character into\n transient acts. The unconscious or subconscious state of the will\n they take little or no account of, and the possibility of another\n and higher life interpenetrating and transforming our own life is\n seldom present to their minds. They have no proper idea of the\n union of the believer with Christ, and so they have no proper idea\n of the union of the race with Adam. They need to learn that, as\n all the spiritual life of the race was in Christ, the second Adam,\n so all the natural life of the race was in the first Adam; as we\n derive righteousness from the former, so we derive corruption from\n the latter. Because Christ\u2019s life is in them, Paul can say that\n all believers rose in Christ\u2019s resurrection; because Adam\u2019s life\n is in them, he can say that in Adam all die. We should prefer to\n say with Pfleiderer that Paul teaches this doctrine but that Paul\n is no authority for us, rather than to profess acceptance of\n Paul\u2019s teaching while we ingeniously evade the force of his\n argument. We agree with Stevens, Pauline Theology, 135, 136, that\n all men \u201csinned in the same sense in which believers were\n crucified to the world and died unto sin when Christ died upon the\n cross.\u201d But we protest that to make Christ\u2019s death the mere\n _occasion_ of the death of the believer, and Adam\u2019s sin the mere\n _occasion_ of the sins of men, is to ignore the central truths of\n Paul\u2019s teaching\u2014the _vital union_ of the believer with Christ, and\n the _vital union_ of the race with Adam.\n\n\nB. It rests upon false philosophical principles, as for example: (_a_)\nThat the soul is immediately created by God. (_b_) That the law of God\nconsists wholly in outward command. (_c_) That present natural ability to\nobey the law is the measure of obligation. (_d_) That man\u2019s relations to\nmoral law are exclusively individual. (_e_) That the will is merely the\nfaculty of individual and personal choices. (_f_) That the will, at man\u2019s\nbirth, has no moral state or character.\n\n\n See Baird, Elohim Revealed, 250 _sq._\u2014\u201cPersonality is inseparable\n from nature. The one duty is love. Unless any given duty is\n performed through the activity of a principle of love springing up\n in the nature, it is not performed at all. _The law addresses the\n nature._ The efficient cause of moral action is the proper subject\n of moral law. It is only in the perversity of unscriptural\n theology that we find the absurdity of separating the moral\n character from the substance of the soul, and tying it to the\n vanishing deeds of life. The idea that responsibility and sin are\n predicable of actions merely is only consistent with an utter\n denial that man\u2019s nature as such owes anything to God, or has an\n office to perform in showing forth his glory. It ignores the fact\n that actions are empty phenomena, which in themselves have no\n possible value. It is the heart, soul, might, mind, strength, with\n which we are to love. Christ conformed to the law, by being \u2018_that\n holy thing_\u2019 (_Luke 1:35_, marg.).\u201d\n\n Erroneous philosophical principles lie at the basis of New School\n interpretations of Scripture. The solidarity of the race is\n ignored, and all moral action is held to be individual. In our\n discussion of the Augustinian theory of sin, we shall hope to show\n that underlying Paul\u2019s doctrine there is quite another philosophy.\n Such a philosophy together with a deeper Christian experience\n would have corrected the following statement of Paul\u2019s view of\n sin, by Orello Cone, in Am. Jour. Theology, April, 1898:241-267.\n On the phrase _Rom. 5:12_\u2014\u201c_for that all sinned,_\u201d he remarks: \u201cIf\n under the new order men do not become righteous simply because of\n the righteousness of Christ and without their choice, neither\n under the old order did Paul think them to be subject to death\n without their own acts of sin. Each representative head is\n conceived only as the occasion of the results of his work, on the\n one hand in the tragic order of death, and on the other hand in\n the blessed order of life\u2014the occasion indispensable to all that\n follows in either order.... It may be questioned whether\n Pfleiderer does not state the case too strongly when he says that\n the sin of Adam\u2019s posterity is regarded as \u2018the necessary\n consequence\u2019 of the sin of Adam. It does not follow from the\n employment of the aorist \u1f25\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd that the sinning of all is\n contained in that of Adam, although this sense must be considered\n as grammatically possible. It is not however the only\n grammatically defensible sense. In _Rom. 3:23_, \u1f25\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd certainly\n does not denote such a definite past act filling only one point of\n time.\u201d But we reply that the context determines that in _Rom.\n 5:12_, \u1f25\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd does denote such a definite past act; see our\n interpretation of the whole passage, under the Augustinian Theory,\n pages 625-627.\n\n\nC. It impugns the justice of God:\n\n(_a_) By regarding him as the direct creator of a vicious nature which\ninfallibly leads every human being into actual transgression. To maintain\nthat, in consequence of Adam\u2019s act, God brings it about that all men\nbecome sinners, and this, not by virtue of inherent laws of propagation,\nbut by the direct creation in each case of a vicious nature, is to make\nGod indirectly the author of sin.\n\n(_b_) By representing him as the inflicter of suffering and death upon\nmillions of human beings who in the present life do not come to moral\nconsciousness, and who are therefore, according to the theory, perfectly\ninnocent. This is to make him visit Adam\u2019s sin on his posterity, while at\nthe same time it denies that moral connection between Adam and his\nposterity which alone could make such visitation just.\n\n(_c_) By holding that the probation which God appoints to men is a\nseparate probation of each soul, when it first comes to moral\nconsciousness and is least qualified to decide aright. It is much more\nconsonant with our ideas of the divine justice that the decision should\nhave been made by the whole race, in one whose nature was pure and who\nperfectly understood God\u2019s law, than that heaven and hell should have been\ndetermined for each of us by a decision made in our own inexperienced\nchildhood, under the influence of a vitiated nature.\n\n\n On this theory, God determines, in his mere sovereignty, that\n because one man sinned, all men should be called into existence\n depraved, under a constitution which secures the certainty of\n their sinning. But we claim that it is unjust that any should\n suffer without ill-desert. To say that God thus marks his sense of\n the guilt of Adam\u2019s sin is to contradict the main principle of the\n theory, namely, that men are held responsible only for their own\n sins. We prefer to justify God by holding that there is a reason\n for this infliction, and that this reason is the connection of the\n infant with Adam. If mere tendency to sin is innocent, then Christ\n might have taken it, when he took our nature. But if he had taken\n it, it would not explain the fact of the atonement, for upon this\n theory it would not need to be atoned for. To say that the child\n inherits a sinful nature, not as penalty, but by natural law, is\n to ignore the fact that this natural law is simply the regular\n action of God, the expression of his moral nature, and so is\n itself penalty.\n\n \u201cMan kills a snake,\u201d says Raymond, \u201cbecause it is a snake, and not\n because it is to blame for being a snake,\u201d\u2014which seems to us a new\n proof that the advocates of innocent depravity regard infants, not\n as moral beings, but as mere animals. \u201cWe must distinguish\n automatic excellence or badness,\u201d says Raymond again, \u201cfrom moral\n desert, whether good or ill.\u201d This seems to us a doctrine of\n punishment without guilt. Princeton Essays, 1:138, quote\n Coleridge: \u201cIt is an outrage on common sense to affirm that it is\n no evil for men to be placed on their probation under such\n circumstances that not one of ten thousand millions ever escapes\n sin and condemnation to eternal death. There is evil inflicted on\n us, as a consequence of Adam\u2019s sin, antecedent to our personal\n transgressions. It matters not what this evil is, whether temporal\n death, corruption of nature, certainty of sin, or death in its\n more extended sense; if the ground of the evil\u2019s coming on us is\n Adam\u2019s sin, the principle is the same.\u201d Baird, Elohim Revealed,\n 488\u2014So, it seems, \u201cif a creature is punished, it implies that some\n one has sinned, but does not necessarily intimate the sufferer to\n be the sinner! But this is wholly contrary to the argument of the\n apostle in _Rom. 5:12-19_, which is based upon the opposite\n doctrine, and it is also contrary to the justice of God, who\n punishes only those who deserve it.\u201d See Julius M\u00fcller, Doct. Sin.\n 2:67-74.\n\n\nD. Its limitation of responsibility to the evil choices of the individual\nand the dispositions caused thereby is inconsistent with the following\nfacts:\n\n(_a_) The first moral choice of each individual is so undeliberate as not\nto be remembered. Put forth at birth, as the chief advocates of the New\nSchool theory maintain, it does not answer to their definition of sin as a\nvoluntary transgression of known law. Responsibility for such choice does\nnot differ from responsibility for the inborn evil state of the will which\nmanifests itself in that choice.\n\n(_b_) The uniformity of sinful action among men cannot be explained by the\nexistence of a mere faculty of choices. That men should uniformly choose\nmay be thus explained; but that men should uniformly choose evil requires\nus to postulate an evil tendency or state of the will itself, prior to\nthese separate acts of choice. This evil tendency or inborn determination\nto evil, since it is the real cause of actual sins, must itself be sin,\nand as such must be guilty and condemnable.\n\n(_c_) Power in the will to prevent the inborn vitiosity from developing\nitself is upon this theory a necessary condition of responsibility for\nactual sins. But the absolute uniformity of actual transgression is\nevidence that the will is practically impotent. If responsibility\ndiminishes as the difficulties in the way of free decision increase, the\nfact that these difficulties are insuperable shows that there can be no\nresponsibility at all. To deny the guilt of inborn sin is therefore\nvirtually to deny the guilt of the actual sin which springs therefrom.\n\n\n The aim of all the theories is to find a decision of the will\n which will justify God in condemning men. Where shall we find such\n a decision? At the age of fifteen, ten, five? Then all who die\n before this age are not sinners, cannot justly be punished with\n death, do not need a Savior. Is it at birth? But decision at such\n a time is not such a conscious decision against God as, according\n to this theory, would make it the proper determiner of our future\n destiny. We claim that the theory of Augustine\u2014that of a sin of\n the race in Adam\u2014is the only one that shows a conscious\n transgression fit to be the cause and ground of man\u2019s guilt and\n condemnation.\n\n Wm. Adams Brown: \u201cWho can tell how far his own acts are caused by\n his own will, and how far by the nature he has inherited? Men do\n feel guilty for acts which are largely due to their inherited\n natures, which inherited corruption is guilt, deserving of\n punishment and certain to receive it.\u201d H. B. Smith, System, 350,\n note\u2014\u201cIt has been said, in the way of a taunt against the older\n theology, that men are very willing to speculate about sinning in\n Adam, so as to have their attention diverted from the sense of\n personal guilt. But the whole history of theology bears witness\n that those who have believed most fully in our native and strictly\n moral corruption\u2014as Augustine, Calvin, and Edwards\u2014have ever had\n the deepest sense of their personal demerit. We know the full evil\n of sin only when we know its roots as well as its fruits.\u201d\n\n \u201cCausa caus\u00e6 est causa causati.\u201d Inborn depravity is the cause of\n the first actual sin. The cause of inborn depravity is the sin of\n Adam. If there be no guilt in original sin, then the actual sin\n that springs therefrom cannot be guilty. There are subsequent\n presumptuous sins in which the personal element overbears the\n element of race and heredity. But this cannot be said of the first\n acts which make man a sinner. These are so naturally and uniformly\n the result of the inborn determination of the will, that they\n cannot be guilty, unless that inborn determination is also guilty.\n In short, not all sin is personal. There must be a sin of nature\u2014a\n race-sin\u2014or the beginnings of actual sin cannot be accounted for\n or regarded as objects of God\u2019s condemnation. Julius M\u00fcller,\n Doctrine of Sin, 2:320-328, 341\u2014\u201cIf the deep-rooted depravity\n which we bring with us into the world be not our sin, it at once\n becomes an excuse for our actual sins.\u201d Princeton Essays, 1:138,\n 139\u2014Alternative: 1. May a man by his own power prevent the\n development of this hereditary depravity? Then we do not know that\n all men are sinners, or that Christ\u2019s salvation is needed by all.\n 2. Is actual sin a necessary consequence of hereditary depravity?\n Then it is, on this theory, a free act no longer, and is not\n guilty, since guilt is predicable only of voluntary transgression\n of known law. See Baird, Elohim Revealed, 256 sq.; Hodge, Essays,\n 571-638; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 2:61-73; Edwards on the Will,\n part iii, sec. 4; Bib. Sac., 20:317-320.\n\n\n4. The Federal Theory, or Theory of Condemnation by Covenant.\n\n\nThe Federal theory, or theory of the Covenants, had its origin with\nCocceius (1608-1669), professor at Leyden, but was more fully elaborated\nby Turretin (1623-1687). It has become a tenet of the Reformed as\ndistinguished from the Lutheran church, and in this country it has its\nmain advocates in the Princeton school of theologians, of whom Dr. Charles\nHodge was the representative.\n\nAccording to this view, Adam was constituted by God\u2019s sovereign\nappointment the representative of the whole human race. With Adam as their\nrepresentative, God entered into covenant, agreeing to bestow upon them\neternal life on condition of his obedience, but making the penalty of his\ndisobedience to be the corruption and death of all his posterity. In\naccordance with the terms of this covenant, since Adam sinned, God\naccounts all his descendants as sinners, and condemns them because of\nAdam\u2019s transgression.\n\nIn execution of this sentence of condemnation, God immediately creates\neach soul of Adam\u2019s posterity with a corrupt and depraved nature, which\ninfallibly leads to sin, and which is itself sin. The theory is therefore\na theory of the immediate imputation of Adam\u2019s sin to his posterity, their\ncorruption of nature not being the cause of that imputation, but the\neffect of it. In Rom. 5:12, \u201cdeath passed unto all men, for that all\nsinned,\u201d signifies: \u201cphysical, spiritual, and eternal death came to all,\nbecause all were regarded and treated as sinners.\u201d\n\n\n Fisher, Discussions, 355-409, compares the Augustinian and Federal\n theories of Original Sin. His account of the Federal theory and\n its origin is substantially as follows: The Federal theory is a\n theory of the covenants (_f\u0153dus_, a covenant). 1. The covenant is\n a sovereign constitution imposed by God. 2. Federal union is the\n legal ground of imputation, though kinship to Adam is the reason\n why Adam and not another was selected as our representative. 3.\n Our guilt for Adam\u2019s sin is simply a legal responsibility. 4. That\n imputed sin is punished by inborn depravity, and that inborn\n depravity by eternal death. Augustine could not reconcile inherent\n depravity with the justice of God; hence he held that we sinned in\n Adam.\n\n So Anselm says: \u201cBecause the whole human nature was in them (Adam\n and Eve), and outside of them there was nothing of it, the whole\n was weakened and corrupted.\u201d After the first sin \u201cthis nature was\n propagated just as it had made itself by sinning.\u201d All sin belongs\n to the will; but this is a part of our inheritance. The\n descendants of Adam were not in him as individuals; yet what he\n did as a person, he did not do _sine natura_, and this nature is\n ours as well as his. So Peter Lombard. Sins of our immediate\n ancestors, because they are qualities which are purely personal,\n are not propagated. After Adam\u2019s first sin, the actual qualities\n of the first parent or of other later parents do not corrupt the\n nature as concerns its qualities, but only as concerns the\n qualities of the _person_.\n\n Calvin maintained two propositions: 1. We are not condemned for\n Adam\u2019s sin apart from our own inherent depravity which is derived\n from him. The sin for which we are condemned is our own sin. 2.\n This sin is ours, for the reason that our nature is vitiated in\n Adam, and we receive it in the condition in which it was put by\n the first transgression. Melanchthon also held to an imputation of\n the first sin conditioned upon our innate depravity. The impulse\n to Federalism was given by the difficulty, on the pure Augustinian\n theory, of accounting for the non-imputation of Adam\u2019s subsequent\n sins, and those of his posterity.\n\n Cocceius (Dutch, Coch: English, Cook), the author of the\n covenant-theory, conceived that he had solved this difficulty by\n making Adam\u2019s sin to be imputed to us upon the ground of a\n covenant between God and Adam, according to which Adam was to\n stand as the representative of his posterity. In Cocceius\u2019s use of\n the term, however, the only difference between covenant and\n command is found in the promise attached to the keeping of it.\n Fisher remarks on the mistake, in modern defenders of imputation,\n of ignoring the capital fact of a true and real participation in\n Adam\u2019s sin. The great body of Calvinistic theologians in the 17th\n century were Augustinians as well as Federalists. So Owen and the\n Westminster Confession. Turretin, however, almost merged the\n natural relation to Adam in the federal.\n\n Edwards fell back on the old doctrine of Aquinas and Augustine. He\n tried to make out a real participation in the first sin. The first\n rising of sinful inclination, by a divinely constituted identity,\n _is_ this participation. But Hopkins and Emmons regarded the\n sinful inclination, not as a _real_ participation, but only as a\n _constructive_ consent to Adam\u2019s first sin. Hence the New School\n theology, in which the imputation of Adam\u2019s sin was given up. On\n the contrary, Calvinists of the Princeton school planted\n themselves on the Federal theory, and taking Turretin as their\n text book, waged war on New England views, not wholly sparing\n Edwards himself. After this review of the origin of the theory,\n for which we are mainly indebted to Fisher, it can be easily seen\n how little show of truth there is in the assumption of the\n Princeton theologians that the Federal theory is \u201cthe immemorial\n doctrine of the church of God.\u201d\n\n Statements of the theory are found in Cocceius, Summa Doctrin\u00e6 de\n F\u0153dere, cap. 1, 5; Turretin, Inst., loc. 9, qu\u00e6s. 9; Princeton\n Essays, 1:98-185. esp. 120\u2014\u201cIn imputation there is, first, an\n ascription of something to those concerned; secondly, a\n determination to deal with them accordingly.\u201d The ground for this\n imputation is \u201cthe union between Adam and his posterity, which is\n twofold,\u2014a natural union, as between father and children, and the\n union of representation, _which is the main idea here insisted\n on_.\u201d 123\u2014\u201cAs in Christ we are constituted righteous by the\n imputation of righteousness, so in Adam we are made sinners by the\n imputation of his sin.... Guilt is liability or exposedness to\n punishment; it does not in theological usage imply moral turpitude\n or criminality.\u201d 162\u2014Turretin is quoted: \u201cThe foundation,\n therefore, of imputation is not merely the _natural_ connection\n which exists between us and Adam\u2014for, were this the case, all his\n sins would be imputed to us, but principally the _moral_ and\n _federal_, on the ground of which God entered into covenant with\n him as our head. Hence in that sin Adam acted not as a private but\n a public person and representative.\u201d The oneness results from\n contract; the natural union is frequently not mentioned at all.\n Marck: All men sinned in Adam, \u201c_eos representante_.\u201d The acts of\n Adam and of Christ are ours \u201c_jure representationis_.\u201d\n\n G. W. Northrup makes the order of the Federal theory to be: \u201c(1)\n imputation of Adam\u2019s guilt; (2) condemnation on the ground of this\n imputed guilt; (3) corruption of nature consequent upon treatment\n as condemned. So judicial imputation of Adam\u2019s sin is the cause\n and ground of innate corruption.... All the acts, with the single\n exception of the sin of Adam, are divine acts: the appointment of\n Adam, the creation of his descendants, the imputation of his\n guilt, the condemnation of his posterity, their consequent\n corruption. Here we have guilt without sin, exposure to divine\n wrath without ill-desert, God regarding men as being what they are\n not, punishing them on the ground of a sin committed before they\n existed, and visiting them with gratuitous condemnation and\n gratuitous reprobation. Here are arbitrary representation,\n fictitious imputation, constructive guilt, limited atonement.\u201d The\n Presb. Rev., Jan. 1882:30, claims that Kloppenburg (1642) preceded\n Cocceius (1648) in holding to the theory of the Covenants, as did\n also the Canons of Dort. For additional statements of Federalism,\n see Hodge, Essays, 49-86, and Syst. Theol., 2:192-204; Bib. Sac.,\n 21:95-107; Cunningham, Historical Theology.\n\n\nTo the Federal theory we object:\n\nA. It is extra-Scriptural, there being no mention of such a covenant with\nAdam in the account of man\u2019s trial. The assumed allusion to Adam\u2019s\napostasy in Hosea 6:7, where the word \u201ccovenant\u201d is used, is too\nprecarious and too obviously metaphorical to afford the basis for a scheme\nof imputation (see Henderson, Com. on Minor Prophets, _in loco_). In Heb.\n8:8\u2014\u201cnew covenant\u201d\u2014there is suggested a contrast, not with an Adamic, but\nwith the Mosaic, covenant (_cf._ verse 9).\n\n\n In _Hosea 6:7_\u2014\u201c_they like Adam_ [marg. \u201c_men_\u201d] _have\n transgressed the covenant_\u201d (Rev. Ver.)\u2014the correct translation is\n given by Henderson, Minor Prophets: \u201c_But they, like men that\n break a covenant, there they proved false to me_.\u201d LXX: \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ad\n \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd. De Wette: \u201cAber sie\n \u00fcbertreten den Bund nach Menschenart; daselbst sind sie mir\n treulos.\u201d Here the word _adam_, translated \u201cman,\u201d either means \u201ca\n man,\u201d or \u201cman,\u201d _i. e._, generic man. \u201cIsrael had as little regard\n to their covenants with God as men of unprincipled character have\n for ordinary contracts.\u201d \u201cLike a man\u201d\u2014as men do. Compare _Ps.\n 82:7_\u2014\u201c_ye shall die like men_\u201d; _Hosea 8:1, 2_\u2014\u201c_they have\n transgressed my covenant_\u201d\u2014an allusion to the Abrahamic or Mosaic\n covenant. _Heb. 8:9_\u2014\u201c_Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that\n I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the\n house of Judah; Not according to the covenant that I made with\n their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them\n forth out of the land of Egypt._\u201d\n\n\nB. It contradicts Scripture, in making the first result of Adam\u2019s sin to\nbe God\u2019s _regarding and treating_ the race as sinners. The Scripture, on\nthe contrary, declares that Adam\u2019s offense _constituted_ us sinners (Rom.\n5:19). We are not sinners simply because God regards and treats us as\nsuch, but God regards us as sinners because we are sinners. Death is said\nto have \u201cpassed unto all men,\u201d not because all were regarded and treated\nas sinners, but \u201cbecause all sinned\u201d (Rom. 5:12).\n\n\n For a full exegesis of the passage _Rom. 5:12-19_, see note to the\n discussion of the Theory of Adam\u2019s Natural Headship, pages\n 625-627. Dr. Park gave great offence by saying that the so-called\n \u201ccovenants\u201d of law and of grace, referred in the Westminster\n Confession as made by God with Adam and Christ respectively, were\n really \u201cmade in Holland.\u201d The word _f\u0153dus_, in such a connection,\n could properly mean nothing more than \u201cordinance\u201d; see Vergil,\n Georgics, 1:60-63\u2014\u201ceterna f\u0153dera.\u201d E. G. Robinson, Christ. Theol.,\n 185\u2014\u201cGod\u2019s \u2018covenant\u2019 with men is simply his method of dealing\n with them according to their knowledge and opportunities.\u201d\n\n\nC. It impugns the justice of God by implying:\n\n(_a_) That God holds men responsible for the violation of a covenant which\nthey had no part in establishing. The assumed covenant is only a sovereign\ndecree; the assumed justice, only arbitrary will.\n\n\n We not only never authorized Adam to make such a covenant, but\n there is no evidence that he ever made one at all. It is not even\n certain that Adam knew he should have posterity. In the case of\n the imputation of our sins to Christ, Christ covenanted\n voluntarily to bear them, and joined himself to our nature that he\n might bear them. In the case of the imputation of Christ\u2019s\n righteousness to us, we first become one with Christ, and upon the\n ground of our union with him are justified. But upon the Federal\n theory, we are condemned upon the ground of a covenant which we\n neither instituted, nor participated in, nor assented to.\n\n\n(_b_) That upon the basis of this covenant God accounts men as sinners who\nare not sinners. But God judges according to truth. His condemnations do\nnot proceed upon a basis of legal fiction. He can regard as responsible\nfor Adam\u2019s transgression only those who in some real sense have been\nconcerned, and have had part, in that transgression.\n\n\n See Baird, Elohim Revealed, 544\u2014\u201cHere is a sin, which is no crime,\n but a mere condition of being regarded and treated as sinners; and\n a guilt, which is devoid of sinfulness, and which does not imply\n moral demerit or turpitude,\u201d\u2014that is, a sin which is no sin, and a\n guilt which is no guilt. Why might not God as justly reckon Adam\u2019s\n sin to the account of the fallen angels, and punish them for it?\n Dorner, System Doct., 2:351; 3:53, 54\u2014\u201cHollaz held that God treats\n men in accordance with what he foresaw all would do, if they were\n in Adam\u2019s place\u201d (_scientia media_ and _imputatio metaphysica_).\n Birks, Difficulties of Belief, 141\u2014\u201cImmediate imputation is as\n unjust as _imputatio metaphysica_, _i. e._, God\u2019s condemning us\n for what he knew we would have done in Adam\u2019s place. On such a\n theory there is no need of a trial at all. God might condemn half\n the race at once to hell without probation, on the ground that\n they would ultimately sin and come thither at any rate.\u201d\n Justification can be gratuitous, but not condemnation. \u201cLike the\n social-compact theory of government, the covenant-theory of sin is\n a mere legal fiction. It explains, only to belittle. The theory of\n New England theology, which attributes to mere sovereignty God\u2019s\n making us sinners in consequence of Adam\u2019s sin, is more reasonable\n than the Federal theory\u201d (Fisher).\n\n Professor Moses Stuart characterized this theory as one of\n \u201cfictitious guilt, but veritable damnation.\u201d The divine economy\n admits of no fictitious substitutions nor forensic evasions. No\n legal quibbles can modify eternal justice. Federalism reverses the\n proper order, and puts the effect before the cause, as is the case\n with the social-compact theory of government. Ritchie, Darwin and\n Hegel, 27\u2014\u201cIt is illogical to say that society originated in a\n contract; for contract presupposes society.\u201d Unus homo, nullus\n homo\u2014without society, no persons. T. H. Green, Prolegomena to\n Ethics, 351\u2014\u201cNo individual can make a conscience for himself. He\n always needs a society to make it for him....\u201d 200\u2014\u201cOnly through\n society is personality actualized.\u201d Boyce, Spirit of Modern\n Philosophy, 209, note\u2014\u201cOrganic Interrelationship of individuals is\n the condition even of their relatively independent selfhood.\u201d We\n are \u201c_members one of another_\u201d (_Rom. 12:15_). Schurman,\n Agnosticism, 176\u2014\u201cThe individual could never have developed into a\n personality but for his training through society and under law.\u201d\n Imagine a theory that the family originated in a compact! We must\n not define the state by its first crude beginnings, any more than\n we define the oak by the acorn. On the theory of a social-compact,\n see Lowell, Essays on Government, 136-188.\n\n\n(_c_) That, after accounting men to be sinners who are not sinners, God\nmakes them sinners by immediately creating each human soul with a corrupt\nnature such as will correspond to his decree. This is not only to assume a\nfalse view of the origin of the soul, but also to make God directly the\nauthor of sin. Imputation of sin cannot precede and account for\ncorruption; on the contrary, corruption must precede and account for\nimputation.\n\n\n By God\u2019s act we became depraved, as a penal consequence of Adam\u2019s\n act imputed to us solely as _peccatum alienum_. Dabney, Theology,\n 342, says the theory regards the soul as originally pure until\n imputation. See Hodge on _Rom. 5:13_; Syst. Theol., 2:203, 210;\n Thornwell, Theology, 1:343-349; Chalmers, Institutes, 1:485, 487.\n The Federal theory \u201cmakes sin in us to be the penalty of another\u2019s\n sin, instead of being the penalty of our own sin, as on the\n Augustinian scheme, which regards depravity in us as the\n punishment of our own sin in Adam.... It holds to a sin which does\n not bring eternal punishment, but for which we are legally\n responsible as truly as Adam.\u201d It only remains to say that Dr.\n Hodge always persistently refused to admit the one added element\n which might have made his view less arbitrary and mechanical,\n namely, the traducian theory of the origin of the soul. He was a\n creatianist, and to the end maintained that God immediately\n created the soul, and created it depraved. Acceptance of the\n traducian theory would have compelled him to exchange his\n Federalism for Augustinianism. Creatianism was the one remaining\n element of Pelagian atomism in an otherwise Scriptural theory. Yet\n Dr. Hodge regarded this as an essential part of Biblical teaching.\n His unwavering confidence was like that of Fichte, whom Caroline\n Schelling represented as saying: \u201cZweifle an der Sonne Klarheit,\n Zweifle an der Sterne Licht, Leser, nur an meiner Wahrheit Und an\n deiner Dummheit, nicht.\u201d\n\n As a corrective to the atomistic spirit of Federalism we may quote\n a view which seems to us far more tenable, though it perhaps goes\n to the opposite extreme. Dr. H. H. Bawden writes: \u201cThe self is the\n product of a social environment. An ascetic self is so far forth\n not a self. Selfhood and consciousness are essentially social. We\n are members one of another. The biological view of selfhood\n regards it as a function, activity, process, inseparable from the\n social matrix out of which it has arisen. Consciousness is simply\n the name for the functioning of an organism. Not that the soul is\n a secretion of the brain, as bile is a secretion of the liver; not\n that the mind is a function of the body in any such materialistic\n sense. But that mind or consciousness is only the growing of an\n organism, while, on the other hand, the organism is just that\n which grows. The psychical is not a second, subtle, parallel form\n of energy causally interactive with the physical; much less is it\n a concomitant series, as the parallelists hold. Consciousness is\n not an order of existence or a thing, but rather a function. It is\n the organization of reality, the universe coming to a focus,\n flowering, so to speak, in a finite centre. Society is an organism\n in the same sense as the human body. The separation of the units\n of society is no greater than the separation of the unit factors\n of the body,\u2014in the microscope the molecules are far apart.\n Society is a great sphere with many smaller spheres within it.\n\n \u201cEach self is not impervious to other selves. Selves are not\n water-tight compartments, each one of which might remain complete\n in itself, even if all the others were destroyed. But there are\n open sluiceways between all the compartments. Society is a vast\n plexus of interweaving personalities. We are members one of\n another. What affects my neighbor affects me, and what affects me\n ultimately affects my neighbor. The individual is not an\n impenetrable atomic unit.... The self is simply the social whole\n coming to consciousness at some particular point. Every self is\n rooted in the social organism of which it is but a local and\n individual expression. A self is a mere cipher apart from its\n social relations. As the old Greek adage has it: \u2018He who lives\n quite alone is either a beast or a god.\u2019 \u201d While we regard this\n exposition of Dr. Bawden as throwing light upon the origin of\n consciousness and so helping our contention against the Federal\n theory of sin, we do not regard it as proving that consciousness,\n once developed, may not become relatively independent and\n immortal. Back of society, as well as back of the individual, lies\n the consciousness and will of God, in whom alone is the guarantee\n of persistence. For objections to the Federal theory, see Fisher,\n Discussions, 401 _sq._; Bib. Sac., 20:455-462, 577; New Englander,\n 1868:551-603; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 305-334, 435-450; Julius\n M\u00fcller, Doct. Sin, 2:336; Dabney, Theology, 341-351.\n\n\n5. Theory of Mediate Imputation, or Theory of Condemnation for Depravity.\n\n\nThis theory was first maintained by Placeus (1606-1655), professor of\nTheology at Saumur in France. Placeus originally denied that Adam\u2019s sin\nwas in any sense imputed to his posterity, but after his doctrine was\ncondemned by the Synod of the French Reformed Church at Charenton in 1644,\nhe published the view which now bears his name.\n\nAccording to this view, all men are born physically and morally depraved;\nthis native depravity is the source of all actual sin, and is itself sin;\nin strictness of speech, it is this native depravity, and this only, which\nGod imputes to men. So far as man\u2019s physical nature is concerned, this\ninborn sinfulness has descended by natural laws of propagation from Adam\nto all his posterity. The soul is immediately created by God, but it\nbecomes actively corrupt so soon as it is united to the body. Inborn\nsinfulness is the consequence, though not the penalty, of Adam\u2019s\ntransgression.\n\nThere is a sense, therefore, in which Adam\u2019s sin may be said to be imputed\nto his descendants,\u2014it is imputed, not immediately, as if they had been in\nAdam or were so represented in him that it could be charged directly to\nthem, corruption not intervening,\u2014but it is imputed mediately, through and\non account of the intervening corruption which resulted from Adam\u2019s sin.\nAs on the Federal theory imputation is the cause of depravity, so on this\ntheory depravity is the cause of imputation. In Rom. 5:12, \u201cdeath passed\nunto all men, for that all sinned,\u201d signifies: \u201cdeath physical, spiritual,\nand eternal passed upon all men, because all sinned by possessing a\ndepraved nature.\u201d\n\n\n See Placeus, De Imputatione Primi Peccati Adami, in Opera,\n 1:709\u2014\u201cThe sensitive soul is produced from the parent; the\n intellectual or rational soul is directly created. The soul, on\n entering the corrupted physical nature, is not passively\n corrupted, but becomes corrupt actively, accommodating itself to\n the other part of human nature in character.\u201d 710\u2014So this soul\n \u201ccontracts from the vitiosity of the dispositions of the body a\n corresponding vitiosity, not so much by the action of the body\n upon the soul, as by that essential appetite of the soul by which\n it unites itself to the body in a way accommodated to the\n dispositions of the body, as liquid put into a bowl accommodates\n itself to the figure of a bowl\u2014sicut vinum in vase acetoso. God\n was therefore neither the author of Adam\u2019s fall, nor of the\n propagation of sin.\u201d\n\n Herzog, Encyclop\u00e6dia, art.: Placeus\u2014\u201cIn the title of his works we\n read \u2018Plac\u00e6us\u2019; he himself, however, wrote \u2018Placeus,\u2019 which is the\n more correct Latin form [of the French \u2018de la Place\u2019]. In Adam\u2019s\n first sin, Placeus distinguished between the actual sinning and\n the first habitual sin (corrupted disposition). The former was\n transient; the latter clung to his person, and was propagated to\n all. It is truly sin, and it is imputed to all, since it makes all\n condemnable. Placeus believes in the imputation of this corrupted\n disposition, but not in the imputation of the first act of Adam,\n except mediately, through the imputation of the inherited\n depravity.\u201d Fisher, Discussions, 389\u2014\u201cMere native corruption is\n the whole of original sin. Placeus justifies his use of the term\n \u2018imputation\u2019 by _Rom. 2:26_\u2014\u2018_If therefore the uncircumcision keep\n the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be\n reckoned_ [imputed] _for circumcision?_\u2019 Our own depravity is the\n necessary condition of the imputation of Adam\u2019s sin, just as our\n own faith is the necessary condition of the imputation of Christ\u2019s\n righteousness.\u201d\n\n Advocates of Mediate Imputation are, in Great Britain, G. Payne,\n in his book entitled: Original Sin; John Caird, Fund. Ideas of\n Christianity, 1:196-332; and James S. Candlish, Biblical Doctrine\n of Sin, 111-122; in America, H. B. Smith, in his System of\n Christian Doctrine, 169, 284, 285, 314-323; and E. G. Robinson,\n Christian Theology. The editor of Dr. Smith\u2019s work says: \u201cOn the\n whole, he favored the theory of Mediate Imputation. There is a\n note which reads thus: \u2018Neither Mediate nor Immediate Imputation\n is wholly satisfactory.\u2019 Understand by \u2018Mediate Imputation\u2019 a full\n statement of the facts in the case, and the author accepted it;\n understand by it a theory professing to give the final explanation\n of the facts, and it was \u2018not wholly satisfactory.\u2019 \u201d Dr. Smith\n himself says, 316\u2014\u201cOriginal sin is a doctrine respecting the moral\n conditions of human nature as from Adam\u2014generic: and it is not a\n doctrine respecting personal liabilities and desert. For the\n latter, we need more and other circumstances. Strictly speaking,\n it is not sin, which is ill-deserving, but only the sinner. The\n ultimate distinction is here: There is a well-grounded difference\n to be made between personal desert, strictly personal character\n and liabilities (of each individual under the divine law, as\n applied specifically, _e. g._, in the last adjudication), and a\n generic moral condition\u2014the antecedent ground of such personal\n character.\n\n \u201cThe distinction, however, is not between what has moral quality\n and what has not, but between the moral state of each as a member\n of the race, and his personal liabilities and desert as an\n individual. This original sin would wear to us only the character\n of evil, and not of sinfulness, were it not for _the fact_ that we\n feel guilty in view of our corruption when it becomes known to us\n in our own acts. Then there is involved in it not merely a sense\n of evil and misery, but also a sense of guilt; moreover,\n redemption is also necessary to remove it, which shows that it is\n a moral state. Here is the point of junction between the two\n extreme positions, that we sinned in Adam, and that all sin\n consists in sinning. The guilt of Adam\u2019s sin is\u2014this exposure,\n this liability on account of such native corruption, our having\n the same nature in the same moral bias. The guilt of Adam\u2019s sin is\n _not to be separated_ from the existence of this evil disposition.\n And this guilt is what is imputed to us.\u201d See art. on H. B. Smith,\n in Presb. Rev., 1881; \u201cHe did not fully acquiesce in Placeus\u2019s\n view, which makes the corrupt nature by descent the only ground of\n imputation.\u201d\n\n\nThe theory of Mediate Imputation is exposed to the following objections:\n\nA. It gives no explanation of man\u2019s responsibility for his inborn\ndepravity. No explanation of this is possible, which does not regard man\u2019s\ndepravity as having had its origin in a free personal act, either of the\nindividual, or of collective human nature in its first father and head.\nBut this participation of all men in Adam\u2019s sin the theory expressly\ndenies.\n\n\n The theory holds that we are responsible for the effect, but not\n for the cause\u2014\u201cpost Adamum, non propter Adamum.\u201d But, says Julius\n M\u00fcller, Doct. Sin, 2:209, 331\u2014\u201cIf this sinful tendency be in us\n solely through the act of others, and not through our own deed,\n they, and not we, are responsible for it,\u2014it is not our guilt, but\n our misfortune. And even as to actual sins which spring from this\n inherent sinful tendency, these are not strictly our own, but the\n acts of our first parents through us. Why impute them to us as\n actual sins, for which we are to be condemned? Thus, if we deny\n the existence of guilt, we destroy the reality of sin, and _vice\n versa_.\u201d Thornwell, Theology, 1:348, 349\u2014This theory \u201cdoes not\n explain the sense of guilt, as connected with depravity of\n nature,\u2014how the feeling of ill-desert can arise in relation to a\n state of mind of which we have been only passive recipients. The\n child does not reproach himself for the afflictions which a\n father\u2019s follies have brought upon him. But our inward corruption\n we do feel to be our own fault,\u2014it is our crime as well as our\n shame.\u201d\n\n\nB. Since the origination of this corrupt nature cannot be charged to the\naccount of man, man\u2019s inheritance of it must be regarded in the light of\nan arbitrary divine infliction\u2014a conclusion which reflects upon the\njustice of God. Man is not only condemned for a sinfulness of which God is\nthe author, but is condemned without any real probation, either individual\nor collective.\n\n\n Dr. Hovey, Outlines of Theology, objects to the theory of Mediate\n Imputation, because: \u201c1. It casts so faint a light on the justice\n of God in the imputation of Adam\u2019s sin to adults who do as he did.\n 2. It casts no light on the justice of God in bringing into\n existence a race inclined to sin by the fall of Adam. The\n inherited bias is still unexplained, and the imputation of it is a\n riddle, or a wrong, to the natural understanding.\u201d It is unjust to\n hold us guilty of the effect, if we be not first guilty of the\n cause.\n\n\nC. It contradicts those passages of Scripture which refer the origin of\nhuman condemnation, as well as of human depravity, to the sin of our first\nparents, and which represent universal death, not as a matter of divine\nsovereignty, but as a judicial infliction of penalty upon all men for the\nsin of the race in Adam (Rom. 5:16, 18). It moreover does violence to the\nScripture in its unnatural interpretation of \u201call sinned,\u201d in Rom.\n5:12\u2014words which imply the oneness of the race with Adam, and the\ncausative relation of Adam\u2019s sin to our guilt.\n\n\n Certain passages which Dr. H. B. Smith, System, 317, quotes from\n Edwards, as favoring the theory of Mediate Imputation, seem to us\n to favor quite a different view. See Edwards, 2:482 _sq._\u2014\u201cThe\n first existing of a corrupt disposition in their hearts is not to\n be looked upon as sin belonging to them distinct from their\n participation in Adam\u2019s first sin; it is, as it were, the extended\n pollution of that sin through the whole tree, by virtue of the\n constituted union of the branches with the root.... I am humbly of\n the opinion that, if any have supposed the children of Adam to\n come into the world with a double guilt, one the guilt of Adam\u2019s\n sin, another the guilt arising from their having a corrupt heart,\n they have not so well considered the matter.\u201d And afterwards:\n \u201cDerivation of evil disposition (or rather co-existence) is in\n consequence of the union,\u201d\u2014but \u201cnot properly a consequence of the\n imputation of his sin; nay, rather antecedent to it, as it was in\n Adam himself. The first depravity of heart, and the imputation of\n that sin, are both the consequences of that established union; but\n yet in such order, that the evil disposition is first, and the\n charge of guilt consequent, as it was in the case of Adam\n himself.\u201d\n\n Edwards quotes Stapfer: \u201cThe Reformed divines do not hold\n immediate and mediate imputation _separately_, but always\n together.\u201d And still further, 2:493\u2014\u201cAnd therefore the sin of the\n apostasy is not theirs, merely because God imputes it to them; but\n it is truly and properly theirs, and on that ground God imputes it\n to them.\u201d It seems to us that Dr. Smith mistakes the drift of\n these passages from Edwards, and that in making the identification\n with Adam primary, and imputation of his sin secondary, they favor\n the theory of Adam\u2019s Natural Headship rather than the theory of\n Mediate Imputation. Edwards regards the order as (1) apostasy; (2)\n depravity; (3) guilt;\u2014but in all three, Adam and we are, by divine\n constitution, one. To be guilty of the depravity, therefore, we\n must first be guilty of the apostasy.\n\n For the reasons above mentioned we regard the theory of Mediate\n Imputation as a half-way house where there is no permanent\n lodgment. The logical mind can find no satisfaction therein, but\n is driven either forward, to the Augustinian doctrine which we are\n next to consider, or backward, to the New School doctrine with its\n atomistic conception of man and its arbitrary sovereignty of God.\n On the theory of Mediate Imputation, see Cunningham, Historical\n Theology, 1:496-639; Princeton Essays, 1:129, 154, 168; Hodge,\n Syst. Theology, 2:205-214; Shedd, History of Doctrine, 2:158;\n Baird, Elohim Revealed, 46, 47, 474-479, 504-507.\n\n\n6. The Augustinian Theory, or Theory of Adam\u2019s Natural Headship.\n\n\nThis theory was first elaborated by Augustine (354-430), the great\nopponent of Pelagius; although its central feature appears in the writings\nof Tertullian (died about 220), Hilary (350), and Ambrose (374). It is\nfrequently designated as the Augustinian view of sin. It was the view held\nby the Reformers, Zwingle excepted. Its principal advocates in this\ncountry are Dr. Shedd and Dr. Baird.\n\nIt holds that God imputes the sin of Adam immediately to all his\nposterity, in virtue of that organic unity of mankind by which the whole\nrace at the time of Adam\u2019s transgression existed, not individually, but\nseminally, in him as its head. The total life of humanity was then in\nAdam; the race as yet had its being only in him. Its essence was not yet\nindividualized; its forces were not yet distributed; the powers which now\nexist in separate men were then unified and localized in Adam; Adam\u2019s will\nwas yet the will of the species. In Adam\u2019s free act, the will of the race\nrevolted from God and the nature of the race corrupted itself. The nature\nwhich we now possess is the same nature that corrupted itself in Adam\u2014\u201cnot\nthe same in kind merely, but the same as flowing to us continuously from\nhim.\u201d\n\nAdam\u2019s sin is imputed to us immediately, therefore, not as something\nforeign to us, but because it is ours\u2014we and all other men having existed\nas one moral person or one moral whole, in him, and, as the result of that\ntransgression, possessing a nature destitute of love to God and prone to\nevil. In Rom. 5:12\u2014\u201cdeath passed unto all men, for that all sinned,\u201d\nsignifies: \u201cdeath physical, spiritual, and eternal passed unto all men,\nbecause all sinned in Adam their natural head.\u201d\n\n\n Milton, Par. Lost, 9:414\u2014\u201cWhere likeliest he [Satan] might find\n The only two of mankind, but in them The whole included race, his\n purpos\u2019d prey.\u201d Augustine, De Pec. Mer. et Rem., 3:7\u2014\u201cIn Adamo\n omnes tune peccaverunt, quando in ejus natura adhuc omnes ille\n unus fuerunt\u201d; De Civ. Dei, 13, 14\u2014\u201cOmnes enim fuimus in illo uno,\n quando omnes fuimus ille unus.... Nondum erat nobis singillatim\n creata et distributa forma in qua singuli viveremus, sed jam\n natura erat seminalis ex qua propagaremur.\u201d On Augustine\u2019s view,\n see Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2; 43-45 (System Doct., 2:338, 339)\u2014In\n opposition to Pelagius who made sin to consist in single acts,\n \u201cAugustine emphasized the sinful state. This was a deprivation of\n original righteousness + inordinate love. Tertullian, Cyprian,\n Hilarius, Ambrose had advocated traducianism, according to which,\n without their personal participation, the sinfulness of all is\n grounded in Adam\u2019s free act. They incur its consequences as an\n evil which is, at the same time, punishment of the inherited\n fault. But Iren\u00e6us, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, say Adam was not\n simply a single individual, but the universal man. We were\n comprehended in him, so that in him we sinned. On the first view,\n the posterity were passive; on the second, they were active, in\n Adam\u2019s sin. Augustine represents both views, desiring to unite the\n universal sinfulness involved in traducianism with the universal\n will and guilt involved in cooperation with Adam\u2019s sin. Adam,\n therefore, to him, is a double conception, and = individual +\n race.\u201d\n\n Mozley on Predestination, 402\u2014\u201cIn Augustine, some passages refer\n all wickedness to original sin; some account for different degrees\n of evil by different degrees of original sin (Op. imp. cont.\n Julianum, 4:128\u2014\u2018Malitia naturalis.... in aliis minor, in aliis\n major est\u2019); in some, the individual seems to add to original sin\n (De Correp. et Gratia, c. 13\u2014\u2018Per liberum arbitrium alia insuper\n addiderunt, alii majus, alii minus, sed omnes mali.\u2019 De Grat. et\n Lib. Arbit., 2:1\u2014\u2018Added to the sin of their birth sins of their\n own commission\u2019; 2:4\u2014\u2018Neither denies our liberty of will, whether\n to choose an evil or a good life, nor attributes to it so much\n power that it can avail anything without God\u2019s grace, or that it\n can change itself from evil to good\u2019).\u201d These passages seem to\n show that, side by side with the race-sin and its development,\n Augustine recognized a domain of free personal decision, by which\n each man could to some extent modify his character, and make\n himself more or less depraved.\n\n The theory of Augustine was not the mere result of Augustine\u2019s\n temperament or of Augustine\u2019s sins. Many men have sinned like\n Augustine, but their intellects have only been benumbed and have\n been led into all manner of unbelief. It was the Holy Spirit who\n took possession of the temperament, and so overruled the sin as to\n make it a glass through which Augustine saw the depths of his\n nature. Nor was his doctrine one of exclusive divine\n transcendence, which left man a helpless worm at enmity with\n infinite justice. He was also a passionate believer in the\n immanence of God. He writes: \u201cI could not be, O my God, could not\n be at all, wert not thou in me; rather, were not I in thee, of\n whom are all things, by whom are all things, in whom are are all\n things.... O God, thou hast made us for thyself, and our heart is\n restless, till it find rest in thee.\u2014The will of God is the very\n nature of things\u2014Dei voluntas rerum natura est.\u201d\n\n Allen, Continuity of Christian Thought, Introduction, very\n erroneously declares that \u201cthe Augustinian theology rests upon the\n transcendence of Deity as its controlling principle, and at every\n point appears as an inferior rendering of the earlier\n interpretation of the Christian faith.\u201d On the other hand, L. L.\n Paine, Evolution of Trinitarianism, 69, 368-397, shows that, while\n Athanasius held to a dualistic transcendence, Augustine held to a\n theistic immanence: \u201cThus the Stoic, Neo-Platonic immanence, with\n Augustine, supplants the Platonico-Aristotelian and Athanasian\n transcendence.\u201d Alexander, Theories of the Will, 90\u2014\u201cThe theories\n of the early Fathers were indeterministic, and the pronounced\n Augustinianism of Augustine was the result of the rise into\n prominence of the doctrine of original sin.... The early Fathers\n thought of the origin of sin in angels and in Adam as due to free\n will. Augustine thought of the origin of sin in Adam\u2019s posterity\n as due to inherited evil will.\u201d Harnack, Wesen des Christenthums,\n 161\u2014\u201cTo this day in Catholicism inward and living piety and the\n expression of it is in essence wholly Augustinian.\u201d\n\n Calvin was essentially Augustinian and realistic; see his\n Institutes, book 2, chap. 1-3; Hagenbach, Hist. Doct., 1:505, 506,\n with the quotations and references. Zwingle was not an\n Augustinian. He held that native vitiosity, although it is the\n uniform occasion of sin, is not itself sin: \u201cIt is not a crime,\n but a condition and a disease.\u201d See Hagenbach, Hist. Doct. 2:256,\n with references. Zwingle taught that every new-born child\u2014thanks\n to Christ\u2019s making alive of all those who had died in Adam\u2014is as\n free from any taint of sin as Adam was before the fall. The\n Reformers, however, with the single exception of Zwingle, were\n Augustinians, and accounted for the hereditary guilt of mankind,\n not by the fact that all men were represented in Adam, but that\n all men participated in Adam\u2019s sin. This is still the doctrine of\n the Lutheran church.\n\n The theory of Adam\u2019s Natural Headship regards humanity at large as\n the outgrowth of one germ. Though the leaves of a tree appear as\n disconnected units when we look down upon them from above, a view\n from beneath will discern the common connection with the twigs,\n branches, trunk, and will finally trace their life to the root,\n and to the seed from which it originally sprang. The race of man\n is one because it sprang from one head. Its members are not to be\n regarded atomistically, as segregated individuals; the deeper\n truth is the truth of organic unity. Yet we are not philosophical\n realists; we do not believe in the separate existence of\n universals. We hold, not to _universalia ante rem_, which is\n extreme realism; nor to _universalia post rem_, which is\n nominalism; but to _universalia in re_, which is moderate realism.\n Extreme realism cannot see the trees for the wood; nominalism\n cannot see the wood for the trees; moderate realism sees the wood\n in the trees. We hold to \u201c_universalia in re_, but insist that the\n universals must be recognized as _realities_, as truly as the\n individuals are\u201d (H. B. Smith, System, 319, note). Three acorns\n have a common life, as three spools have not. Moderate realism is\n true of organic things; nominalism is true only of proper names.\n God has not created any new tree nature since he created the first\n tree; nor has he created any new human nature since he created the\n first man. I am but a branch and outgrowth of the tree of\n humanity.\n\n Our realism then only asserts the real historical connection of\n each member of the race with its first father and head, and such a\n derivation of each from him as makes us partakers of the character\n which he formed. Adam was once the race; and when he fell, the\n race fell. Shedd: \u201cWe all existed in Adam in our elementary\n invisible substance. The _Seyn_ of all was there, though the\n _Daseyn_ was not; the _noumenon_, though not the _phenomenon_, was\n in existence.\u201d On realism, see Koehler, Realismus und\n Nominalismus; Neander, Ch. Hist., 4:356; Dorner, Person Christ,\n 2:377; Hase, Anselm, 2:77; F. E. Abbott, Scientific Theism,\n Introd., 1-29, and in Mind, Oct. 1882:476, 477; Raymond, Theology,\n 2:30-33; Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:69-74; Bowne, Theory of Thought\n and Knowledge, 129-132; Ten Broeke, in Baptist Quar. Rev., Jan.\n 1892:1-26; Baldwin, Psychology, 280, 281; D. J. Hill, Genetic\n Philosophy, 186; Hours with the Mystics, 1:213; Case, Physical\n Realism, 17-19; Fullerton, Sameness and Identity, 88, 89, and\n Concept of the Infinite, 95-114.\n\n The new conceptions of the reign of law and of the principle of\n heredity which prevail in modern science are working to the\n advantage of Christian theology. The doctrine of Adam\u2019s Natural\n Headship is only a doctrine of the hereditary transmission of\n character from the first father of the race to his descendants.\n Hence we use the word \u201cimputation\u201d in its proper sense\u2014that of a\n reckoning or charging to us of that which is truly and properly\n ours. See Julius M\u00fcller, Doctrine of Sin, 2:259-357, esp. 328\u2014\u201cThe\n problem is: We must allow that the depravity, which all Adam\u2019s\n descendants inherit by natural generation, nevertheless involves\n personal guilt; and yet this depravity, so far as it is natural,\n wants the very conditions on which guilt depends. The only\n satisfactory explanation of this difficulty is the Christian\n doctrine of original sin. Here alone, if its inner possibility can\n be maintained, can the apparently contradictory principles be\n harmonized, viz.: the universal and deep-seated depravity of human\n nature, as the source of actual sin, and individual responsibility\n and guilt.\u201d These words, though written by one who advocates a\n different theory, are nevertheless a valuable argument in\n corroboration of the theory of Adam\u2019s Natural Headship.\n\n Thornwell, Theology, 1:343\u2014\u201cWe must contradict every Scripture\n text and every Scripture doctrine which makes hereditary impurity\n hateful to God and punishable in his sight, or we must maintain\n that we sinned in Adam in his first transgression.\u201d Secretan, in\n his Work on Liberty, held to a _collective_ life of the race in\n Adam. He was answered by Naville, Problem of Evil: \u201cWe existed in\n Adam, not individually, but seminally. Each of us, as an\n individual, is responsible only for his personal acts, or, to\n speak more exactly, for the personal part of his acts. But each of\n us, as he is man, is jointly and severally (_solidairement_)\n responsible for the fall of the human race.\u201d Bersier, The Oneness\n of the Race, in its Fall and in its Future: \u201cIf we are commanded\n to love our neighbor as ourselves, it is because our neighbor is\n ourself.\u201d\n\n See Edwards, Original Sin, part 4, chap. 3; Shedd, on Original\n Sin, in Discourses and Essays, 218-271, and references, 261-263,\n also Dogm. Theol., 2:181-195; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 410-435,\n 451-460, 494; Schaff, in Bib. Sac., 5:220, and in Lange\u2019s Com., on\n Rom. 5:12; Auberlen, Div. Revelation, 175-180; Philippi,\n Glaubenslehre, 3:28-38, 204-236; Thomasius, Christi Person und\n Werk, 1:269-400; Martensen, Dogmatics, 173-183; Murphy, Scientific\n Bases, 262 _sq._, _cf._ 101; Birks, Difficulties of Belief, 135;\n Bp. Reynolds, Sinfulness of Sin, in Works, 1:102-350; Mozley on\n Original Sin, in Lectures, 136-152; Kendall, on Natural Heirship,\n or All the World Akin, in Nineteenth Century, Oct. 1885:614-626.\n _Per contra_, see Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:157-164, 227-257; Haven,\n in Bib. Sac., 20:451-455; Criticism of Baird\u2019s doctrine, in\n Princeton Rev., Apr. 1880:335-376; of Schaff\u2019s doctrine, in\n Princeton Rev., Apr. 1870:239-262.\n\n\nWe regard this theory of the Natural Headship of Adam as the most\nsatisfactory of the theories mentioned, and as furnishing the most\nimportant help towards the understanding of the great problem of original\nsin. In its favor may be urged the following considerations:\n\nA. It puts the most natural interpretation upon Rom. 5:12-21. In verse 12\nof this passage\u2014\u201cdeath passed unto all men, for that all sinned\u201d\u2014the great\nmajority of commentators regard the word \u201csinned\u201d as describing a common\ntransgression of the race in Adam. The death spoken of is, as the whole\ncontext shows, mainly though not exclusively physical. It has passed upon\nall\u2014even upon those who have committed no conscious and personal\ntransgression whereby to explain its infliction (verse 14). The legal\nphraseology of the passage shows that this infliction is not a matter of\nsovereign decree, but of judicial penalty (verses 13, 14, 15, 16,\n18\u2014\u201claw,\u201d \u201ctransgression,\u201d \u201ctrespass,\u201d \u201cjudgment ... of one unto\ncondemnation,\u201d \u201cact of righteousness,\u201d \u201cjustification\u201d). As the\nexplanation of this universal subjection to penalty, we are referred to\nAdam\u2019s sin. By that one act (\u201cso,\u201d verse 12)\u2014the \u201ctrespass of the one\u201d man\n(v. 15, 17), the \u201cone trespass\u201d (v. 18)\u2014death came to all men, because all\n[not \u201chave sinned\u201d, but] sinned (\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f25\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u2014aorist of instantaneous\npast action)\u2014that is, all sinned in \u201cthe one trespass\u201d of \u201cthe one\u201d man.\nCompare 1 Cor. 15:22\u2014\u201cAs in Adam all die\u201d\u2014where the contrast with physical\nresurrection shows that physical death is meant; 2 Cor. 5:14\u2014\u201cone died for\nall, therefore all died.\u201d See Commentaries of Meyer, Bengel, Olshausen,\nPhilippi, Wordsworth, Lange, Godet, Shedd. This is also recognized as the\ncorrect interpretation of Paul\u2019s words by Beyschlag, Ritschl, and\nPfleiderer, although no one of these three accepts Paul\u2019s doctrine as\nauthoritative.\n\n\n Beyschlag, N. T. Theology, 2:58-60\u2014\u201cTo understand the apostle\u2019s\n view, we must follow the exposition of Bengel (which is favored\n also by Meyer and Pfleiderer): \u2018_Because they_\u2014viz., in Adam\u2014_all\n have sinned_\u2019; they all, namely, who were included in Adam\n according to the O. T. view which sees the whole race to its\n founder, acted in his action.\u201d Ritschl: \u201cCertainly Paul treated\n the universal destiny of death as due to the sin of Adam.\n Nevertheless it is not yet suited for a theological rule just for\n the reason that the apostle has formed this idea;\u201d in other words,\n Paul\u2019s teaching it does not make it binding upon our faith.\n Philippi, Com. on Rom., 168\u2014Interpret _Rom. 5:12_\u2014\u201c_one sinned for\n all, therefore all sinned_,\u201d by _2 Cor. 5:15_\u2014\u201c_one died for all,\n therefore all died._\u201d Evans, in Presb. Rev., 1883:294\u2014\u201c_by the\n trespass of the one the many died_,\u201d \u201c_by the trespass of the one,\n death reigned __ through the one_,\u201d \u201c_through the one man\u2019s\n disobedience_\u201d\u2014all these phrases, and the phrases with respect to\n salvation which correspond to them, indicate that the fallen race\n and the redeemed race are each regarded as a multitude, a\n totality. So \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3 in 2 Cor. 5:14 indicates a corresponding\n conception of the organic unity of the race.\n\n Prof. George B. Stevens, Pauline Theology, 32-40, 129-139, denies\n that Paul taught the sinning of all men in Adam: \u201cThey sinned in\n the same sense in which believers were crucified to the world and\n died unto sin when Christ died upon the cross. The believer\u2019s\n renewal is conceived as wrought in advance by those acts and\n experiences of Christ in which it has its ground. As the\n consequences of his vicarious sufferings are traced back to their\n cause, so are the consequences which flowed from the beginning of\n sin in Adam traced back to that original fount of evil and\n identified with it; but the latter statement should no more be\n treated as a rigid logical formula than the former, its\n counterpart.... There is a mystical identification of the\n procuring cause with its effect,\u2014both in the case of Adam and of\n Christ.\u201d\n\n In our treatment of the New School theory of sin we have pointed\n out that the inability to understand the vital union of the\n believer with Christ incapacitates the New School theologian from\n understanding the organic union of the race with Adam. Paul\u2019s\n phrase \u201c_in Christ_\u201d meant more than that Christ is the type and\n beginner of salvation, and sinning in Adam meant more to Paul than\n following the example or acting in the spirit of our first father.\n In _2 Cor. 5:14_ the argument is that since Christ died, all\n believers died to sin and death in him. Their resurrection-life is\n the same life that died and rose again in his death and\n resurrection. So Adam\u2019s sin is ours because the same life which\n transgressed and became corrupt in him has come down to us and is\n our possession. In _Rom. 5:14_, the individual and conscious sins\n to which the New School theory attaches the condemning sentence\n are expressly excluded, and in _verses 15-19_ the judgment is\n declared to be \u201c_of one trespass_.\u201d Prof. Wm. Arnold Stevens, of\n Rochester, says well: \u201cPaul teaches that Adam\u2019s sin is ours, not\n potentially, but actually.\u201d Of \u1f25\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, he says: \u201cThis might\n conceivably be: (1) the historical aorist proper, used in its\n momentary sense; (2) the comprehensive or collective aorist, as in\n \u03b4\u03b9\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd in the same verse; (3) the aorist used in the sense of the\n English perfect, as in _Rom. 3:23_\u2014\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f25\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. In _5:12_, the context determines with great\n probability that the aorist is used in the first of these senses.\u201d\n We may add that interpreters are not wanting who so take \u1f25\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n in _3:23_; see also margin of Rev. Version. But since the passage\n _Rom. 5:12-19_ is so important, we reserve to the close of this\n section a treatment of it in greater detail.\n\n\nB. It permits whatever of truth there may be in the Federal theory and in\nthe theory of Mediate Imputation to be combined with it, while neither of\nthese latter theories can be justified to reason unless they are regarded\nas corollaries or accessories of the truth of Adam\u2019s Natural Headship.\nOnly on this supposition of Natural Headship could God justly constitute\nAdam our representative, or hold us responsible for the depraved nature we\nhave received from him. It moreover justifies God\u2019s ways, in postulating a\nreal and a fair probation of our common nature as preliminary to\nimputation of sin\u2014a truth which the theories just mentioned, in common\nwith that of the New School, virtually deny,\u2014while it rests upon correct\nphilosophical principles with regard to will, ability, law, and accepts\nthe Scriptural representations of the nature of sin, the penal character\nof death, the origin of the soul, and the oneness of the race in the\ntransgression.\n\n\n John Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 1:196-232, favors the\n view that sin consists simply in an inherited bias of our nature\n to evil, and that we are guilty from birth because we are sinful\n from birth. But he recognizes in Augustinianism the truth of the\n organic unity of the race and the implication of every member in\n its past history. He tells us that we must not regard man simply\n as an abstract or isolated individual. The atomistic theory\n regards society as having no existence other than that of the\n individuals who compose it. But it is nearer the truth to say that\n it is society which creates the individual, rather than that the\n individual creates society. Man does not come into existence a\n blank tablet on which external agencies may write whatever record\n they will. The individual is steeped in influences which are due\n to the past history of his kind. The individualistic theory runs\n counter to the most obvious facts of observation and experience.\n As a philosophy of life, Augustinianism has a depth and\n significance which the individualistic theory cannot claim.\n\n Alvah Hovey, Manual of Christian Theology, 175 (2d ed.)\u2014\u201cEvery\n child of Adam is accountable for the degree of sympathy which he\n has for the whole system of evil in the world, and with the primal\n act of disobedience among men. If that sympathy is full, whether\n expressed by deed or thought, if the whole force of his being is\n arrayed against heaven and on the side of hell, it is difficult to\n limit his responsibility.\u201d Schleiermacher held that the guilt of\n original sin attached, not to the individual as an individual, but\n as a member of the race, so that the consciousness of race-union\n carried with it the consciousness of race-guilt. He held all men\n to be equally sinful and to differ only in their different\n reception of or attitude toward grace, sin being the universal\n _malum metaphysicum_ of Spinoza; see Pfleiderer, Prot. Theol. seit\n Kant, 113.\n\n\nC. While its fundamental presupposition\u2014a determination of the will of\neach member of the race prior to his individual consciousness\u2014is an\nhypothesis difficult in itself, it is an hypothesis which furnishes the\nkey to many more difficulties than it suggests. Once allow that the race\nwas one in its first ancestor and fell in him, and light is thrown on a\nproblem otherwise insoluble\u2014the problem of our accountability for a sinful\nnature which we have not personally and consciously originated. Since we\ncannot, with the three theories first mentioned, deny either of the terms\nof this problem\u2014inborn depravity or accountability for it,\u2014we accept this\nsolution as the best attainable.\n\n\n Sterrett, Reason and Authority in Religion, 20\u2014\u201cThe whole swing of\n the pendulum of thought of to-day is away from the individual and\n towards the social point of view. Theories of society are\n supplementing theories of the individual. The solidarity of man is\n the regnant thought in both the scientific and the historical\n study of man. It is even running into the extreme of a determinism\n that annihilates the individual.\u201d Chapman, Jesus Christ and the\n Present Age, 43\u2014\u201cIt was never less possible to deny the truth to\n which theology gives expression in its doctrine of original sin\n than in the present age. It is only one form of the universally\n recognized fact of heredity. There is a collective evil, for which\n the responsibility rests on the whole race of man. Of this common\n evil each man inherits his share; it is organized in his nature;\n it is established in his environment.\u201d E. G. Robinson: \u201cThe\n tendency of modern theology [in the last generation] was to\n individualization, to make each man \u2018a little Almighty.\u2019 But the\n human race is one in kind, and in a sense is numerically one. The\n race lay potentially in Adam. The entire developing force of the\n race was in him. There is no carrying the race up, except from the\n starting-point of a fallen and guilty humanity.\u201d Goethe said that\n while humanity ever advances, individual man remains the same.\n\n The true test of a theory is, not that it can itself be explained,\n but that it is capable of explaining. The atomic theory in\n chemistry, the theory of the ether in physics, the theory of\n gravitation, the theory of evolution, are all in themselves\n indemonstrable hypotheses, provisionally accepted simply because,\n if granted, they unify great aggregations of facts. Coleridge said\n that original sin is the one mystery that makes all other things\n clear. In this mystery, however, there is nothing\n self-contradictory or arbitrary. Gladden, What is Left?\n 131\u2014\u201cHeredity is God working in us, and environment is God working\n around us.\u201d Whether we adopt the theory of Augustine or not, the\n facts of universal moral obliquity and universal human suffering\n confront us. We are compelled to reconcile these facts with our\n faith in the righteousness and goodness of God. Augustine gives us\n a unifying principle which, better than any other, explains these\n facts and justifies them. On the solidarity of the race, see\n Bruce, The Providential Order, 280-310, and art. on Sin, by\n Bernard, in Hastings\u2019 Bible Dictionary.\n\n\nD. This theory finds support in the conclusions of modern science: with\nregard to the moral law, as requiring right states as well as right acts;\nwith regard to the human will, as including subconscious and unconscious\nbent and determination; with regard to heredity, and the transmission of\nevil character; with regard to the unity and solidarity of the human race.\nThe Augustinian theory may therefore be called an ethical or theological\ninterpretation of certain incontestable and acknowledged biological facts.\n\n\n Ribot, Heredity, 1\u2014\u201cHeredity is that biological law by which all\n beings endowed with life tend to repeat themselves in their\n descendants; it is for the species what personal identity is for\n the individual. By it a groundwork remains unchanged amid\n incessant variations. By it nature ever copies and imitates\n herself.\u201d Griffith-Jones, Ascent through Christ, 202-218\u2014\u201cIn man\u2019s\n moral condition we find arrested development; reversion to a\n savage type; hypocritical and self-protective mimicry of virtue;\n parasitism; physical and moral abnormality; deep-seated perversion\n of faculty.\u201d Simon, Reconciliation, 154 sq.\u2014\u201cThe organism was\n affected before the individuals which are its successive\n differentiations and products were affected.... Humanity as an\n organism received an injury from sin. It received that injury at\n the very beginning.... At the moment when the seed began to\n germinate disease entered and it was smitten with death on account\n of sin.\u201d\n\n Bowne, Theory of Thought and Knowledge, 134\u2014\u201cA general notion has\n no actual or possible metaphysical existence. All real existence\n is necessarily singular and individual. The only way to give the\n notion any metaphysical significance is to turn it into a law\n inherent in reality, and this attempt will fail unless we finally\n conceive this law as a rule according to which a basal\n intelligence proceeds in positing individuals.\u201d Sheldon, in the\n Methodist Review, March, 1901:214-227, applies this explanation to\n the doctrine of original sin. Men have a common nature, he says,\n only in the sense that they are resembling personalities. If we\n literally died in Adam, we also literally died in Christ. There is\n no all-inclusive Christ, any more than there is an all-inclusive\n Adam. We regard this argument as proving the precise opposite of\n its intended conclusion. There is an all-inclusive Christ, and the\n fundamental error of most of those who oppose Augustinianism is\n that they misconceive the union of the believer with Christ. \u201cA\n basal intelligence\u201d here \u201cposits individuals.\u201d And so with the\n relation of men to Adam. Here too there is \u201ca law inherent in\n reality\u201d\u2014the regular working of the divine will, according to\n which like produces like, and a sinful germ reproduces itself.\n\n\nE. We are to remember, however, that while this theory of the method of\nour union with Adam is merely a valuable hypothesis, the problem which it\nseeks to explain is, in both its terms, presented to us both by conscience\nand by Scripture. In connection with this problem a central fact is\nannounced in Scripture, which we feel compelled to believe upon divine\ntestimony, even though every attempted explanation should prove\nunsatisfactory. That central fact, which constitutes the substance of the\nScripture doctrine of original sin, is simply this: that the sin of Adam\nis the immediate cause and ground of inborn depravity, guilt and\ncondemnation to the whole human race.\n\n\n Three things must be received on Scripture testimony: (1) inborn\n depravity; (2) guilt and condemnation therefor; (3) Adam\u2019s sin the\n cause and ground of both. From these three positions of Scripture\n it seems not only natural, but inevitable, to draw the inference\n that we \u201c_all sinned_\u201d in Adam. The Augustinian theory simply puts\n in a link of connection between two sets of facts which otherwise\n would be difficult to reconcile. But, in putting in that link of\n connection, it claims that it is merely bringing out into clear\n light an underlying but implicit assumption of Paul\u2019s reasoning,\n and this it seeks to prove by showing that upon no other\n assumption can Paul\u2019s reasoning be understood at all. Since the\n passage in _Rom. 5:12-19_ is so important, we proceed to examine\n it in greater detail. Our treatment is mainly a reproduction of\n the substance of Shedd\u2019s Commentary, although we have combined\n with it remarks from Meyer, Schaff, Moule, and others.\n\n _Exposition of Rom. 5:12-19._\u2014_Parallel between the salvation in\n Christ and the ruin that has come through Adam_, in each case\n through no personal act of our own, neither by our earning\n salvation in the case of the life received through Christ, nor by\n our individually sinning in the case of the death received through\n Adam. The statement of the parallel is begun in\n\n _Verse 12_: \u201c_as through one man sin entered into the world, and\n death through sin, and so death passed unto all men, for that all\n sinned,_\u201d so (as we may complete the interrupted sentence) by one\n man righteousness entered into the world, and life by\n righteousness, and so life passed upon all men, because all became\n partakers of this righteousness. Both physical and spiritual death\n is meant. That it is physical is shown (1) from _verse 14_; (2)\n from the allusion to _Gen. 3:19_; (3) from the universal Jewish\n and Christian assumption that physical death was the result of\n Adam\u2019s sin. See Wisdom 2:23, 24; Sirach 25:24; 2 Esdras 3:7, 21;\n 7:11, 46, 48, 118; 9:19; _John 8:44_; _1 Cor. 15:21_. That it is\n spiritual, is evident from _Rom. 5:18, 21_, where \u03b6\u03c9\u03ae is the\n opposite of \u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, and from _2 Tim. 1:10_, where the same\n contrast occurs. The \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 in _verse 12_ shows the mode in which\n historically death has come to all, namely, that the _one_ sinned,\n and thereby brought death to all; in other words, death is the\n effect, of which the sin of the one is the cause. By Adam\u2019s act,\n physical and spiritual death passed upon all men, because all\n sinned. \u1f10\u03c6\u1fbd \u1fa6 = because, on the ground of the fact that, for the\n reason that, all sinned. \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 = all, without exception, infants\n included, as _verse 14_ teaches.\n\n \u1f2d\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd mentions the particular reason why all men died, _viz._,\n because all men sinned. It is the aorist of momentary past\n action\u2014sinned when, through the one, sin entered into the world.\n It is as much as to say, \u201cbecause, when Adam sinned, all men\n sinned in and with him.\u201d This is proved by the succeeding\n explanatory context (_verses 15-19_), in which it is reiterated\n five times in succession that one and only one sin is the cause of\n the death that befalls all men. Compare _1 Cor. 15:22_. The senses\n \u201call were sinful,\u201d \u201call became sinful,\u201d are inadmissible, for\n \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd is not \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 or \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. The sense \u201cdeath\n passed upon all men, because all have consciously and personally\n sinned,\u201d is contradicted (1) by _verse 14_, in which it is\n asserted that certain persons who are a part of \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, the\n subject of \u1f25\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, and who suffer the death which is the penalty\n of sin, did not commit sins resembling Adam\u2019s first sin, _i. e._,\n individual and conscious transgressions; and (2) by _verses\n 15-19_, in which it is asserted repeatedly that only one sin, and\n not millions of transgressions, is the cause of the death of all\n men. This sense would seem to require \u1f10\u03c6\u1fbd \u1fa7 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n Neither can \u1f25\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd have the sense \u201cwere accounted and treated as\n sinners\u201d; for (1) there is no other instance in Scripture where\n this active verb has a passive signification; and (2) the passive\n makes \u1f25\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd to denote God\u2019s action, and not man\u2019s. This would\n not furnish the justification of the infliction of death, which\n Paul is seeking,\n\n _Verse 13_ begins a demonstration of the proposition, in _Verse\n 12_, that death comes to all, because all men sinned the one sin\n of the one man. The argument is as follows: Before the law sin\n existed; for there was death, the penalty of sin. But this sin was\n not sin committed against the _Mosaic_ law, because that law was\n not yet in existence. The death in the world prior to that law\n proves that there must have been some other law, against which sin\n had been committed.\n\n _Verse 14_. Nor could it have been personal and conscious\n violation of an _unwritten_ law, for which death was inflicted;\n for death passed upon multitudes, such as infants and idiots, who\n did not sin in their own persons, as Adam did, by violating some\n known commandment. Infants are not specifically named here,\n because the intention is to include others who, though mature in\n years, have not reached moral consciousness. But since death is\n everywhere and always the penalty of sin, the death of all must\n have been the penalty of the common sin of the race, when \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n \u1f25\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd in Adam. The law which they violated was the Eden statute,\n _Gen. 2:17_. The relation between their sin and Adam\u2019s is not that\n of _resemblance_, but of _identity_. Had the sin by which death\n came upon them been one _like_ Adam\u2019s, there would have been as\n many sins, to be the cause of death and to account for it, as\n there were individuals. Death would have come into the world\n through millions of men, and not \u201c_through one man_\u201d (_verse 12_),\n and judgment would have come upon all men to condemnation through\n millions of trespasses, and not \u201c_through one trespass_\u201d (_v.\n 18_). The object, then, of the parenthetical digression in _verses\n 13_ and _14_ is to prevent the reader from supposing, from the\n statement that \u201call men sinned,\u201d that the individual\n transgressions of all men are meant, and to make it clear that\n only the one first sin of the one first man is intended. Those who\n died before Moses must have violated some law. The Mosaic law, and\n the law of conscience, have been ruled out of the case. These\n persons must, therefore, have sinned against the commandment in\n Eden, the probationary statute; and their sin was not _similar_\n (\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03bf\u03c2) to Adam\u2019s, but Adam\u2019s _identical_ sin, the very same sin\n numerically of the \u201c_one man_.\u201d They did not, in their own persons\n and consciously, sin as Adam did; yet in Adam, and in the nature\n common to him and them, they sinned and fell (_versus_ Current\n Discussions in Theology, 5:277, 278). They did not sin _like_\n Adam, but they \u201csinned _in_ him, and fell _with_ him, in that\n first transgression\u201d (Westminster Larger Catechism, 22).\n\n _Verses 15-17_ show how the work of grace differs from, and\n surpasses, the work of sin. Over against God\u2019s exact justice in\n punishing all for the first sin which all committed in Adam, is\n set the gratuitous justification of all who are in Christ. Adam\u2019s\n sin is the act of Adam and his posterity together; hence the\n imputation to the posterity is just, and merited. Christ\u2019s\n obedience is the work of Christ alone; hence the imputation of it\n to the elect is gracious and unmerited. Here \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 is not\n of equal extent with \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03af in the first clause, because other\n passages teach that \u201cthe many\u201d who die in Adam are not\n conterminous with \u201c_the many_\u201d who live in Christ; see _1 Cor.\n 15:22_; _Mat. 25:46_; also, see note on _verse 18_, below. \u03a4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 here refers to the same persons who, in _verse 17_, are\n said to \u201c_receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of\n righteousness_.\u201d _Verse 16_ notices a numerical difference between\n the condemnation and the justification. Condemnation results from\n _one_ offense; justification delivers from _many_ offences. _Verse\n 17_ enforces and explains _verse 16_. If the union with Adam in\n his sin was certain to bring destruction, the union with Christ in\n his righteousness is yet more certain to bring salvation.\n\n _Verse 18_ resumes the parallel between Adam and Christ which was\n commenced in _verse 12_, but was interrupted by the explanatory\n parenthesis in _verses 13-17_. \u201c_As through one trespass ... unto\n all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness\n ... unto all men unto justification of_ [necessary to] _life_.\u201d\n Here the \u201c_all men to condemnation_\u201d\u2014the \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03af in _verse 15_;\n and the \u201c_all men unto justification of life_\u201d\u2014the \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 in\n _verse 15_. There is a totality in each case; but, in the former\n case, it is the \u201c_all men_\u201d who derive their physical life from\n Adam,\u2014in the latter case, it is the \u201c_all men_\u201d who derive their\n spiritual life from Christ (compare _1 Cor. 15:22_\u2014\u201c_For as in\n Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive_\u201d\u2014in which\n last clause Paul is speaking, as the context shows, not of the\n resurrection of all men, both saints and sinners, but only of the\n blessed resurrection of the righteous; in other words, of the\n resurrection of those who are one with Christ).\n\n _Verse 19._ \u201c_For as through the one man\u2019s disobedience the many\n were constituted sinners, even so through the obedience of the one\n shall the many be constituted righteous._\u201d The many were\n constituted sinners because, according to _verse 12_, they sinned\n in and with Adam in his fall. The verb presupposes the fact of\n natural union between those to whom it relates. All men are\n declared to be sinners on the ground of that \u201c_one trespass_,\u201d\n because, when that one trespass was committed, all men were one\n man\u2014that is, were one common nature in the first human pair. Sin\n is imputed, because it is committed. All men are punished with\n death, because they literally sinned in Adam, and not because they\n are metaphorically reputed to have done so, but in fact did not.\n \u039f\u1f31 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03af is used in contrast with the one forefather, and the\n atonement of Christ is designated as \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03ae, in order to contrast\n it with the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03ae of Adam.\n\n \u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 has the same signification as in the first part of\n the verse. \u0394\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 means simply \u201cshall be\n justified,\u201d and is used instead of \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, in order to\n make the antithesis of \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd more perfect. This\n being \u201c_constituted righteous_\u201d presupposes the fact of a union\n between \u1f41 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 and \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03af, _i. e._, between Christ and\n believers, just as the being \u201c_constituted sinners_\u201d presupposed\n the fact of a union between \u1f41 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 and \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03af, _i. e._, between\n all men and Adam. The future \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 refers to the\n succession of believers; the _justification_ of all was, ideally,\n complete already, but actually, it would await the times of\n individual believing. \u201c_The many_\u201d who shall be \u201c_constituted\n righteous_\u201d\u2014not all mankind, but only \u201c_the many_\u201d to whom, in\n _verse 15_, grace abounded, and who are described, in _verse 17_,\n as \u201c_they that receive abundance of grace and of the gift of\n righteousness_.\u201d\n\n \u201cBut this union differs in several important particulars from that\n between Adam and his posterity. It is not natural and substantial,\n but moral and spiritual; not generic and universal, but individual\n and by election; not caused by the creative act of God, but by his\n regenerating act. All men, without exception, are one with Adam;\n only believing men are one with Christ. The imputation of Adam\u2019s\n sin is not an arbitrary act in the sense that, if God so pleased,\n he could reckon it to the account of any beings in the universe,\n by a volition. The sin of Adam could not be imputed to the fallen\n angels, for example, and punished in them, because they never were\n one with Adam by unity of substance and nature. The fact that they\n have committed actual transgression of their own will not justify\n the imputation of Adam\u2019s sin to them, any more than the fact that\n the posterity of Adam have committed actual transgressions of\n their own would be a sufficient reason for imputing the first sin\n of Adam to them. Nothing but a real union of nature and being can\n justify the imputation of Adam\u2019s sin; and, similarly, the\n obedience of Christ could no more be imputed to an unbelieving man\n than to a lost angel, because neither of these is morally and\n spiritually one with Christ\u201d (Shedd). For a different\n interpretation (\u1f21\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u2014sinned personally and individually), see\n Kendrick, in Bap. Rev., 1885:48-72.\n\n\nNo Condemnation Inherited.\n\n Pelagian. Arminian. New School.\n\nI. Origin of Immediate Immediate Immediate\nthe soul. Creation. creation. creation.\nII. Man\u2019s state Innocent, and Depraved, but Depraved and\nat birth. able to obey still able to vicious, but\n God. co-operate with this not sin.\n the Spirit.\nIII. Effects of Only upon To corrupt his To communicate\nAdam\u2019s sin. himself. posterity visiosity to the\n physically and whole race.\n intellectually.\n No guilt of\n Adam\u2019s sin\n imputed.\nIV. How did all By following By consciously By voluntary\nsin? Adam\u2019s example. ratifying Adam\u2019s transgression of\n own deed, in known law.\n spite of the\n Spirit\u2019s aid.\nV. What is Only of evil Evil tendencies Uncondemnable,\ncorruption? habit, in each kept in spite of but evil\n case. the Spirit. tendencies.\nVI. What is Every man\u2019s own Only man\u2019s own Man\u2019s individual\nimputed? sins. sins and acts of\n ratifying of transgression.\n this nature.\nVII. What is Spiritual and Physical and Spiritual and\nthe death eternal. spiritual death eternal death\nincurred? by decree. only.\nVIII. How are By following By co-operating By accepting\nmen saved? Christ\u2019s with the Spirit Christ under\n example. given to all. influence of\n truth presented\n by the Spirit.\n\nCondemnation Inherited.\n\n Federal. Placean. Augustinian.\n\nI. Origin of Immediate Immediate Immediate\nthe soul. creation. creation. creation.\nII. Man\u2019s state Depraved, Depraved, Depraved,\nat birth. unable, and unable, and unable, and\n condemnable. condemnable. condemnable.\nIII. Effects of To insure Natural Guilt of Adam\u2019s\nAdam\u2019s sin. condemnation of connection of sin, corruption,\n his fellows in depravity in all and death.\n covenant, and his descendants.\n their creation\n as depraved.\nIV. How did all By being By possessing a By having part\nsin? accounted depraved nature. in the sin of\n sinners in Adam, as seminal\n Adam\u2019s sin. head of the\n race.\nV. What is Condemnable, Condemnable, Condemnable,\ncorruption? evil disposition evil disposition evil disposition\n and state. and state. and state.\nVI. What is Adam\u2019s sin, Only depraved Adam\u2019s sin, our\nimputed? man\u2019s own nature and man\u2019s depravity, and\n corruption, and own sin. our own sins.\n man\u2019s own sins.\nVII. What is Physical, Physical, Physical,\nthe death spiritual, and spiritual, and spiritual, and\nincurred? eternal. eternal. eternal.\nVIII. How are By being By becoming By Christ\u2019s\nmen saved? accounted possessors of a work, with whom\n righteous new nature in we are one.\n through the act Christ.\n of Christ.\n\n\nII.\u2014Objections to the Augustinian Doctrine of Imputation.\n\n\nThe doctrine of Imputation, to which we have thus arrived, is met by its\nopponents with the following objections. In discussing them, we are to\nremember that a truth revealed in Scripture may have claims to our belief,\nin spite of difficulties to us insoluble. Yet it is hoped that examination\nwill show the objections in question to rest either upon false\nphilosophical principles or upon misconception of the doctrine assailed.\n\nA. That there can be no sin apart from and prior to consciousness.\n\nThis we deny. The larger part of men\u2019s evil dispositions and acts are\nimperfectly conscious, and of many such dispositions and acts the evil\nquality is not discerned at all. The objection rests upon the assumption\nthat law is confined to published statutes or to standards formally\nrecognized by its subjects. A profounder view of law as identical with the\nconstituent principles of being, as binding the nature to conformity with\nthe nature of God, as demanding right volitions only because these are\nmanifestations of a right state, as having claims upon men in their\ncorporate capacity, deprives this objection of all its force.\n\n\n If our aim is to find a conscious act of transgression upon which\n to base God\u2019s charge of guilt and man\u2019s condemnation, we can find\n this more easily in Adam\u2019s sin than at the beginning of each man\u2019s\n personal history; for no human being can remember his first sin.\n The main question at issue is therefore this: Is all sin personal?\n We claim that both Scripture and reason answer this question in\n the negative. There is such a thing as race-sin and\n race-responsibility.\n\n\nB. That man cannot be responsible for a sinful nature which he did not\npersonally originate.\n\nWe reply that the objection ignores the testimony of conscience and of\nScripture. These assert that we are responsible for what we are. The\nsinful nature is not something external to us, but is our inmost selves.\nIf man\u2019s original righteousness and the new affection implanted in\nregeneration have moral character, then the inborn tendency to evil has\nmoral character; as the former are commendable, so the latter is\ncondemnable.\n\n\n If it be said that sin is the act of a person, and not of a\n nature, we reply that in Adam the whole human nature once\n subsisted in the form of a single personality, and the act of the\n person could be at the same time the act of the nature. That which\n could not be at any subsequent point of time, could be and was, at\n that time. Human nature could fall _in Adam_, though that fall\n could not be repeated in the case of any one of his descendants.\n Hovey, Outlines, 129\u2014\u201cShall we say that _will_ is the cause of sin\n in holy beings, while _wrong desire_ is the cause of sin in unholy\n beings? Augustine held this.\u201d Pepper, Outlines, 112\u2014\u201cWe do not\n fall each one by himself. We were so on probation in Adam, that\n his fall was our fall.\u201d\n\n\nC. That Adam\u2019s sin cannot be imputed to us, since we cannot repent of it.\n\nThe objection has plausibility only so long as we fail to distinguish\nbetween Adam\u2019s sin as the inward apostasy of the nature from God, and\nAdam\u2019s sin as the outward act of transgression which followed and\nmanifested that apostasy. We cannot indeed repent of Adam\u2019s sin as our\npersonal act or as Adam\u2019s personal act, but regarding his sin as the\napostasy of our common nature\u2014an apostasy which manifests itself in our\npersonal transgressions as it did in his, we can repent of it and do\nrepent of it. In truth it is this nature, as self-corrupted and averse to\nGod, for which the Christian most deeply repents.\n\n\n God, we know, has not made our nature as we find it. We are\n conscious of our depravity and apostasy from God. We know that God\n cannot be responsible for this; we know that our nature is\n responsible. But this it could not be, unless its corruption were\n self-corruption. For this self-corrupted nature we should repent,\n and do repent. Anselm, De Concep. Virg., 23\u2014\u201cAdam sinned in one\n point of view as a person, in another as man (_i. e._, as human\n nature which at that time existed in him alone). But since Adam\n and humanity could not be separated, the sin of the person\n necessarily affected the _nature_. This nature is what Adam\n transmitted to his posterity, and transmitted it such as his sin\n had made it, burdened with a debt which it could not pay, robbed\n of the righteousness with which God had originally invested it;\n and in every one of his descendants this impaired nature makes the\n _persons_ sinners. Yet not in the same degree sinners as Adam was,\n for the latter sinned both as human nature and as a person, while\n new-born infants sin only as they possess the nature.\u201d\u2014more\n briefly, in Adam a person made nature sinful; in his posterity,\n nature makes persons sinful.\n\n\nD. That, if we be responsible for Adam\u2019s first sin, we must also be\nresponsible not only for every other sin of Adam, but for the sins of our\nimmediate ancestors.\n\nWe reply that the apostasy of human nature could occur but once. It\noccurred in Adam before the eating of the forbidden fruit, and revealed\nitself in that eating. The subsequent sins of Adam and of our immediate\nancestors are no longer acts which determine or change the nature,\u2014they\nonly show what the nature is. Here is the truth and the limitation of the\nScripture declaration that \u201cthe son shall not bear the iniquity of the\nfather\u201d (Ez. 18:20; _cf._ Luke 13:2, 3; John 9:2, 3). Man is not\nresponsible for the specifically evil tendencies communicated to him from\nhis immediate ancestors, as distinct from the nature he possesses; nor is\nhe responsible for the sins of those ancestors which originated these\ntendencies. But he is responsible for that original apostasy which\nconstituted the one and final revolt of the race from God, and for the\npersonal depravity and disobedience which in his own case has resulted\ntherefrom.\n\n\n Augustine, Encheiridion, 46, 47, leans toward an imputing of the\n sins of immediate ancestors, but intimates that, as a matter of\n grace, this may be limited to \u201c_the third and fourth generation_\u201d\n (_Ex. 20:5_). Aquinas thinks this last is said by God, because\n fathers live to see the third and fourth generation of their\n descendants, and influence them by their example to become\n voluntarily like themselves. Burgesse, Original Sin, 397, adds the\n covenant-idea to that of natural generation, in order to prevent\n imputation of the sins of immediate ancestors as well as those of\n Adam. So also Shedd. But Baird, Elohim Revealed, 508, gives a\n better explanation, when he distinguishes between the first sin of\n nature when it apostatized, and those subsequent personal actions\n which merely manifest the nature but do not change it. Imagine\n Adam to have remained innocent, but one of his posterity to have\n fallen. Then the descendants of that one would have been guilty\n for the change of nature in him, but not guilty for the sins of\n ancestors intervening between him and them.\n\n We add that man may direct the course of a lava-stream, already\n flowing downward, into some particular channel, and may even dig a\n new channel for it down the mountain. But the stream is constant\n in its quantity and quality, and is under the same influence of\n gravitation in all stages of its progress. I am responsible for\n the downward tendency which my nature gave itself at the\n beginning; but I am not responsible for inherited and specifically\n evil tendencies as something apart from the nature,\u2014for they are\n not apart from it,\u2014they are forms or manifestations of it. These\n tendencies run out after a time,\u2014not so with sin of nature. The\n declaration of Ezekiel (_18:20_), \u201c_the son shall not bear the\n iniquity of the father,_\u201d like Christ\u2019s denial that blindness was\n due to the blind man\u2019s individual sins or those of his parents\n (_John 9:2, 3_), simply shows that God does not impute to us the\n sins of our immediate ancestors; it is not inconsistent with the\n doctrine that all the physical and moral evil of the world is the\n result of a sin of Adam with which the whole race is chargeable.\n\n Peculiar tendencies to avarice or sensuality inherited from one\u2019s\n immediate ancestry are merely wrinkles in native depravity which\n add nothing to its amount or its guilt. Shedd, Dogm. Theol.,\n 2:88-94\u2014\u201cTo inherit a temperament is to inherit a secondary\n trait.\u201d H. B. Smith, System, 296\u2014\u201cEzekiel 18 does not deny that\n descendants are involved in the evil results of ancestral sins,\n under God\u2019s moral government; but simply shows that there is\n opportunity for extrication, in personal repentance and\n obedience.\u201d Mozley on Predestination, 179\u2014\u201cAugustine says that\n Ezekiel\u2019s declarations that the son shall not bear the iniquity of\n the father are not a universal law of the divine dealings, but\n only a special prophetical one, as alluding to the divine mercy\n under the gospel dispensation and the covenant of grace, under\n which the effect of original sin and the punishment of mankind for\n the sin of their first parent was removed.\u201d See also Dorner,\n Glaubenslehre, 2:31 (Syst. Doct., 2:326, 327), where God\u2019s\n visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children (Ex. 20:5) is\n explained by the fact that the children repeat the sins of the\n parents. German proverb: \u201cThe apple does not fall far from the\n tree.\u201d\n\n\nE. That if Adam\u2019s sin and condemnation can be ours by propagation, the\nrighteousness and faith of the believer should be propagable also.\n\nWe reply that no merely personal qualities, whether of sin or\nrighteousness, are communicated by propagation. Ordinary generation does\nnot transmit _personal_ guilt, but only that guilt which belongs to the\nwhole _species_. So personal faith and righteousness are not propagable.\n\u201cOriginal sin is the consequent of man\u2019s _nature_, whereas the parents\u2019\ngrace is a _personal_ excellence, and cannot be transmitted\u201d (Burgesse).\n\n\n Thornwell, Selected Writings, 1:543, says the Augustinian doctrine\n would imply that Adam, penitent and believing, must have begotten\n penitent and believing children, seeing that the nature as it is\n in the parent always flows from parent to child. But see Fisher,\n Discussions, 370, where Aquinas holds that no quality or guilt\n that is _personal_ is propagated (Thomas Aquinas, 2:629). Anselm\n (De Concept. Virg. et Origin. Peccato, 98) will not decide the\n question. \u201cThe original nature of the tree is propagated\u2014not the\n nature of the graft\u201d\u2014when seed from the graft is planted.\n Burgesse: \u201cLearned parents do not convey learning to their\n children, but they are born in ignorance as others.\u201d Augustine: \u201cA\n Jew that was circumcised begat children not circumcised, but\n uncircumcised; and the seed that was sown without husks, yet\n produced corn with husks.\u201d\n\n The recent modification of Darwinism by Weismann has confirmed the\n doctrine of the text. Lamarck\u2019s view was that development of each\n race has taken place through the _effort_ of the individuals,\u2014the\n giraffe has a long neck because successive giraffes have reached\n for food on high trees. Darwin held that development has taken\n place not because of effort, but because of _environment_, which\n kills the unfit and permits the fit to survive,\u2014the giraffe has a\n long neck because among the children of giraffes only the\n long-necked ones could reach the fruit, and of successive\n generations of giraffes only the long-necked ones lived to\n propagate. But Weismann now tells us that even then there would be\n no development unless there were a spontaneous _innate tendency_\n in giraffes to become long-necked,\u2014nothing is of avail after the\n giraffe is born; all depends upon the germs in the parents. Darwin\n held to the transmission of acquired characters, so that\n individual men are _affluents_ of the stream of humanity; Weismann\n holds, on the contrary, that acquired characters are not\n transmitted, and that individual men are only _effluents_ of the\n stream of humanity: the stream gives its characteristics to the\n individuals, but the individuals do not give their characteristics\n to the stream: see Howard Ernest Cushman, in The Outlook, Jan. 10,\n 1897.\n\n Weismann, Heredity, 2:14, 266-270, 482\u2014\u201cCharacters only acquired\n by the operation of external circumstances, acting during the life\n of the individual, cannot be transmitted.... The loss of a finger\n is not inherited; increase of an organ by exercise is a purely\n personal acquirement and is not transmitted; no child of reading\n parents ever read without being taught; children do not even learn\n to speak untaught.\u201d Horses with docked tails, Chinese women with\n cramped feet, do not transmit their peculiarities. The rupture of\n the hymen in women is not transmitted. Weismann cut off the tails\n of 66 white mice in five successive generations, but of 901\n offspring none were tailless. G. J. Romanes, Life and Letters,\n 300\u2014\u201cThree additional cases of cats which have lost their tails\n having tailless kittens afterwards.\u201d In his Weismannism, Romanes\n writes: \u201cThe truly scientific attitude of mind with regard to the\n problem of heredity is to say with Galton: \u2018We might almost\n reserve our belief that the structural cells can react on the\n sexual elements at all, and we may be confident that at most they\n do so in a very faint degree; in other words, that acquired\n modifications are barely if at all _inherited_, in the correct\n sense of that word.\u2019 \u201d This seems to class both Romanes and Galton\n on the side of Weismann in the controversy. Burbank, however, says\n that \u201cacquired characters are transmitted, or I know nothing of\n plant life.\u201d\n\n A. H. Bradford, Heredity, 19, 20, illustrates the opposing views:\n \u201cHuman life is not a clear stream flowing from the mountains,\n receiving in its varied course something from a thousand rills and\n rivulets on the surface and in the soil, so that it is no longer\n pure as at the first. To this view of Darwin and Spencer, Weismann\n and Haeckel oppose the view that human life is rather a stream\n flowing underground from the mountains to the sea, and rising now\n and then in fountains, some of which are saline, some sulphuric,\n and some tinctured with iron; and that the differences are due\n entirely to the soil passed through in breaking forth to the\n surface, the mother-stream down and beneath all the salt, sulphur\n and iron, flowing on toward the sea substantially unchanged. If\n Darwin is correct, then we must change individuals in order to\n change their posterity. If Weismann is correct, then we must\n change environment in order that better individuals may be born.\n That which is born of the Spirit is spirit; but that which is born\n of spirit tainted by corruptions of the flesh is still tainted.\u201d\n\n The conclusion best warranted by science seems to be that of\n Wallace, in the Forum, August, 1890, namely, that there is always\n a _tendency_ to transmit acquired characters, but that only those\n which affect the blood and nervous system, like drunkenness and\n syphilis, overcome the fixed habit of the organism and make\n themselves permanent. Applying this principle now to the\n connection of Adam with the race, we regard the sin of Adam as a\n radical one, comparable only to the act of faith which merges the\n soul in Christ. It was a turning away of the whole being from the\n light and love of God, and a setting of the face toward darkness\n and death. Every subsequent act was an act in the same direction,\n but an act which manifested, not altered, the nature. This first\n act of sin deprived the nature of all moral sustenance and growth,\n except so far as the still immanent God counteracted the inherent\n tendencies to evil. Adam\u2019s posterity inherited his corrupt nature,\n but they do not inherit any subsequently acquired characters,\n either those of their first father or of their immediate\n ancestors.\n\n Bascom, Comparative Psychology, chap. VII\u2014\u201cModifications, however\n great, like artificial disablement, that do not work into\n physiological structure, do not transmit themselves. The more\n conscious and voluntary our acquisitions are, the less are they\n transmitted by inheritance.\u201d Shaler, Interpretation of Nature,\n 88\u2014\u201cHeredity and individual action may combine their forces and so\n intensify one or more of the inherited motives that the form is\n affected by it and the effect may be transmitted to the offspring.\n So conflict of inheritances may lead to the institution of\n variety. Accumulation of impulses may lead to sudden revolution,\n and the species may be changed, not by environment, but by contest\n between the host of inheritances.\u201d Visiting the sins of the\n fathers upon the children was thought to be outrageous doctrine,\n so long as it was taught only in Scripture. It is now vigorously\n applauded, since it takes the name of heredity. _Dale, Ephesians,\n 189_\u2014\u201cWhen we were young, we fought with certain sins and killed\n them; they trouble us no more; but their ghosts seem to rise from\n their graves in the distant years and to clothe themselves in the\n flesh and blood of our children.\u201d See A. M. Marshall, Biological\n Lectures, 273; Mivart, in Harper\u2019s Magazine, March, 1895:682;\n Bixby, Crisis in Morals, 176.\n\n\nF. That, if all moral consequences are properly penalties, sin, considered\nas a sinful nature, must be the punishment of sin, considered as the act\nof our first parents.\n\nBut we reply that the impropriety of punishing sin with sin vanishes when\nwe consider that the sin which is punished is our own, equally with the\nsin with which we are punished. The objection is valid as against the\nFederal theory or the theory of Mediate Imputation, but not as against the\ntheory of Adam\u2019s Natural Headship. To deny that God, through the operation\nof second causes, may punish the act of transgression by the habit and\ntendency which result from it, is to ignore the facts of every-day life,\nas well as the statements of Scripture in which sin is represented as ever\nreproducing itself, and with each reproduction increasing its guilt and\npunishment (Rom. 6:19; James 1:15.)\n\n\n _Rom. 6:19_\u2014\u201c_as ye presented your members as servants to\n uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity, even so now present\n your members as servants to righteousness unto sanctification_\u201d;\n _Eph. 4:22_\u2014\u201c_waxeth corrupt after the lusts of deceit_\u201d; _James\n 1:15_\u2014\u201c_Then the lust, when it hath conceived, beareth sin: and\n the sin, when it is full-grown, bringeth forth death_\u201d; _2 Tim.\n 3:13_\u2014\u201c_evil men and impostors shall wax worse and worse,\n deceiving and being deceived._\u201d See Meyer on _Rom.\n 1:24_\u2014\u201c_Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts\n unto uncleanness._\u201d All effects become in their turn causes.\n Schiller: \u201cThis is the very curse of evil deed, That of new evil\n it becomes the seed.\u201d Tennyson, Vision of Sin: \u201cBehold it was a\n crime Of sense, avenged by sense that wore with time. Another\n said: The crime of sense became The crime of malice, and is equal\n blame.\u201d Whiton, Is Eternal Punishment Endless, 52\u2014\u201cThe punishment\n of sin essentially consists in the wider spread and stronger hold\n of the malady of the soul. _Prov. 5:22_\u2014\u2018_His own iniquities shall\n take the wicked._\u2019 The habit of sinning holds the wicked \u2018_with\n the cords of his sin_.\u2019 Sin is self-perpetuating. The sinner\n gravitates from worse to worse, in an ever-deepening fall.\u201d The\n least of our sins has in it a power of infinite expansion,\u2014left to\n itself it would flood a world with misery and destruction.\n\n Wisdom, 11:16\u2014\u201cWherewithal a man sinneth, by the same also he\n shall be punished.\u201d Shakespeare, Richard II, 5:5\u2014\u201cI wasted time,\n and now doth time waste me\u201d; Richard III, 4:2\u2014\u201cI am in so far in\n blood, that sin will pluck on sin\u201d; Pericles, 1:1\u2014\u201cOne sin I know\n another doth provoke; Murder\u2019s as near to lust as flame to smoke;\u201d\n King Lear, 5:3\u2014\u201cThe gods are just, and of our pleasant vices Make\n instruments to scourge us.\u201d \u201cMarlowe\u2019s Faustus typifies the\n continuous degradation of a soul that has renounced its ideal, and\n the drawing on of one vice by another, for they go hand in hand\n like the Hours\u201d (James Russell Lowell). Mrs. Humphrey Ward, David\n Grieve, 410\u2014\u201cAfter all, there\u2019s not much hope when the craving\n returns on a man of his age, especially after some years\u2019\n interval.\u201d\n\n\nG. That the doctrine excludes all separate probation of individuals since\nAdam, by making their moral life a mere manifestation of tendencies\nreceived from him.\n\nWe reply that the objection takes into view only our connection with the\nrace, and ignores the complementary and equally important fact of each\nman\u2019s personal will. That personal will does more than simply express the\nnature; it may to a certain extent curb the nature, or it may, on the\nother hand, add a sinful character and influence of its own. There is, in\nother words, a remainder of freedom, which leaves room for personal\nprobation, in addition to the race-probation in Adam.\n\n\n Kreibig, Vers\u00f6hnungslehre, objects to the Augustinian view that if\n personal sin proceeds from original, the only thing men are guilty\n for is Adam\u2019s sin; all subsequent sin is a spontaneous\n development; the individual will can only manifest its inborn\n character. But we reply that this is a misrepresentation of\n Augustine. He does not thus lose sight of the remainders of\n freedom in man (see references on page 620, in the statement of\n Augustine\u2019s view, and in the section following this, on Ability,\n 640-644). He says that the corrupt tree may produce the wild fruit\n of morality, though not the divine fruit of grace. It is not true\n that the will is absolutely as the character. Though character is\n the surest index as to what the decisions of the will may be, it\n is not an infallible one. Adam\u2019s first sin, and the sins of men\n after regeneration, prove this. Irregular, spontaneous,\n exceptional though these decisions are, they are still acts of the\n will, and they show that the agent is not _bound_ by motives nor\n by character.\n\n Here is our answer to the question whether it be not a sin to\n propagate the race and produce offspring. Each child has a\n personal will which may have a probation of its own and a chance\n for deliverance. Denney, Studies in Theology, 87-99\u2014\u201cWhat we\n inherit may be said to fix our trial, but not our fate. We belong\n to God as well as to the past.\u201d \u201c_All souls are mine_\u201d (_Ez.\n 18:4_); \u201c_Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice_\u201d (_John\n 18:37_). Thomas Fuller: \u201c1. Roboam begat Abia; that is, a bad\n father begat a bad son; 2. Abia begat Asa; that is, a bad father\n begat a good son; & Asa begat Josaphat; that is, a good father a\n good son; 4. Josaphat begat Joram; that is, a good father a bad\n son. I see, Lord, from hence, that my father\u2019s piety cannot be\n entailed; that is bad news for me. But I see that actual impiety\n is not always hereditary; that is good news for my son.\u201d Butcher,\n Aspects of Greek Genius, 121\u2014Among the Greeks, \u201cThe popular view\n was that guilt is inherited; that is, that the children are\n punished for their fathers\u2019 sins. The view of \u00c6schylus, and of\n Sophocles also, was that a tendency towards guilt was inherited,\n but that this tendency does not annihilate man\u2019s free will. If\n therefore the children are punished, they are punished for their\n own sins. But Sophocles saw the further truth that innocent\n children may suffer for their fathers\u2019 sins.\u201d\n\n Julius M\u00fcller, Doc. Sin, 2:316\u2014\u201cThe merely organic theory of sin\n leads to naturalism, which endangers not only the doctrine of a\n final judgment, but that of personal immortality generally.\u201d In\n preaching, therefore, we should begin with the known and\n acknowledged sins of men. We should lay the same stress upon our\n connection with Adam that the Scripture does, to explain the\n problem of universal and inveterate sinful tendencies, to enforce\n our need of salvation from this common ruin, and to illustrate our\n connection with Christ. Scripture does not, and we need not, make\n our responsibility for Adam\u2019s sin the great theme of preaching.\n See A. H. Strong, on Christian Individualism, and on The New\n Theology, in Philosophy and Religion, 156-163, 164-179.\n\n\nH. That the organic unity of the race in the transgression is a thing so\nremote from common experience that the preaching of it neutralizes all\nappeals to the conscience.\n\nBut whatever of truth there is in this objection is due to the\nself-isolating nature of sin. Men feel the unity of the family, the\nprofession, the nation to which they belong, and, just in proportion to\nthe breadth of their sympathies and their experience of divine grace, do\nthey enter into Christ\u2019s feeling of unity with the race (_cf._ Is. 6:5;\nLam. 3:39-45; Ezra 9:6; Neh. 1:6). The fact that the self-contained and\nself-seeking recognize themselves as responsible only for their personal\nacts should not prevent our pressing upon men\u2019s attention the more\nsearching standards of the Scriptures. Only thus can the Christian find a\nsolution for the dark problem of a corruption which is inborn yet\ncondemnable; only thus can the unregenerate man be led to a full knowledge\nof the depth of his ruin and of his absolute dependence upon God for\nsalvation.\n\n\n Identification of the individual with the nation or the race: _Is.\n 6:5_\u2014\u201c_Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean\n lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips_\u201d;\n _Lam. 3:42_\u2014\u201c_We have transgressed and have rebelled_\u201d; _Ezra\n 9:6_\u2014\u201c_I am ashamed and blush to lift up my face to thee, my God;\n for our iniquities are increased over our head_\u201d; _Neh. 1:6_\u2014\u201c_I\n confess the sins of the children of Israel.... Yea, I and my\n father\u2019s house have sinned._\u201d So God punishes all Israel for\n David\u2019s sin of pride; so the sins of Reuben, Canaan, Achan,\n Gehazi, are visited on their children or descendants.\n\n H. B. Smith, System, 296, 297\u2014\u201cUnder the moral government of God\n one man may justly suffer on account of the sins of another. An\n organic relation of men is regarded in the great judgment of God\n in history.... There is evil which comes upon individuals, not as\n punishment for their personal sins, but still as suffering which\n comes under a moral government.... _Jer. 32:18_ reasserts the\n declaration of the second commandment, that God visits the\n iniquity of the fathers upon their children. It may be said that\n all these are merely \u2018consequences\u2019 of family or tribal or\n national or race relations,\u2014\u2018Evil becomes cosmical by reason of\n fastening on relations which were originally adapted to making\n good cosmical:\u2019 but then God\u2019s _plan_ must be in the\n consequences\u2014a plan administered by a moral being, over moral\n beings, according to moral considerations, and for moral ends;\n and, if that be fully taken into view, the dispute as to\n \u2019consequences\u2019 or \u2019punishment\u2019 becomes a merely verbal one.\u201d\n\n There is a common conscience over and above the private\n conscience, and it controls individuals, as appears in great\n crises like those at which the fall of Fort Sumter summoned men to\n defend the Union and the Proclamation of Emancipation sounded the\n death-knell of slavery. Coleridge said that original sin is the\n one mystery that makes all things clear; see Fisher, Nature and\n Method of Revelation, 151-157. Bradford, Heredity, 34, quotes from\n Elam, A Physician\u2019s Problems, 5\u2014\u201cAn acquired and habitual vice\n will rarely fail to leave its trace upon one or more of the\n offspring, either in its original form, or one closely allied. The\n habit of the parent becomes the all but irresistible impulse of\n the child; ... the organic tendency is excited to the uttermost,\n and the power of will and of conscience is proportionally\n weakened.... So the sins of the parents are visited upon the\n children.\u201d\n\n Pascal: \u201cIt is astonishing that the mystery which is furthest\n removed from our knowledge\u2014I mean the transmission of original\n sin\u2014should be that without which we have no true knowledge of\n ourselves. It is in this abyss that the clue to our condition\n takes its turnings and windings, insomuch that man is more\n incomprehensible without the mystery than this mystery is\n incomprehensible to man.\u201d Yet Pascal\u2019s perplexity was largely due\n to his holding the Augustinian position that inherited sin is\n damning and brings eternal death, while not holding to the\n co\u00f6rdinate Augustinian position of a primary existence and act of\n the species in Adam; see Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:18. Atomism is\n egotistic. The purest and noblest feel most strongly that humanity\n is not like a heap of sand-grains or a row of bricks set on end,\n but that it is an organic unity. So the Christian feels for the\n family and for the church. So Christ, in Gethsemane, felt for the\n race. If it be said that the tendency of the Augustinian view is\n to diminish the sense of guilt for personal sins, we reply that\n only those who recognize _sins_ as rooted in _sin_ can properly\n recognize the evil of them. To such they are _symptoms_ of an\n apostasy from God so deep-seated and universal that nothing but\n infinite grace can deliver us from it.\n\n\nI. That a constitution by which the sin of one individual involves in\nguilt and condemnation the nature of all men who descend from him is\ncontrary to God\u2019s justice.\n\nWe acknowledge that no human theory can fully solve the mystery of\nimputation. But we prefer to attribute God\u2019s dealings to justice rather\nthan to sovereignty. The following considerations, though partly\nhypothetical, may throw light upon the subject: (_a_) A probation of our\ncommon nature in Adam, sinless as he was and with full knowledge of God\u2019s\nlaw, is more consistent with divine justice than a separate probation of\neach individual, with inexperience, inborn depravity, and evil example,\nall favoring a decision against God. (_b_) A constitution which made a\ncommon fall possible may have been indispensable to any provision of a\ncommon salvation. (_c_) Our chance for salvation as sinners under grace\nmay be better than it would have been as sinless Adams under law. (_d_) A\nconstitution which permitted oneness with the first Adam in the\ntransgression cannot be unjust, since a like principle of oneness with\nChrist, the second Adam, secures our salvation. (_e_) There is also a\n_physical_ and _natural_ union with Christ which antedates the fall and\nwhich is incident to man\u2019s creation. The immanence of Christ in humanity\nguarantees a continuous divine effort to remedy the disaster caused by\nman\u2019s free will, and to restore the _moral_ union with God which the race\nhas lost by the fall.\n\nThus our ruin and our redemption were alike wrought out without personal\nact of ours. As all the natural life of humanity was in Adam, so all the\nspiritual life of humanity was in Christ. As our old nature was corrupted\nin Adam and propagated to us by physical generation, so our new nature was\nrestored in Christ and communicated to us by the regenerating work of the\nHoly Spirit. If then we are justified upon the ground of our inbeing in\nChrist, we may in like manner be condemned on the ground of our inbeing in\nAdam.\n\n\n Stearns, in N. Eng., Jan. 1882:95\u2014\u201cThe silence of Scripture\n respecting the precise connection between the first great sin and\n the sins of the millions of individuals who have lived since then\n is a silence that neither science nor philosophy has been, or is,\n able to break with a satisfactory explanation. Separate the\n twofold nature of man, corporate and individual. Recognize in the\n one the region of necessity; in the other the region of freedom.\n The scientific law of heredity has brought into new currency the\n doctrine which the old theologians sought to express under the\n name of original sin,\u2014a term which had a meaning as it was at\n first used by Augustine, but which is an awkward misnomer if we\n accept any other theory but his.\u201d\n\n Dr. Hovey claims that the Augustinian view breaks down when\n applied to the connection between the justification of believers\n and the righteousness of Christ; for believers were not in Christ,\n as to the substance of their souls, when he wrought out redemption\n for them. But we reply that the life of Christ which makes us\n Christians is the same life which made atonement upon the cross\n and which rose from the grave for our justification. The parallel\n between Adam and Christ is of the nature of analogy, not of\n identity. With Adam, we have a connection of physical life; with\n Christ, a connection of spiritual life.\n\n Stahl, Philosophie des Rechts, quoted in Olshausen\u2019s Com. on _Rom.\n 5:12-21_\u2014\u201cAdam is the original _matter_ of humanity; Christ is its\n original _idea_ in God; both personally living. Mankind is one in\n them. Therefore Adam\u2019s sin became the sin of all; Christ\u2019s\n sacrifice the atonement for all. Every leaf of a tree may be green\n or wither by itself; but each suffers by the disease of the root,\n and recovers only by its healing. The shallower the man, so much\n more isolated will everything appear to him; for upon the surface\n all lies apart. He will see in mankind, in the nation, nay, even\n in the family, mere individuals, where the act of the one has no\n connection with that of the other. The profounder the man, the\n more do these inward relations of unity, proceeding from the very\n centre, force themselves upon him. Yea, the love of our neighbor\n is itself nothing but the deep feeling of this unity; for we love\n him only, with whom we feel and acknowledge ourselves to be one.\n What the Christian love of our neighbor is for the heart, that\n unity of race is for the understanding. If sin through one, and\n redemption through one, is not possible, the command to love our\n neighbor is also unintelligible. Christian ethics and Christian\n faith are therefore in truth indissolubly united. Christianity\n effects in history an advance like that from the animal kingdom to\n man, by its revealing the essential unity of men, the\n consciousness of which in the ancient world had vanished when the\n nations were separated.\u201d\n\n If the sins of the parents were not visited upon the children,\n neither could their virtues be; the possibility of the one\n involves the possibility of the other. If the guilt of our first\n father could not be transmitted to all who derive their life from\n him, then the justification of Christ could not be transmitted to\n all who derive their life from him. We do not, however, see any\n Scripture warrant for the theory that all men are justified from\n original sin by virtue of their natural connection with Christ. He\n who is the life of all men bestows manifold temporal blessings\n upon the ground of his atonement. But justification from sin is\n conditioned upon conscious surrender of the human will and trust\n in the divine mercy. The immanent Christ is ever urging man\n individually and collectively toward such decision. But the\n acceptance or rejection of the offered grace is left to man\u2019s free\n will. This principle enables us properly to estimate the view of\n Dr. Henry E. Robins which follows.\n\n H. E. Robins, Harmony of Ethics with Theology, 51\u2014\u201cAll men born of\n Adam stand in such a relation to Christ that salvation is their\n birthright under promise\u2014a birthright which can only be forfeited\n by their intelligent, personal, moral action, as was Esau\u2019s.\u201d Dr.\n Robins holds to an inchoate justification of all\u2014a justification\n which becomes actual and complete only when the soul closes with\n Christ\u2019s offer to the sinner. We prefer to say that humanity in\n Christ is ideally justified because Christ himself is justified,\n but that individual men are justified only when they consciously\n appropriate his offered grace or surrender themselves to his\n renewing Spirit. Allen, Jonathan Edwards, 312\u2014\u201cThe grace of God is\n as organic in its relation to man as is the evil in his nature.\n Grace also reigns wherever justice reigns.\u201d William Ashmore, on\n the New Trial of the Sinner, in Christian Review,\n 26:245-264\u2014\u201cThere is a gospel of nature commensurate with the law\n of nature; _Rom. 3:22_\u2014\u2018_unto all, and upon all them that\n believe_\u2019; the first \u2018_all_\u2019 is unlimited; the second \u2018_all_\u2019 is\n limited to those who believe.\u201d\n\n R. W. Dale, Ephesians, 180\u2014\u201cOur fortunes were identified with the\n fortunes of Christ; in the divine thought and purpose we were\n inseparable from him. Had we been true and loyal to the divine\n idea, the energy of Christ\u2019s righteousness would have drawn us\n upward to height after height of goodness and joy, until we\n ascended from this earthly life to the larger powers and loftier\n services and richer delights of other and diviner worlds; and\n still, through one golden age of intellectual and ethical and\n spiritual growth after another, we should have continued to rise\n towards Christ\u2019s transcendent and infinite perfection. But we\n sinned; and as the union between Christ and us could not be broken\n without the final and irrevocable defeat of the divine purpose,\n Christ was drawn down from the serene heavens to the confused and\n troubled life of our race, to pain, to temptation, to anguish, to\n the cross and to the grave, and so the mystery of his atonement\n for our sin was consummated.\u201d\n\n For replies to the foregoing and other objections, see Schaff, in\n Bib. Sac., 5:230; Shedd, Sermons to the Nat. Man, 266-284; Baird,\n Elohim Revealed, 507-509, 529-544; Birks, Difficulties of Belief,\n 134-188; Edwards, Original Sin, in Works, 2:473-510; Atwater, on\n Calvinism in Doctrine and Life, in Princeton Review, 1875:73;\n Stearns, Evidence of Christian Experience, 96-100. _Per contra_,\n see Moxom, in Bap. Rev., 1881:273-287; Park, Discourses, 210-233;\n Bradford, Heredity, 237.\n\n\n\nSection VI.\u2014Consequences Of Sin To Adam\u2019s Posterity.\n\n\nAs the result of Adam\u2019s transgression, all his posterity are born in the\nsame state into which he fell. But since law is the all-comprehending\ndemand of harmony with God, all moral consequences flowing from\ntransgression are to be regarded as sanctions of law, or expressions of\nthe divine displeasure through the constitution of things which he has\nestablished. Certain of these consequences, however, are earlier\nrecognized than others and are of minor scope; it will therefore be useful\nto consider them under the three aspects of depravity, guilt, and penalty.\n\n\nI. Depravity.\n\n\nBy this we mean, on the one hand, the lack of original righteousness or of\nholy affection toward God, and, on the other hand, the corruption of the\nmoral nature, or bias toward evil. That such depravity exists has been\nabundantly shown, both from Scripture and from reason, in our\nconsideration of the universality of sin.\n\n\n Salvation is twofold: deliverance from the evil\u2014the penalty and\n the power of sin; and accomplishment of the good\u2014likeness to God\n and realization of the true idea of humanity. It includes all\n these for the race as well as for the individual: removal of the\n barriers that keep men from each other; and the perfecting of\n society in communion with God; or, in other words, the kingdom of\n God on earth. It was the nature of man, when he first came from\n the hand of God, to fear, love, and trust God above all things.\n This tendency toward God has been lost; sin has altered and\n corrupted man\u2019s innermost nature. In place of this bent toward God\n there is a fearful bent toward evil. Depravity is both\n negative\u2014absence of love and of moral likeness to God\u2014and\n positive\u2014presence of manifold tendencies to evil. Two questions\n only need detain us:\n\n\n1. Depravity partial or total?\n\n\nThe Scriptures represent human nature as totally depraved. The phrase\n\u201ctotal depravity,\u201d however, is liable to misinterpretation, and should not\nbe used without explanation. By the total depravity of universal humanity\nwe mean:\n\nA. Negatively,\u2014not that every sinner is: (_a_) Destitute of\nconscience,\u2014for the existence of strong impulses to right, and of remorse\nfor wrong-doing, show that conscience is often keen; (_b_) devoid of all\nqualities pleasing to men, and useful when judged by a human standard,\u2014for\nthe existence of such qualities is recognized by Christ; (_c_) prone to\nevery form of sin,\u2014for certain forms of sin exclude certain others; (_d_)\nintense as he can be in his selfishness and opposition to God,\u2014for he\nbecomes worse every day.\n\n\n (_a_) _John 8:9_\u2014\u201c_And they, when they heard it, went out one by\n one, beginning from the eldest, even unto the last_\u201d (_John\n 7:53-8:11_, though not written by John, is a perfectly true\n narrative, descended from the apostolic age). The muscles of a\n dead frog\u2019s leg will contract when a current of electricity is\n sent into them. So the dead soul will thrill at touch of the\n divine law. Natural conscience, combined with the principle of\n self-love, may even prompt choice of the good, though no love for\n God is in the choice. Bengel: \u201cWe have lost our likeness to God;\n but there remains notwithstanding an indelible nobility which we\n ought to revere both in ourselves and in others. We still have\n remained men, to be conformed to that likeness, through the divine\n blessing to which man\u2019s will should subscribe. This they forget\n who speak evil of human nature. Absalom fell out of his father\u2019s\n favor; but the people, for all that, recognized in him the son of\n the king.\u201d\n\n (_b_) _Mark 10:21_\u2014\u201c_And Jesus looking upon him loved him._\u201d These\n very qualities, however, may show that their possessors are\n sinning against great light and are the more guilty; _cf._ _Mal.\n 1:6_\u2014\u201c_A son honoreth his father, and a servant his master: if\n then I am a father, where is mine honor? and if I am a master,\n where is my fear?_\u201d John Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity,\n 2:75\u2014\u201cThe assertor of the total depravity of human nature, of its\n absolute blindness and incapacity, presupposes in himself and in\n others the presence of a criterion or principle of good, in virtue\n of which he discerns himself to be wholly evil; yet the very\n proposition that human nature is wholly evil would be\n unintelligible unless it were false.... Consciousness of sin is a\n negative sign of the possibility of restoration. But it is not in\n itself proof that the possibility will become actuality.\u201d A ruined\n temple may have beautiful fragments of fluted columns, but it is\n no proper habitation for the god for whose worship it was built.\n\n (_c_) _Mat. 23:23_\u2014\u201c_ye tithe mint and anise and cummin, and have\n left undone the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy,\n and faith: but these ye ought to have done, and not to have left\n the other undone_\u201d; _Rom. 2:14_\u2014\u201c_when Gentiles that have not the\n law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law,\n are the law unto themselves; in that they show the work of the law\n written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness\n therewith._\u201d The sin of miserliness may exclude the sin of luxury;\n the sin of pride may exclude the sin of sensuality. Shakespeare,\n Othello, 2:3\u2014\u201cIt hath pleased the devil Drunkenness to give place\n to the devil Wrath.\u201d Franklin Carter, Life of Mark Hopkins,\n 321-323\u2014Dr. Hopkins did not think that the sons of God should\n describe themselves as once worms or swine or vipers. Yet he held\n that man could sink to a degradation below the brute: \u201cNo brute is\n any more capable of rebelling against God than of serving him; is\n any more capable of sinking below the level of its own nature than\n of rising to the level of man. No brute can be either a fool or a\n fiend.... In the way that sin and corruption came into the\n spiritual realm we find one of those analogies to what takes place\n in the lower forms of being that show the unity of the system\n throughout. All disintegration and corruption of matter is from\n the domination of a lower over a higher law. The body begins to\n return to its original elements as the lower chemical and physical\n forces begin to gain ascendancy over the higher force of life. In\n the same way all sin and corruption in man is from his yielding to\n a lower law or principle of action in opposition to the demands of\n one that is higher.\u201d\n\n (_d_) _Gen. 15:16_\u2014\u201c_the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet\n full_\u201d; _2 Tim. 3:13_\u2014\u201c_evil men and impostors shall wax worse and\n worse._\u201d Depravity is not simply being deprived of good.\n Depravation (_de_, and _pravus_, crooked, perverse) is more than\n deprivation. Left to himself man tends downward, and his sin\n increases day by day. But there is a divine influence within which\n quickens conscience and kindles aspiration for better things. The\n immanent Christ is \u201c_the light which lighteth every man_\u201d (_John\n 1:9_). Prof. Wm. Adams Brown: \u201cIn so far as God\u2019s Spirit is at\n work among men and they receive \u2018_the Light which lighteth every\n man_,\u2019 we must qualify our statement of total depravity. Depravity\n is not so much a state as a tendency. With growing complexity of\n life, sin becomes more complex. Adam\u2019s sin was not the worst. \u2018_It\n shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of\n judgment, than for thee_\u2019 (_Mat. 11:24_).\u201d\n\n Men are not yet in the condition of demons. Only here and there\n have they attained to \u201ca disinterested love of evil.\u201d Such men are\n few, and they were not born so. There are degrees in depravity. E.\n G. Robinson: \u201cThere is a good streak left in the devil yet.\u201d Even\n Satan will become worse than he now is. The phrase \u201ctotal\n depravity\u201d has respect only to relations to God, and it means\n incapability of doing anything which in the sight of God is a good\n act. No act is perfectly good that does not proceed from a true\n heart and constitute an expression of that heart. Yet we have no\n right to say that every act of an unregenerate man is displeasing\n to God. Right acts from right motives are good, whether performed\n by a Christian or by one who is unrenewed in heart. Such acts,\n however, are always prompted by God, and thanks for them are due\n to God and not to him who performed them.\n\n\nB. Positively,\u2014that every sinner is: (_a_) totally destitute of that love\nto God which constitutes the fundamental and all-inclusive demand of the\nlaw; (_b_) chargeable with elevating some lower affection or desire above\nregard for God and his law; (_c_) supremely determined, in his whole\ninward and outward life, by a preference of self to God; (_d_) possessed\nof an aversion to God which, though sometimes latent, becomes active\nenmity, so soon as God\u2019s will comes into manifest conflict with his own;\n(_e_) disordered and corrupted in every faculty, through this substitution\nof selfishness for supreme affection toward God; (_f_) credited with no\nthought, emotion, or act of which divine holiness can fully approve; (_g_)\nsubject to a law of constant progress in depravity, which he has no\nrecuperative energy to enable him successfully to resist.\n\n\n (_a_) _John 5:42_\u2014\u201c_But I know you, that ye have not the love of\n God in yourselves._\u201d (_b_) _2 Tim. 3:4_\u2014\u201c_lovers of pleasure\n rather than lovers of God_\u201d; _cf._ _Mal 1:6_\u2014\u201c_A son honoreth his\n father, and a servant his master: if then I am a father, where is\n mine honor? and if I am a master, where is my fear?_\u201d (_c_) _2\n Tim. 3:2_\u2014\u201c_lovers of self_\u201d; (_d_) _Rom. 8:7_\u2014\u201c_the mind of the\n flesh is enmity against God._\u201d (_e_) _Eph. 4:18_\u2014\u201c_darkened in\n their understanding.... hardening of their heart_\u201d; _Tit.\n 1:15_\u2014\u201c_both their mind and their conscience are defiled_\u201d; _2\n Cor. 7:1_\u2014\u201c_defilement of flesh and spirit_\u201d; _Heb. 3:12_\u2014\u201c_an\n evil heart of unbelief_\u201d; (_f_) _Rom. 3:9_\u2014\u201c_they are all under\n sin_\u201d; _7:18_\u2014\u201c_in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good\n thing._\u201d (_g_) _Rom. 7:18_\u2014\u201c_to will is present with me, but to do\n that which is good is not_\u201d; _23_\u2014\u201c_law in my members, warring\n against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under\n the law of sin which is in my members._\u201d\n\n Every sinner would prefer a milder law and a different\n administration. But whoever does not love God\u2019s law does not truly\n love God. The sinner seeks to secure his own interests rather than\n God\u2019s. Even so-called religious acts he performs with preference\n of his own good to God\u2019s glory. He disobeys, and always has\n disobeyed, the fundamental law of love. He is like a railway train\n on a down grade, and the brakes must be applied by God or\n destruction is sure. There are latent passions in every heart\n which if let loose would curse the world. Many a man who escaped\n from the burning Iroquois Theatre in Chicago, proved himself a\n brute and a demon, by trampling down fugitives who cried for\n mercy. Denney, Studies in Theology, 83\u2014\u201cThe depravity which sin\n has produced in human nature extends to the whole of it. There is\n no part of man\u2019s nature which is unaffected by it. Man\u2019s nature is\n all of a piece, and what affects it at all affects it altogether.\n When the conscience is violated by disobedience to the will of\n God, the moral understanding is darkened, and the will is\n enfeebled. We are not constructed in water-tight compartments, one\n of which might be ruined while the others remained intact.\u201d Yet\n over against total depravity, we must set total redemption; over\n against original sin, original grace. Christ is in every human\n heart mitigating the affects of sin, urging to repentance, and\n \u201c_able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God\n through him_\u201d (_Heb. 7:25_). Even the unregenerate heathen may\n \u201c_put away ... the old man_\u201d and \u201c_put on the new man_\u201d (_Eph.\n 4:23, 24_), being delivered \u201c_out of the body of this death ...\n through Jesus Christ our Lord_\u201d (_Rom. 7:24, 25_).\n\n H. B. Smith, System, 277\u2014\u201cBy total depravity is never meant that\n men are as bad as they can be; nor that they have not, in their\n natural condition, certain amiable qualities; nor that they may\n not have virtues in a limited sense (_justitia civilis_). But it\n is meant (1) that depravity, or the sinful condition of man,\n infects the whole man: intellect, feeling, heart and will; (2)\n that in each unrenewed person some lower affection is supreme; and\n (3) that each such is destitute of love to God. On these\n positions: as to (1) the power of depravity over the _whole_ man,\n we have given proof from Scripture; as to (2) the fact that in\n every unrenewed man some lower affection is supreme, experience\n may be always appealed to; men know that their supreme affection\n is fixed on some lower good\u2014intellect, heart, and will going\n together in it; or that some form of selfishness is\n predominant\u2014using selfish in a general sense\u2014self seeks its\n happiness in some inferior object, giving to that its supreme\n affection; as to (3) that every unrenewed person is without\n supreme love to God, it is the point which is of greatest force,\n and is to be urged with the strongest effect, in setting forth the\n depth and \u2018totality\u2019 of man\u2019s sinfulness: unrenewed men have not\n that supreme love of God which is the substance of the first and\n great command.\u201d See also Shedd, Discourses and Essays, 248; Baird,\n Elohim Revealed, 510-522; Chalmers, Institutes, 1:519-542;\n Cunningham, Hist. Theology, 1:516-531; Princeton Review, 1877:470.\n\n\n2. Ability or inability?\n\n\nIn opposition to the plenary ability taught by the Pelagians, the gracious\nability of the Arminians, and the natural ability of the New School\ntheologians, the Scriptures declare the total inability of the sinner to\nturn himself to God or to do that which is truly good in God\u2019s sight (see\nScripture proof below). A proper conception also of the law, as reflecting\nthe holiness of God and as expressing the ideal of human nature, leads us\nto the conclusion that no man whose powers are weakened by either original\nor actual sin can of himself come up to that perfect standard. Yet there\nis a certain remnant of freedom left to man. The sinner _can_ (_a_) avoid\nthe sin against the Holy Ghost; (_b_) choose the less sin rather than the\ngreater; (_c_) refuse altogether to yield to certain temptations; (_d_) do\noutwardly good acts, though with imperfect motives; (_e_) seek God from\nmotives of self-interest.\n\nBut on the other hand the sinner _cannot_ (_a_) by a single volition bring\nhis character and life into complete conformity to God\u2019s law; (_b_) change\nhis fundamental preference for self and sin to supreme love for God; nor\n(_c_) do any act, however insignificant, which shall meet with God\u2019s\napproval or answer fully to the demands of law.\n\n\n So long, then, as there are states of intellect, affection and\n will which man cannot, by any power of volition or of contrary\n choice remaining to him, bring into subjection to God, it cannot\n be said that he possesses any sufficient ability of himself to do\n God\u2019s will; and if a basis for man\u2019s responsibility and guilt be\n sought, it must be found, if at all, not in his plenary ability,\n his gracious ability, or his natural ability, but in his\n _original_ ability, when he came, in Adam, from the hands of his\n Maker.\n\n Man\u2019s present inability is natural, in the sense of being\n inborn,\u2014it is not acquired by our personal act, but is congenital.\n It is not natural, however, as resulting from the original\n limitations of human nature, or from the subsequent loss of any\n essential faculty of that nature. Human nature, at its first\n creation, was endowed with ability perfectly to keep the law of\n God. Man has not, even by his sin, lost his essential faculties of\n intellect, affection, or will. He has weakened those faculties,\n however, so that they are now unable to work up to the normal\n measure of their powers. But more especially has man given to\n every faculty a bent away from God which renders him morally\n unable to render spiritual obedience. The inability to good which\n now characterizes human nature is an inability that results from\n sin, and is itself sin.\n\n We hold, therefore, to an inability which is both natural and\n moral,\u2014moral, as having its source in the self-corruption of man\u2019s\n moral nature and the fundamental aversion of his will to\n God;\u2014natural, as being inborn, and as affecting with partial\n paralysis all his natural powers of intellect, affection,\n conscience, and will. For his inability, in both these aspects of\n it, man is responsible.\n\n The sinner can do one very important thing, _viz._: give attention\n to divine truth. _Ps. 119:59_\u2014\u201c_I thought on my ways, And turned\n my feet unto thy testimonies._\u201d G. W. Northrup: \u201cThe sinner can\n seek God from: (_a_) self-love, regard for his own interest; (_b_)\n feeling of duty, sense of obligation, awakened conscience; (_c_)\n gratitude for blessings already received; (_d_) aspiration after\n the infinite and satisfying.\u201d Denney, Studies in Theology, 85\u2014\u201cA\n witty French moralist has said that God does not need to grudge to\n his enemies even what they call their virtues; and neither do\n God\u2019s ministers.... But there is _one_ thing which man cannot do\n _alone_,\u2014he cannot bring his state into harmony with his nature.\n When a man has been discovered who has been able, without Christ,\n to reconcile himself to God and to obtain dominion over the world\n and over sin, _then_ the doctrine of inability, or of the bondage\n due to sin, may be denied; _then_, but _not till then_.\u201d The Free\n Church of Scotland, in the Declaratory Act of 1892, says \u201cthat, in\n holding and teaching, according to the Confession of Faith, the\n corruption of man\u2019s whole nature as fallen, this church also\n maintains that there remain tokens of his greatness as created in\n the image of God; that he possesses a knowledge of God and of\n duty; that he is responsible for compliance with the moral law and\n with the gospel; and that, although unable without the aid of the\n Holy Spirit to return to God, he is yet capable of affections and\n actions which in themselves are virtuous and praiseworthy.\u201d\n\n\nTo the use of the term \u201cnatural ability\u201d to designate merely the sinner\u2019s\npossession of all the constituent faculties of human nature, we object\nupon the following grounds:\n\nA. Quantitative lack.\u2014The phrase \u201cnatural ability\u201d is misleading, since it\nseems to imply that the existence of the mere powers of intellect,\naffection, and will is a sufficient quantitative qualification for\nobedience to God\u2019s law, whereas these powers have been weakened by sin,\nand are naturally unable, instead of naturally able, to render back to God\nwith interest the talent first bestowed. Even if the moral direction of\nman\u2019s faculties were a normal one, the effect of hereditary and of\npersonal sin would render naturally impossible that large likeness to God\nwhich the law of absolute perfection demands. Man has not therefore the\nnatural ability perfectly to obey God. He had it once, but he lost it with\nthe first sin.\n\n\n When Jean Paul Richter says of himself: \u201cI have made of myself all\n that could be made out of the stuff,\u201d he evinces a\n self-complacency which is due to self-ignorance and lack of moral\n insight. When a man realizes the extent of the law\u2019s demands, he\n sees that without divine help obedience is impossible. John B.\n Gough represented the confirmed drunkard\u2019s efforts at reformation\n as a man\u2019s walking up Mount Etna knee-deep in burning lava, or as\n one\u2019s rowing against the rapids of Niagara.\n\n\nB. Qualitative lack.\u2014Since the law of God requires of men not so much\nright single volitions as conformity to God in the whole inward state of\nthe affections and will, the power of contrary choice in single volitions\ndoes not constitute a natural ability to obey God, unless man can by those\nsingle volitions change the underlying state of the affections and will.\nBut this power man does not possess. Since God judges all moral action in\nconnection with the general state of the heart and life, natural ability\nto good involves not only a full complement of faculties but also a bias\nof the affections and will toward God. Without this bias there is no\npossibility of right moral action, and where there is no such possibility,\nthere can be no ability either natural or moral.\n\n\n Wilkinson, Epic of Paul, 21\u2014\u201cHatred is like love Herein, that it,\n by only being, grows. Until at last usurping quite the man, It\n overgrows him like a polypus.\u201d John Caird, Fund. Ideas, 1:53\u2014\u201cThe\n ideal is the revelation in me of a power that is mightier than my\n own. The supreme command \u2018Thou oughtest\u2019 is the utterance, only\n different in form, of the same voice in my spirit which says \u2018Thou\n canst\u2019; and my highest spiritual attainments are achieved, not by\n self-assertion, but by self-renunciation and self-surrender to the\n infinite life of truth and righteousness that is living and\n reigning within me.\u201d This conscious inability in one\u2019s self,\n together with reception of \u201c_the strength which God supplieth_\u201d\n (_1 Pet. 4:11_), is the secret of Paul\u2019s courage; _2 Cor.\n 12:10_\u2014\u201c_when I am weak, then am I strong_\u201d; _Phil. 2:12,\n 13_\u2014\u201c_work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it\n is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good\n pleasure._\u201d\n\n\nC. No such ability known.\u2014In addition to the psychological argument just\nmentioned, we may urge another from experience and observation. These\ntestify that man is cognizant of no such ability. Since no man has ever\nyet, by the exercise of his natural powers, turned himself to God or done\nan act truly good in God\u2019s sight, the existence of a natural ability to do\ngood is a pure assumption. There is no scientific warrant for inferring\nthe existence of an ability which has never manifested itself in a single\ninstance since history began.\n\n\n \u201cSolomon could not keep the Proverbs,\u2014so he wrote them.\u201d The book\n of Proverbs needs for its complement the New Testament explanation\n of helplessness and offer of help: _John 15:5_\u2014\u201c_apart from me ye\n can do nothing_\u201d; _6:37_\u2014\u201c_him that cometh to me I will in no wise\n cast out._\u201d The palsied man\u2019s inability to walk is very different\n from his indisposition to accept a remedy. The paralytic cannot\n climb the cliff, but by a rope let down to him he may be lifted\n up, provided he will permit himself to be tied to it. Darling, in\n Presb. and Ref. Rev., July, 1901:505\u2014\u201cIf bidden, we can stretch\n out a withered arm; but God does not require this of one born\n armless. We may \u2018_hear the voice of the Son of God_\u2019 and \u2018_live_\u2019\n (_John 5:25_), but we shall not bring out of the tomb faculties\n not possessed before death.\u201d\n\n\nD. Practical evil of the belief.\u2014The practical evil attending the\npreaching of natural ability furnishes a strong argument against it. The\nScriptures, in their declarations of the sinner\u2019s inability and\nhelplessness, aim to shut him up to sole dependence upon God for\nsalvation. The doctrine of natural ability, assuring him that he is able\nat once to repent and turn to God, encourages delay by putting salvation\nat all times within his reach. If a single volition will secure it, he may\nbe saved as easily to-morrow as to-day. The doctrine of inability presses\nmen to immediate acceptance of God\u2019s offers, lest the day of grace for\nthem pass by.\n\n\n Those who care most for self are those in whom self becomes\n thoroughly subjected and enslaved to external influences. _Mat.\n 16:25_\u2014\u201c_whosoever would save his life shall lose it._\u201d The\n selfish man is a straw on the surface of a rushing stream. He\n becomes more and more a victim of circumstance, until at last he\n has no more freedom than the brute. _Ps. 49:20_\u2014\u201c_Man that is in\n honor, and understandeth not, Is like the beasts that perish_;\u201d\n see R. T. Smith, Man\u2019s Knowledge of Man and of God, 121. Robert\n Browning, unpublished poem: \u201c \u2018Would a man \u2019scape the rod?\u2019 Rabbi\n Ben Karshook saith, \u2018See that he turn to God The day before his\n death.\u2019 \u2018Aye, could a man inquire When it shall come?\u2019 I say. The\n Rabbi\u2019s eye shoots fire\u2014\u2018Then let him turn to-day.\u2019 \u201d\n\n\nLet us repeat, however, that the denial to man of all ability, whether\nnatural or moral, to turn himself to God or to do that which is truly good\nin God\u2019s sight, does not imply a denial of man\u2019s power to order his\nexternal life in many particulars conformably to moral rules, or even to\nattain the praise of men for virtue. Man has still a range of freedom in\nacting out his nature, and he may to a certain limited extent act down\nupon that nature, and modify it, by isolated volitions externally\nconformed to God\u2019s law. He may choose higher or lower forms of selfish\naction, and may pursue these chosen courses with various degrees of\nselfish energy. Freedom of choice, within this limit, is by no means\nincompatible with complete bondage of the will in spiritual things.\n\n\n _John 1:13_\u2014\u201c_born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh,\n nor of the will of man, but of God_\u201d; _3:5_\u2014\u201c_Except one be born\n of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of\n God_\u201d; _6:44_\u2014\u201c_No man can come to me, except the Father that sent\n me draw him_\u201d; _8:34_\u2014\u201c_Every one that committeth sin is the\n bondservant of sin_\u201d; _15:4, 5_\u2014\u201c_the branch cannot bear fruit of\n itself ... apart from me ye can do nothing_\u201d; _Rom. 7:18_\u2014\u201c_in me,\n that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing; for to will is\n present with me, but to do that which it good is not_\u201d;\n _24_\u2014\u201c_Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of the\n body of this death?_\u201d _8:7, 8_\u2014\u201c_the mind of the flesh is enmity\n against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither\n indeed can it be: and they that are is the flesh cannot please\n God_\u201d; _1 Cor. 2:14_\u2014\u201c_the natural man receiveth not the things of\n the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; __ and he\n cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged_\u201d; _2 Cor.\n 3:5_\u2014\u201c_not that we are sufficient of ourselves, to account\n anything as from ourselves_\u201d; _Eph. 2:1_\u2014\u201c_dead through your\n trespasses and sins_\u201d; _8-10_\u2014\u201c_by grace have ye been saved\n through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;\n not of works, that no man should glory. For we are his\n workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works_\u201d; _Heb.\n 11:6_\u2014\u201c_without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto\n him._\u201d\n\n Kant\u2019s \u201cI ought, therefore I can\u201d is the relic of man\u2019s original\n consciousness of freedom\u2014the freedom with which man was endowed at\n his creation\u2014a freedom, now, alas! destroyed by sin. Or it may be\n the courage of the soul in which God is working anew by his\n Spirit. For Kant\u2019s \u201cIch soll, also Ich kann,\u201d Julius M\u00fcller would\n substitute: \u201cIch sollte freilich k\u00f6nnen, aber Ich kann nicht\u201d\u2014\u201cI\n ought indeed to be able, but I am not able.\u201d Man truly repents\n only when he learns that his sin has made him unable to repent\n without the renewing grace of God. Emerson, in his poem entitled\n \u201cVoluntariness,\u201d says: \u201cSo near is grandeur to our dust, So near\n is God to man, When duty whispers low, _Thou must_, The youth\n replies, _I can_.\u201d But, apart from special grace, all the ability\n which man at present possesses comes far short of fulfilling the\n spiritual demands of God\u2019s law. Parental and civil law implies a\n certain kind of power. Puritan theology called man \u201c_free among\n the dead_\u201d (_Ps. 88:5_, A. V.). There was a range of freedom\n inside of slavery,\u2014the will was \u201ca drop of water imprisoned in a\n solid crystal\u201d (Oliver Wendell Holmes). The man who kills himself\n is as dead as if he had been killed by another (Shedd, Dogm.\n Theol., 2:106).\n\n Westminster Confession, 9:3\u2014\u201cMan by his fall into a state of sin\n hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good\n accompanying salvation; so, as a natural man, being altogether\n averse from that good and dead in sin, he is not able by his own\n strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.\u201d\n Hopkins, Works, 1:233-235\u2014\u201cSo long as the sinner\u2019s opposition of\n heart and will continues, he cannot come to Christ. It is\n impossible, and will continue so, until his unwillingness and\n opposition be removed by a change and renovation of his heart by\n divine grace, and he be made willing in the day of God\u2019s power.\u201d\n Hopkins speaks of \u201cutter inability to obey the law of God, yea,\n utter impossibility.\u201d\n\n Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:257-277\u2014\u201cInability consists, not in the\n loss of any faculty of the soul, nor in the loss of free agency,\n for the sinner determines his own acts, nor in mere disinclination\n to what is good. It arises from want of spiritual discernment, and\n hence want of proper affections. Inability belongs only to the\n things of the Spirit. What man cannot do is to repent, believe,\n regenerate himself. He cannot put forth any act which merits the\n approbation of God. Sin cleaves to all he does, and from its\n dominion he cannot free himself. The distinction between natural\n and moral ability is of no value. Shall we say that the uneducated\n man can understand and appreciate the Iliad, because he has all\n the faculties that the scholar has? Shall we say that man can love\n God, if he will? This is false, if will means volition. It is a\n truism, if will means affection. The Scriptures never thus address\n men and tell them that they have power to do all that God\n requires. It is dangerous to teach a man this, for until a man\n feels that he can do nothing, God never saves him. Inability is\n involved in the doctrine of original sin; in the necessity of the\n Spirit\u2019s influence in regeneration. Inability is consistent with\n obligation, when inability arises from sin and is removed by the\n removal of sin.\u201d\n\n Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:213-257, and in South Church Sermons,\n 33-59\u2014\u201cThe origin of this helplessness lies, not in creation, but\n in sin. God can command the ten talents or the five which he\n originally committed to us, together with a diligent and faithful\n improvement of them. Because the servant has lost the talents, is\n he discharged from obligation to return them with interest? Sin\n contains in itself the element of servitude. In the very act of\n transgressing the law of God, there is a reflex action of the\n human will upon itself, whereby it becomes less able than before\n to keep that law. Sin is the suicidal action of the human will. To\n do wrong destroys the power to do right. Total depravity carries\n with it total impotence. The voluntary faculty may be ruined from\n within; may be made impotent to holiness, by its own action; may\n surrender itself to appetite and selfishness with such an\n intensity and earnestness, that it becomes unable to convert\n itself and overcome its wrong inclination.\u201d See Stevenson, Dr.\n Jekyll and Mr. Hyde,\u2014noticed in Andover Rev., June, 1886:664. We\n can merge ourselves in the life of another\u2014either bad or good; can\n almost transform ourselves into Satan or into Christ, so as to say\n with Paul, in _Gal 2:20_\u2014\u201c_it is no longer I that live, but Christ\n liveth in me_\u201d; or be minions of \u201c_the spirit that now worketh in\n the sons of disobedience_\u201d (_Eph. 2:2_). But if we yield ourselves\n to the influence of Satan, the recovery of our true personality\n becomes increasingly difficult, and at last impossible.\n\n There is nothing in literature sadder or more significant than the\n self-bewailing of Charles Lamb, the gentle Elia, who writes in his\n Last Essays, 214\u2014\u201cCould the youth to whom the flavor of the first\n wine is delicious as the opening scenes of life or the entering of\n some newly discovered paradise, look into my desolation, and be\n made to understand what a dreary thing it is when he shall feel\n himself going down a precipice with open eyes and a passive will;\n to see his destruction, and have no power to stop it; to see all\n goodness emptied out of him, and yet not be able to forget a time\n when it was otherwise; to bear about the piteous spectacle of his\n own ruin,\u2014could he see my fevered eye, fevered with the last\n night\u2019s drinking, and feverishly looking for to-night\u2019s repetition\n of the folly; could he but feel the body of this death out of\n which I cry hourly, with feebler outcry, to be delivered, it were\n enough to make him dash the sparkling beverage to the earth, in\n all the pride of its mantling temptation.\u201d\n\n For the Arminian \u201cgracious ability,\u201d see Raymond, Syst. Theol.,\n 2:130; McClintock & Strong, Cyclop\u00e6dia, 10:990. _Per contra_, see\n Calvin, Institutes, bk. 2, chap. 2 (1:282); Edwards, Works, 2:464\n (Orig. Sin, 3:1); Bennet Tyler, Works, 73; Baird, Elohim Revealed,\n 523-528; Cunningham, Hist. Theology, 1:567-639; Turretin, 10:4:19;\n A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, 260-269; Thornwell, Theology,\n 1:394-399; Alexander, Moral Science, 89-208; Princeton Essays,\n 1:224-239; Richards, Lectures on Theology. On real as\n distinguished from formal freedom, see Julius M\u00fcller, Doct. Sin,\n 2:1-225. On Augustine\u2019s _lineamenta extrema_ (of the divine image\n in man), see Wiggers, Augustinism and Pelagianism, 119, note. See\n also art. by A. H. Strong, on Modified Calvinism, or Remainders of\n Freedom in Man, in Bap. Rev., 1883:219-242; and reprinted in the\n author\u2019s Philosophy and Religion, 114-128.\n\n\nII. Guilt.\n\n\n1. Nature of guilt.\n\n\nBy guilt we mean desert of punishment, or obligation to render\nsatisfaction to God\u2019s justice for self-determined violation of law. There\nis a reaction of holiness against sin, which the Scripture denominates\n\u201cthe wrath of God\u201d (Rom. 1:18). Sin is in us, either as act or state;\nGod\u2019s punitive righteousness is over against the sinner, as something to\nbe feared; guilt is a relation of the sinner to that righteousness,\nnamely, the sinner\u2019s desert of punishment.\n\n\n Guilt is related to sin as the burnt spot to the blaze. Schiller,\n Die Braut von Messina: \u201cDas Leben ist der G\u00fcter h\u00f6chstes nicht;\n Der Uebel gr\u00f6sstes aber ist die Schuld\u201d\u2014\u201cLife is not the highest\n of possessions; the greatest of ills, however, is guilt.\u201d\n Delitzsch: \u201cDie Schamr\u00f6the ist die Abendr\u00f6the der untergegangenen\n Sonne der urspr\u00fcnglichen Gerechtigkeit\u201d\u2014\u201cThe blush of shame is the\n evening red after the sun of original righteousness has gone\n down.\u201d E. G. Robinson: \u201cPangs of conscience do not arise from the\n fear of penalty,\u2014they are the penalty itself.\u201d See chapter on\n Fig-leaves, in McIlvaine, Wisdom of Holy Scripture,\n 142-154\u2014\u201cSpiritual shame for sin sought an outward symbol, and\n found it in the nakedness of the lower parts of the body.\u201d\n\n\nThe following remarks may serve both for proof and for explanation:\n\nA. Guilt is incurred only through self-determined transgression either on\nthe part of man\u2019s nature or person. We are guilty only of that sin which\nwe have originated or have had part in originating. Guilt is not,\ntherefore, mere liability to punishment, without participation in the\ntransgression for which the punishment is inflicted,\u2014in other words, there\nis no such thing as constructive guilt under the divine government. We are\naccounted guilty only for what we have done, either personally or in our\nfirst parents, and for what we are, in consequence of such doing.\n\n\n _Ez. 18:20_\u2014\u201c_the son shall not bear the iniquity of the\n father_\u201d\u2014, as Calvin says (Com. _in loco_): \u201cThe son shall not\n bear the father\u2019s iniquity, since he shall receive the reward due\n to himself, and shall bear his own burden.... All are guilty\n through their own fault.... Every one perishes through his own\n iniquity.\u201d In other words, the whole race fell in Adam, and is\n punished for its own sin in him, not for the sins of immediate\n ancestors, nor for the sin of Adam as a person foreign to us.\n _John 9:3_\u2014\u201c_Neither did this man sin, nor his parents_\u201d (that he\n should be born blind)\u2014Do not attribute to any special later sin\n what is a consequence of the sin of the race\u2014the first sin which\n \u201cbrought death into the world, and all our woe.\u201d Shedd, Dogm.\n Theol., 2:195-213.\n\n\nB. Guilt is an objective result of sin, and is not to be confounded with\nsubjective pollution, or depravity. Every sin, whether of nature or\nperson, is an offense against God (Ps. 51:4-6), an act or state of\nopposition to his will, which has for its effect God\u2019s personal wrath (Ps.\n7:11; John 3:18, 36), and which must be expiated either by punishment or\nby atonement (Heb. 9:22). Not only does sin, as unlikeness to the divine\npurity, involve _pollution_,\u2014it also, as antagonism to God\u2019s holy will,\ninvolves _guilt_. This guilt, or obligation to satisfy the outraged\nholiness of God, is explained in the New Testament by the terms \u201cdebtor\u201d\nand \u201cdebt\u201d (Mat. 6:12; Luke 13:4; Mat. 5:21; Rom. 3:19; 6:23; Eph. 2:3).\nSince guilt, the objective result of sin, is entirely distinct from\ndepravity, the subjective result, human nature may, as in Christ, have the\nguilt without the depravity (2 Cor. 5:21), or may, as in the Christian,\nhave the depravity without the guilt (1 John 1:7, 8).\n\n\n _Ps. 51:4-6_\u2014\u201c_Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, And done\n that which is evil in thy sight; That thou mayest be justified\n when thou speakest, And be clear when thou judgest_\u201d; _7:11_\u2014\u201c_God\n is a righteous judge, Yea, a God that hath indignation every\n day_\u201d; _John 3:18_\u2014\u201c_he that believeth not hath been judged\n already_\u201d; _36_\u2014\u201c_he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life,\n but the wrath of God abideth on him_\u201d; _Heb. 9:22_\u2014\u201c_apart from\n shedding of blood there is no remission_\u201d; _Mat. 6:12_\u2014\u201c_debts_\u201d;\n _Luke 13:4_\u2014\u201c_offenders_\u201d (marg. \u201c_debtors_\u201d); _Mat. 5:21_\u2014\u201c_shall\n be in danger of_ [exposed to] _the judgment_\u201d; _Rom. 3:19_\u2014\u201c_that\n ... all the world may be brought under the judgment of God_\u201d;\n _6:23_\u2014\u201c_the wages of sin is death_\u201d\u2014death is sin\u2019s desert; _Eph.\n 2:3_\u2014\u201c_by nature children of wrath_\u201d; _2 Cor. 5:21_\u2014\u201c_Him who knew\n no sin he made to be sin on our behalf_\u201d; _1 John 1:7, 8_\u2014\u201c_the\n blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin._ [Yet] _If we\n say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is\n not in us._\u201d\n\n Sin brings in its train not only depravity but guilt, not only\n _macula_ but _reatus_. Scripture sets forth the _pollution_ of sin\n by its similies of \u201ca cage of unclean birds\u201d and of \u201cwounds,\n bruises, and putrefying sores\u201d; by leprosy and Levitical\n uncleanness, under the old dispensation; by death and the\n corruption of the grave, under both the old and the new. But\n Scripture sets forth the _guilt_ of sin, with equal vividness, in\n the fear of Cain and in the remorse of Judas. The revulsion of\n God\u2019s holiness from sin, and its demand for satisfaction, are\n reflected in the shame and remorse of every awakened conscience.\n There is an instinctive feeling in the sinner\u2019s heart that sin\n will be punished, and ought to be punished. But the Holy Spirit\n makes this need of reparation so deeply felt that the soul has no\n rest until its debt is paid. The offending church member who is\n truly penitent loves the law and the church which excludes him,\n and would not think it faithful if it did not. So Jesus, when\n laden with the guilt of the race, pressed forward to the cross,\n saying: \u201c_I have a baptism to be baptised with; and how am I\n straitened till it be accomplished!_\u201d (_Luke 12:50; Mark 10:32_).\n\n All sin involves guilt, and the sinful soul itself demands\n penalty, so that all will ultimately go where they most desire to\n be. All the great masters in literature have recognized this. The\n inextinguishable thirst for reparation constitutes the very\n essence of tragedy. The Greek tragedians are full of it, and\n Shakespeare is its most impressive teacher: Measure for Measure,\n 5:1\u2014\u201cI am sorry that such sorrow I procure, And so deep sticks it\n in my penitent heart That I crave death more willingly than mercy;\n \u2019Tis my deserving, and I do entreat it\u201d; Cymbeline, 5:4\u2014\u201cand so,\n great Powers, If you will take this audit, take this life, And\n cancel these cold bonds!... Desired, more than constrained, to\n satisfy, ... take No stricter render of me than my all\u201d; that is,\n settle the account with me by taking my life, for nothing less\n than that will pay my debt. And later writers follow Shakespeare.\n Marguerite, in Goethe\u2019s Faust, fainting in the great cathedral\n under the solemn reverberations of the Dies Ir\u00e6; Dimmesdale, in\n Hawthorne\u2019s Scarlet Letter, putting himself side by side with\n Hester Prynne, his victim, in her place of obloquy; Bulwer\u2019s\n Eugene Aram, coming forward, though unsuspected, to confess the\n murder he had committed, all these are illustrations of the inner\n impulse that moves even a sinful soul to satisfy the claims of\n justice upon it. See A. H. Strong, Philosophy and Religion, 215,\n 216. On Hawthorne, see Hutton, Essays, 2:370-416\u2014\u201cIn the Scarlet\n Letter, the minister gains fresh reverence and popularity as the\n very fruit of the passionate anguish with which his heart is\n consumed. Frantic with the stings of unacknowledged guilt, he is\n yet taught by these very stings to understand the hearts and stir\n the consciences of others.\u201d See also Dinsmore, Atonement in\n Literature and Life.\n\n Nor are such scenes confined to the pages of romance. In a recent\n trial at Syracuse, Earl, the wife-murderer, thanked the jury that\n had convicted him; declared the verdict just; begged that no one\n would interfere to stay the course of justice; said that the\n greatest blessing that could be conferred on him would be to let\n him suffer the penalty of his crime. In Plattsburg, at the close\n of another trial in which the accused was a life-convict who had\n struck down a fellow-convict with an axe, the jury, after being\n out two hours, came in to ask the Judge to explain the difference\n between murder in the first and second degree. Suddenly the\n prisoner rose and said: \u201cThis was not a murder in the second\n degree. It was a deliberate and premeditated murder. I know that I\n have done wrong, that I ought to confess the truth, and that I\n ought to be hanged.\u201d This left the jury nothing to do but render\n their verdict, and the Judge sentenced the murderer to be hanged,\n as he confessed he deserved to be. In 1891, Lars Ostendahl, the\n most famous preacher of Norway, startled his hearers by publicly\n confessing that he had been guilty of immorality, and that he\n could no longer retain his pastorate. He begged his people for the\n sake of Christ to forgive him and not to desert the poor in his\n asylums. He was not only preacher, but also head of a great\n philanthropic work.\n\n Such is the movement and demand of the enlightened conscience. The\n lack of conviction that crime ought to be punished is one of the\n most certain signs of moral decay in either the individual or the\n nation (_Ps. 97:10_\u2014\u201c_Ye that love the Lord, hate evil_\u201d;\n _149:6_\u2014\u201c_Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, And a\n two-edged sword in their hand_\u201d\u2014to execute God\u2019s judgment upon\n iniquity).\n\n This relation of sin to God shows us how Christ is \u201c_made sin on\n our behalf_\u201d (_2 Cor. 5:21_). Since Christ is the immanent God, he\n is also essential humanity, the universal man, the life of the\n race. All the nerves and sensibilities of humanity meet in him. He\n is the central brain to which and through which all ideas must\n pass. He is the central heart to which and through which all pains\n must be communicated. You cannot telephone to your friend across\n the town without first ringing up the central office. You cannot\n injure your neighbor without first injuring Christ. Each one of us\n can say of him: \u201c_Against thee, thee only, have I sinned_\u201d (_Ps.\n 51:4_). Because of his central and all-inclusive humanity, Christ\n can feel all the pangs of shame and suffering which rightfully\n belong to sinners, but which they cannot feel, because their sin\n has stupefied and deadened them. The Messiah, if he be truly man,\n must be a suffering Messiah. For the very reason of his humanity\n he must bear in his own person all the guilt of humanity and must\n be \u201c_the Lamb of God who_\u201d takes, and so \u201c_takes away the sin of\n the world_\u201d (_John 1:29_).\n\n Guilt and depravity are not only distinguishable in thought,\u2014they\n are also separable in fact. The convicted murderer might repent\n and become pure, yet he might still be under obligation to suffer\n the punishment of his crime. The Christian is freed from guilt\n (_Rom. 8:1_), but he is not yet freed from depravity (_Rom.\n 7:23_). Christ, on the other hand, was under obligation to suffer\n (_Luke 24:26_; _Acts 3:18_; _26:23_), while yet he was without sin\n (_Heb. 7:26_). In the book entitled Modern Religious Thought,\n 3-29, R. J. Campbell has an essay on The Atonement, with which,\n apart from its view as to the origin of moral evil in God, we are\n in substantial agreement. He holds that \u201cto relieve men from their\n sense of guilt, objective atonement is necessary,\u201d\u2014we would say:\n to relieve men from guilt itself\u2014the obligation to suffer. \u201cIf\n Christ be the eternal Son of God, that side of the divine nature\n which has gone forth in creation, if he contains humanity and is\n present in every article and act of human experience, then he is\n associated with the existence of the primordial evil.... He and\n only he can sever the entail between man and his responsibility\n for personal sin. Christ has not _sinned_ in man, but he takes\n responsibility for that experience of evil into which humanity is\n born, and the yielding to which constitutes sin. He goes forth to\n suffer, and actually does suffer, in man. The eternal Son in whom\n humanity is contained is therefore a sufferer since creation\n began. This mysterious passion of Deity must continue until\n redemption is consummated and humanity restored to God. Thus every\n consequence of human ill is felt in the experience of Christ. Thus\n Christ not only assumes the guilt but bears the punishment of\n every human soul.\u201d We claim however that the necessity of this\n suffering lies, not in the needs of man, but in the holiness of\n God.\n\n\nC. Guilt, moreover, as an objective result of sin, is not to be confounded\nwith the subjective consciousness of guilt (Lev. 5:17). In the\ncondemnation of conscience, God\u2019s condemnation partially and prophetically\nmanifests itself (1 John 3:20). But guilt is primarily a relation to God,\nand only secondarily a relation to conscience. Progress in sin is marked\nby diminished sensitiveness of moral insight and feeling. As \u201cthe greatest\nof sins is to be conscious of none,\u201d so guilt may be great, just in\nproportion to the absence of consciousness of it (Ps. 19:12; 51:6; Eph.\n4:18, 19\u2014\u1f00\u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03b3\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2). There is no evidence, however, that the voice of\nconscience can be completely or finally silenced. The time for repentance\nmay pass, but not the time for remorse. Progress in holiness, on the other\nhand, is marked by increasing apprehension of the depth and extent of our\nsinfulness, while with this apprehension is combined, in a normal\nChristian experience, the assurance that the guilt of our sin has been\ntaken, and taken away, by Christ (John 1:29).\n\n\n _Lev. 5:17_\u2014\u201c_And if any one sin, and do any of the things which\n Jehovah hath commanded not to be done; though he knew it not, yet\n is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity_\u201d; _1 John\n 3:20_\u2014\u201c_because if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our\n heart, and knoweth all things_\u201d; _Ps. 19:12_\u2014\u201c_Who can discern his\n errors? Clear thou me from hidden faults_\u201d; _51:6_\u2014\u201c_Behold, thou\n desirest truth in the inward parts; And in the hidden part thou\n wilt make me to know wisdom_\u201d; _Eph. 4:18, 19_\u2014\u201c_darkened in their\n understanding ... being past feeling_\u201d; _John 1:29_\u2014\u201c_Behold, the\n Lamb of God, that taketh away_ [marg. \u201c_beareth_\u201d] _the sin of the\n world._\u201d\n\n Plato, Republic, 1:330\u2014\u201cWhen death approaches, cares and alarms\n awake, especially the fear of hell and its punishments.\u201d Cicero,\n De Divin., 1:30\u2014\u201cThen comes remorse for evil deeds.\u201d Persius,\n Satire 3\u2014\u201cHis vice benumbs him; his fibre has become fat; he is\n conscious of no fault; he knows not the loss he suffers; he is so\n far sunk, that there is not even a bubble on the surface of the\n deep.\u201d Shakespeare, Hamlet, 3:1\u2014\u201cThus conscience doth make cowards\n of us all\u201d; 4:5\u2014\u201cTo my sick soul, as sin\u2019s true nature is, Each\n toy seems prologue to some great amiss; So full of artless\n jealousy is guilt, It spills itself in fearing to be spilt\u201d;\n Richard III, 5:3\u2014\u201cO coward conscience, how thou dost afflict\n me!... My conscience hath a thousand several tongues, and every\n tongue brings in a several tale, And every tale condemns me for a\n villain\u201d; Tempest, 3:3\u2014\u201cAll three of them are desperate; their\n great guilt, Like poison given to work a great time after, Now\n \u2019gins to bite the spirits\u201d; Ant. and Cleop., 3:9\u2014\u201cWhen we in our\n viciousness grow hard (O misery on\u2019t!) the wise gods seel our\n eyes; In our own filth drop our clear judgments; make us Adore our\n errors; laugh at us, while we strut To our confusion.\u201d\n\n Dr. Shedd said once to a graduating class of young theologians:\n \u201cWould that upon the naked, palpitating heart of each one of you\n might be laid one redhot coal of God Almighty\u2019s wrath!\u201d Yes, we\n add, if only that redhot coal might be quenched by one red drop of\n Christ\u2019s atoning blood. Dr. H. E. Robins: \u201cTo the convicted sinner\n a merely external hell would be a cooling flame, compared with the\n agony of his remorse.\u201d John Milton represents Satan as saying:\n \u201cWhich way I fly is hell; myself am hell.\u201d James Martineau, Life\n by Jackson, 190\u2014\u201cIt is of the essence of guilty declension to\n administer its own an\u00e6sthetics.\u201d But this deadening of conscience\n cannot last always. Conscience is a mirror of God\u2019s holiness. We\n may cover the mirror with the veil of this world\u2019s diversions and\n deceits. When the veil is removed, and conscience again reflects\n the sunlike purity of God\u2019s demands, we are visited with\n self-loathing and self-contempt. John Caird, Fund. Ideas,\n 2:25\u2014\u201cThough it may cast off every other vestige of its divine\n origin, our nature retains at least this one terrible prerogative\n of it, the capacity of preying on itself.\u201d Lyttelton in Lux Mundi,\n 277\u2014\u201cThe common fallacy that a self-indulgent sinner is no one\u2019s\n enemy but his own would, were it true, involve the further\n inference that such a sinner would not feel himself guilty.\u201d If\n any dislike the doctrine of guilt, let them remember that without\n wrath there is no pardon, without guilt no forgiveness. See, on\n the nature of guilt, Julius M\u00fcller, Doct. Sin, 1:193-267;\n Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, 208-209; Thomasius, Christi Person\n und Werk, 1:346; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 461-473; Delitzsch, Bib.\n Psychologie, 121-148; Thornwell, Theology, 1:400-424.\n\n\n2. Degrees of guilt.\n\n\nThe Scriptures recognize different degrees of guilt as attaching to\ndifferent kinds of sin. The variety of sacrifices under the Mosaic law,\nand the variety of awards in the judgment, are to be explained upon this\nprinciple.\n\n\n _Luke 12:47, 48_\u2014\u201c_shall be beaten with many stripes ... shall be\n beaten with few stripes_\u201d; _Rom. 2:6_\u2014\u201c_who will render to every\n man according to his works._\u201d See also _John 19:11_\u2014\u201c_he that\n delivered me unto thee hath greater sin_\u201d; _Heb. 2:2, 3_\u2014if\n \u201c_every transgression ... received a just recompense of reward;\n how shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation?_\u201d _10:28,\n 29_\u2014\u201c_A man that hath set at nought Moses\u2019 law dieth without\n compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: of how much\n sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath\n trodden under foot the Son of God?_\u201d\n\n\nCasuistry, however, has drawn many distinctions which lack Scriptural\nfoundation. Such is the distinction between venial sins and mortal sins in\nthe Roman Catholic Church,\u2014every sin unpardoned being mortal, and all sins\nbeing venial, since Christ has died for all. Nor is the common distinction\nbetween sins of omission and sins of commission more valid, since the very\nomission is an act of commission.\n\n\n _Mat. 25:45_\u2014\u201c_Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these\n least_\u201d; _James 4:17_\u2014\u201c_To him therefore that knoweth to do good,\n and doeth it not, to him it is sin._\u201d John Ruskin: \u201cThe\n condemnation given from the Judgment Throne\u2014most solemnly\n described\u2014is for all the \u2018undones\u2019 and not the \u2018dones.\u2019 People are\n perpetually afraid of doing wrong; but unless they are doing its\n reverse energetically, they _do it all day long_, and the degree\n does not matter.\u201d The Roman Catholic Church proceeds upon the\n supposition that she can determine the precise malignity of every\n offence, and assign its proper penance at the confessional.\n Thornwell, Theology, 1:424-441, says that \u201call sins are venial but\n one\u2014for there is a sin against the Holy Ghost,\u201d yet \u201cnot one is\n venial in itself\u2014for the least proceeds from an apostate state and\n nature.\u201d We shall see, however, that the hindrance to pardon, in\n the case of the sin against the Holy Spirit, is subjective rather\n than objective.\n\n J. Spencer Kennard: \u201cRoman Catholicism in Italy presents the\n spectacle of the authoritative representatives and teachers of\n morals and religion themselves living in all forms of deceit,\n corruption, and tyranny; and, on the other hand, discriminating\n between venial and mortal sin, classing as venial sins lying,\n fraud, fornication, marital infidelity, and even murder, all of\n which may be atoned for and forgiven or even permitted by the mere\n payment of money; and at the same time classing as mortal sins\n disrespect and disobedience to the church.\u201d\n\n\nThe following distinctions are indicated in Scripture as involving\ndifferent degrees of guilt:\n\nA. Sin of nature, and personal transgression.\n\nSin of nature involves guilt, yet there is greater guilt when this sin of\nnature reasserts itself in personal transgression; for, while this latter\nincludes in itself the former, it also adds to the former a new element,\nnamely, the conscious exercise of the individual and personal will, by\nvirtue of which a new decision is made against God, special evil habit is\ninduced, and the total condition of the soul is made more depraved.\nAlthough we have emphasized the guilt of inborn sin, because this truth is\nmost contested, it is to be remembered that men reach a conviction of\ntheir native depravity only through a conviction of their personal\ntransgressions. For this reason, by far the larger part of our preaching\nupon sin should consist in applications of the law of God to the acts and\ndispositions of men\u2019s lives.\n\n\n _Mat. 19:14_\u2014\u201c_to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven_\u201d\u2014relative\n innocence of childhood; _23:32_\u2014\u201c_Fill ye up then the measure of\n your fathers_\u201d\u2014personal transgression added to inherited\n depravity. In preaching, we should first treat individual\n transgressions, and thence proceed to heart-sin, and race-sin. Man\n is not wholly a spontaneous development of inborn tendencies, a\n manifestation of original sin. Motives do not _determine_ but they\n _persuade_ the will, and every man is guilty of conscious personal\n transgressions which may, with the help of the Holy Spirit, be\n brought under the condemning judgment of conscience. Birks,\n Difficulties of Belief, 169-174\u2014\u201cOriginal sin does not do away\n with the significance of personal transgression. Adam was\n pardoned: but some of his descendants are unpardonable. The second\n death is referred, in Scripture, to our own personal guilt.\u201d\n\n This is not to say that original sin does not involve as great sin\n as that of Adam in the first transgression, for original sin _is_\n the sin of the first transgression; it is only to say that\n personal transgression is original sin _plus_ the conscious\n ratification of Adam\u2019s act by the individual. \u201cWe are guilty for\n what we _are_, as much as for what we _do_. Our _sin_ is not\n simply the sum total of all our _sins_. There is a _sinfulness_\n which is the common denominator of all our sins.\u201d It is customary\n to speak lightly of original sin, as if personal sins were all for\n which man is accountable. But it is only in the light of original\n sin that personal sins can be explained. _Prov. 14:9,\n marg._\u2014\u201c_Fools make a mock at sin._\u201d Simon, Reconciliation,\n 122\u2014\u201cThe sinfulness of individual men varies; the sinfulness of\n humanity is a constant quantity.\u201d Robert Browning, Ferishtah\u2019s\n Fancies: \u201cMan lumps his kind i\u2019 the mass. God singles thence unit\n by unit. Thou and God exist\u2014So think! for certain: Think the\n mass\u2014mankind\u2014Disparts, disperses, leaves thyself alone! Ask thy\n lone soul what laws are plain to thee,\u2014Thou and no other, stand or\n fall by them! That is the part for thee.\u201d\n\n\nB. Sins of ignorance, and sins of knowledge.\n\nHere guilt is measured by the degree of light possessed, or in other\nwords, by the opportunities of knowledge men have enjoyed, and the powers\nwith which they have been naturally endowed. Genius and privilege increase\nresponsibility. The heathen are guilty, but those to whom the oracles of\nGod have been committed are more guilty than they.\n\n\n _Mat 10:15_\u2014\u201c_more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in\n the day of judgment, than for that city_\u201d; _Luke 12:47, 48_\u2014\u201c_that\n servant, who knew his Lord\u2019s will ... shall be beaten with many\n stripes; but he that knew not ... shall be beaten with few\n stripes_\u201d; _23:34_\u2014\u201c_Father, forgive them; for they know not what\n they do_\u201d\u2014complete knowledge would put them beyond the reach of\n forgiveness. _John 19:11_\u2014\u201c_he that delivered me unto thee hath\n greater sin_\u201d; _Acts 17:30_\u2014\u201c_The times of ignorance therefore God\n overlooked_\u201d; _Rom. 1:32_\u2014\u201c_who, knowing the ordinance of God,\n that they that practise such things are worthy of death, not only\n do the same, but also consent with them that practise them_\u201d;\n _2:12_\u2014\u201c_For as many as have sinned without the law shall also\n perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law\n shall be judged by the law_\u201d; _1 Tim. 1:13, 15, 16_\u2014\u201c_I obtained\n mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief._\u201d\n\n _Is. 42:19_\u2014\u201c_Who is blind ... as Jehovah\u2019s servant?_\u201d It was the\n Pharisees whom Jesus warned of the sin against the Holy Spirit.\n The guilt of the crucifixion rested on Jews rather than on\n Gentiles. Apostate Israel was more guilty than the pagans. The\n greatest sinners of the present day may be in Christendom, not in\n heathendom. Satan was an archangel; Judas was an apostle;\n Alexander Borgia was a pope. Jackson, James Martineau,\n 362\u2014\u201cCorruptio optimi pessima est, as seen in a drunken Webster, a\n treacherous Bacon, a licentious Goethe.\u201d Sir Roger de Coverley\n observed that none but men of fine parts deserve to be hanged.\n Kaftan, Dogmatik, 317\u2014\u201cThe greater sin often involves the lesser\n guilt; the lesser sin the greater guilt.\u201d Robert Browning, The\n Ring and the Book, 227 (Pope, 1975)\u2014\u201cThere\u2019s a new tribunal now\n Higher than God\u2019s,\u2014the educated man\u2019s! Nice sense of honor in the\n human breast Supersedes here the old coarse oracle!\u201d Dr. H. E.\n Robins holds that \u201cpalliation of guilt according to light is not\n possible under a system of pure law, and is possible only because\n the probation of the sinner is a probation of grace.\u201d\n\n\nC. Sins of infirmity, and sins of presumption.\n\nHere the guilt is measured by the energy of the evil will. Sin may be\nknown to be sin, yet may be committed in haste or weakness. Though haste\nand weakness constitute a palliation of the offence which springs\ntherefrom, yet they are themselves sins, as revealing an unbelieving and\ndisordered heart. But of far greater guilt are those presumptuous choices\nof evil in which not weakness, but strength of will, is manifest.\n\n\n _Ps. 19:12, 13_\u2014\u201c_Clear thou me from hidden faults. Keep back thy\n servant also from presumptuous sins_\u201d; _Is. 5:18_\u2014\u201c_Woe unto them\n that draw iniquity with cords of falsehood, and sin as it were\n with a cart-rope_\u201d\u2014not led away insensibly by sin, but earnestly,\n perseveringly, and wilfully working away at it; _Gal.\n 6:1_\u2014\u201c_overtaken in any trespass_\u201d; _1 Tim. 5:24_\u2014\u201c_Some men\u2019s\n sins are evident, going before unto judgment; and some men also\n they follow after_\u201d\u2014some men\u2019s sins are so open, that they act as\n officers to bring to justice those who commit them; whilst others\n require after-proof (An. Par. Bible). Luther represents one of the\n former class as saying to himself: \u201cEsto peccator, et pecca\n fortiter.\u201d On sins of passion and of reflection, see Bittinger, in\n Princeton Rev., 1873:219.\n\n _Micah 7:3_, marg.\u2014\u201c_Both hands are put forth for evil, to do it\n diligently._\u201d So we ought to do good. \u201cMy art is my life,\u201d said\n Grisi, the prima donna of the opera, \u201cI save myself all day for\n that one bound upon the stage.\u201d H. Bonar: \u201cSin worketh,\u2014Let me\n work too. Busy as sin, my work I ply, Till I rest in the rest of\n eternity.\u201d German criminal law distinguishes between intentional\n homicide without deliberation, and intentional homicide with\n deliberation. There are three grades of sin: 1. Sins of ignorance,\n like Paul\u2019s persecuting; 2. sins of infirmity, like Peter\u2019s\n denial; 3. sins of presumption, like David\u2019s murder of Uriah. Sins\n of presumption were unpardonable under the Jewish law; they are\n not unpardonable under Christ.\n\n\nD. Sin of incomplete, and sin of final, obduracy.\n\nHere the guilt is measured, not by the objective sufficiency or\ninsufficiency of divine grace, but by the degree of unreceptiveness into\nwhich sin has brought the soul. As the only sin unto death which is\ndescribed in Scripture is the sin against the Holy Spirit, we here\nconsider the nature of that sin.\n\n\n _Mat 12:31_\u2014\u201c_Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men;\n but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven_\u201d;\n _32_\u2014\u201c_And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it\n shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy\n Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor\n in that which is to come_\u201d; _Mark 3:29_\u2014\u201c_whosoever shall\n blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is\n guilty of an eternal sin_\u201d; _1 John 5:16, 17_\u2014\u201c_If any man see his\n brother sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and God will\n give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin\n into death: not concerning this do I say that he should make\n request. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto\n death_\u201d; _Heb. 10:26_\u2014\u201c_if we sin wilfully after that we have\n received the knowledge of the truth, then remaineth no more a\n sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment,\n and a fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversaries._\u201d\n\n Ritschl holds all sin that comes short of definitive rejection of\n Christ to be ignorance rather than sin, and to be the object of no\n condemning sentence. This is to make the sin against the Holy\n Spirit the only real sin. Conscience and Scripture alike\n contradict this view. There is much incipient hardening of the\n heart that precedes the sin of final obduracy. See Denney, Studies\n in Theology, 80. The composure of the criminal is not always a\n sign of innocence. S. S. Times, April 12, 1902:200\u2014\u201cSensitiveness\n of conscience and of feeling, and responsiveness of countenance\n and bearing, are to be retained by purity of life and freedom from\n transgression. On the other hand composure of countenance and\n calmness under suspicion and accusation are likely to be a result\n of continuance in wrong doing, with consequent hardening of the\n whole moral nature.\u201d\n\n Weismann, Heredity, 2:8\u2014\u201cAs soon as any organ falls into disuse,\n it degenerates, and finally is lost altogether.... In parasites\n the organs of sense degenerate.\u201d Marconi\u2019s wireless telegraphy\n requires an attuned \u201creceiver.\u201d The \u201ctransmitter\u201d sends out\n countless rays into space: only one capable of corresponding\n vibrations can understand them. The sinner may so destroy his\n receptivity, that the whole universe may be uttering God\u2019s truth,\n yet he be unable to hear a word of it. The Outlook: \u201cIf a man\n should put out his eyes, he could not see\u2014nothing could make him\n see. So if a man should by obstinate wickedness destroy his power\n to believe in God\u2019s forgiveness, he would be in a hopeless state.\n Though God would still be gracious, the man could not see it, and\n so could not take God\u2019s forgiveness to himself.\u201d\n\n\nThe sin against the Holy Spirit is not to be regarded simply as an\nisolated act, but also as the external symptom of a heart so radically and\nfinally set against God that no power which God can consistently use will\never save it. This sin, therefore, can be only the culmination of a long\ncourse of self-hardening and self-depraving. He who has committed it must\nbe either profoundly indifferent to his own condition, or actively and\nbitterly hostile to God; so that anxiety or fear on account of one\u2019s\ncondition is evidence that it has not been committed. The sin against the\nHoly Spirit cannot be forgiven, simply because the soul that has committed\nit has ceased to be receptive of divine influences, even when those\ninfluences are exerted in the utmost strength which God has seen fit to\nemploy in his spiritual administration.\n\n\n The commission of this sin is marked by a loss of spiritual sight;\n the blind fish of the Mammoth Cave left light for darkness, and so\n in time lost their eyes. It is marked by a loss of religious\n sensibility; the sensitive-plant loses Its sensitiveness, in\n proportion to the frequency with which it is touched. It is marked\n by a loss of power to will the good; \u201cthe lava hardens after it\n has broken from the crater, and in that state cannot return to its\n source\u201d (Van Oosterzee). The same writer also remarks (Dogmatics,\n 2:438): \u201cHerod Antipas, after earlier doubt and slavishness,\n reached such deadness as to be able to mock the Savior, at the\n mention of whose name he had not long before trembled.\u201d Julius\n M\u00fcller, Doctrine of Sin, 2:425\u2014\u201cIt is not that divine grace is\n absolutely refused to any one who in true penitence asks\n forgiveness of this sin; but he who commits it never fulfills the\n subjective conditions upon which forgiveness is possible, because\n the aggravation of sin to this ultimatum destroys in him all\n susceptibility of repentance. The way of return to God is closed\n against no one who does not close it against himself.\u201d Drummond,\n Natural Law in the Spiritual World, 97-120, illustrates the\n downward progress of the sinner by the law of degeneration in the\n vegetable and animal world: pigeons, roses, strawberries, all tend\n to revert to the primitive and wild type. \u201c_How shall we escape,\n if we neglect so great a salvation?_\u201d (_Heb.2:3_).\n\n Shakespeare, Macbeth, 3:5\u2014\u201cYou all know security Is mortals\u2019\n chiefest enemy.\u201d Moulton, Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist,\n 90-124\u2014\u201cRichard III is the ideal villain. Villainy has become an\n end in itself. Richard is an artist in villainy. He lacks the\n emotions naturally attending crime. He regards villainy with the\n intellectual enthusiasm of the artist. His villainy is ideal in\n its success. There is a fascination of irresistibility in him. He\n is imperturbable in his crime. There is no effort, but rather\n humor, in it; a recklessness which suggests boundless resources;\n an inspiration which excludes calculation. Shakespeare relieves\n the representation from the charge of monstrosity by turning all\n this villainous history into the unconscious development of\n Nemesis.\u201d See also A. H. Strong, Great Poets, 188-193. Robert\n Browning\u2019s Guido, in The Ring and the Book, is an example of pure\n hatred of the good. Guido hates Pompilia for her goodness, and\n declares that, if he catches her in the next world, he will murder\n her there, as he murdered her here.\n\n Alexander VI, the father of C\u00e6sar and Lucrezia Borgia, the pope of\n cruelty and lust, wore yet to the day of his death the look of\n unfailing joyousness and geniality, yes, of even retiring\n sensitiveness and modesty. No fear or reproach of conscience\n seemed to throw gloom over his life, as in the cases of Tiberius\n and Louis XI. He believed himself under the special protection of\n the Virgin, although he had her painted with the features of his\n paramour, Julia Farnese. He never scrupled at false witness,\n adultery, or murder. See Gregorovius, Lucrezia Borgia, 294, 295.\n Jeremy Taylor thus describes the progress of sin in the sinner:\n \u201cFirst it startles him, then it becomes pleasing, then delightful,\n then frequent, then habitual, then confirmed; then the man is\n impenitent, then obstinate, then resolved never to repent, then\n damned.\u201d\n\n There is a state of utter insensibility to emotions of love or\n fear, and man by his sin may reach that state. The act of\n blasphemy is only the expression of a hardened or a hateful heart.\n B. H. Payne: \u201cThe calcium flame will char the steel wire so that\n it is no longer affected by the magnet.... As the blazing cinders\n and black curling smoke which the volcano spews from its rumbling\n throat are the accumulation of months and years, so the sin\n against the Holy Spirit is not a thoughtless expression in a\n moment of passion or rage, but the giving vent to a state of heart\n and mind abounding in the accumulations of weeks and months of\n opposition to the gospel.\u201d\n\n Dr. J. P. Thompson: \u201cThe unpardonable sin is the knowing, wilful,\n persistent, contemptuous, malignant spurning of divine truth and\n grace, as manifested to the soul by the convincing and\n illuminating power of the Holy Ghost.\u201d Dorner says that \u201ctherefore\n this sin does not belong to Old Testament times, or to the mere\n revelation of law. It implies the full revelation of the grace in\n Christ, and the conscious rejection of it by a soul to which the\n Spirit has made it manifest (_Acts 17:30_\u2014\u2018_The times of\n ignorance, therefore, God overlooked_\u2019; _Rom. 3:25_\u2014\u2018_the passing\n over of the sins done aforetime_\u2019).\u201d But was it not under the Old\n Testament that God said: \u201c_My Spirit shall not strive with man\n forever_\u201d (_Gen. 6:3_), and \u201c_Ephraim is joined to idols; let him\n alone_\u201d (_Hosea 4:17_)? The sin against the Holy Ghost is a sin\n against grace, but it does not appear to be limited to New\n Testament times.\n\n It is still true that the unpardonable sin is a sin committed\n against the Holy Spirit rather than against Christ: _Mat.\n 12:32_\u2014\u201c_whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it\n shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy\n Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor\n in that which is to come._\u201d Jesus warns the Jews against it,\u2014he\n does not say they had already committed it. They would seem to\n have committed it when, after Pentecost, they added to their\n rejection of Christ the rejection of the Holy Spirit\u2019s witness to\n Christ\u2019s resurrection. See Schaff, Sin against the Holy Ghost;\n Lemme, S\u00fcnde wider den Heiligen Geist; Davis, in Bap. Rev.,\n 1862:317-326; Nitzsch, Christian Doctrine, 283-289. On the general\n subject of kinds of sin and degrees of guilt, see Kahnis,\n Dogmatik, 3:284, 298.\n\n\nIII. Penalty.\n\n\n1. Idea of penalty.\n\n\nBy penalty, we mean that pain or loss which is directly or indirectly\ninflicted by the Lawgiver, in vindication of his justice outraged by the\nviolation of law.\n\n\n Turretin, 1:213\u2014\u201cJustice necessarily demands that all sin be\n punished, but it does not equally demand that it be punished in\n the very person that sinned, or in just such time and degree.\u201d So\n far as this statement of the great Federal theologian is intended\n to explain our guilt in Adam and our justification in Christ, we\n can assent to his words; but we must add that the reason, in each\n case, why we suffer the penalty of Adam\u2019s sin, and Christ suffers\n the penalty of our sins, is not to be found in any\n covenant-relation, but rather in the fact that the sinner is one\n with Adam, and Christ is one with the believer,\u2014in other words,\n not covenant-unity, but life-unity. The word \u201cpenalty,\u201d like\n \u201cpain,\u201d is derived from p\u0153na, \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae, and it implies the\n correlative notion of desert. As under the divine government there\n can be no constructive _guilt_, so there can be no _penalty_\n inflicted by legal fiction. Christ\u2019s sufferings were penalty, not\n arbitrarily inflicted, nor yet borne to expiate personal guilt,\n but as the just due of the human nature with which he had united\n himself, and a part of which he was. Prof. Wm. Adams Brown: \u201cLoss,\n not suffering, is the supreme penalty for Christians. The real\n penalty is separation from God. If such separation involves\n suffering, that is a sign of God\u2019s mercy, for where there is life,\n there is hope. Suffering is always to be interpreted as an appeal\n from God to man.\u201d\n\n\nIn this definition it is implied that:\n\nA. The natural consequences of transgression, although they constitute a\npart of the penalty of sin, do not exhaust that penalty. In all penalty\nthere is a personal element\u2014the holy wrath of the Lawgiver,\u2014which natural\nconsequences but partially express.\n\n\n We do not deny, but rather assert, that the natural consequences\n of transgression are a part of the penalty of sin. Sensual sins\n are punished, in the deterioration and corruption of the body;\n mental and spiritual sins, in the deterioration and corruption of\n the soul. _Prov. 5:22_\u2014\u201c_His own iniquities shall take the wicked,\n And he shall be holden with the cords of his sin_\u201d\u2014as the hunter\n is caught in the toils which he has devised for the wild beast.\n Sin is self-detecting and self-tormenting. But this is only half\n the truth. Those who would confine all penalty to the reaction of\n natural laws are in danger of forgetting that God is not simply\n immanent in the universe, but is also transcendent, and that \u201c_to\n fall into the hands of the living God_\u201d (_Heb. 10:31_) is to fall\n into the hands, not simply of the law, but also of the Lawgiver.\n Natural law is only the regular expression of God\u2019s mind and will.\n We abhor a person who is foul in body and in speech. There is no\n penalty of sin more dreadful than its being an object of\n abhorrence to God. _Jer. 44:4_\u2014\u201c_Oh, do not this abominable thing\n that I hate!_\u201d Add to this the law of continuity which makes sin\n reproduce itself, and the law of conscience which makes sin its\n own detecter, judge, and tormentor, and we have sufficient\n evidence of God\u2019s wrath against it, apart from any external\n inflictions. The divine feeling toward sin is seen in Jesus\u2019\n scourging the traffickers in the temple, his denunciation of the\n Pharisees, his weeping over Jerusalem, his agony in Gethsemane.\n Imagine the feeling of a father toward his daughter\u2019s betrayer,\n and God\u2019s feeling toward sin may be faintly understood.\n\n The deed returns to the doer, and character determines\n destiny\u2014this law is a revelation of the righteousness of God.\n Penalty will vindicate the divine character in the long run,\n though not always in time. This is recognized in all religions.\n Buddhist priest in Japan: \u201cThe evil doer weaves a web around\n himself, as the silkworm weaves its cocoon.\u201d Socrates made Circe\u2019s\n turning of men into swine a mere parable of the self-brutalizing\n influence of sin. In Dante\u2019s Inferno, the punishments are all of\n them the sins themselves; hence men are in hell before they die.\n Hegel: \u201cPenalty is the other half of crime.\u201d R. W. Emerson:\n \u201cPunishment not follows, but accompanies, crime.\u201d Sagebeer, The\n Bible in Court, 59\u2014\u201cCorruption is destruction, and the sinner is a\n suicide; penalty corresponds with transgression and is the outcome\n of it; sin is death in the making; death is sin in the final\n infliction.\u201d J. B. Thomas, Baptist Congress, 1901:110\u2014\u201cWhat\n matters it whether I wait by night for the poacher and\n deliberately shoot him, or whether I set the pistol so that he\n shall be shot by it when he commits the depredation?\u201d Tennyson,\n Sea Dreams: \u201cHis gain is loss; for he that wrongs his friend\n Wrongs himself more, and ever bears about A silent court of\n justice in his breast, Himself the judge and jury, and himself The\n prisoner at the bar, ever condemn\u2019d: And that drags down his life:\n then comes what comes Hereafter.\u201d\n\n\nB. The object of penalty is not the reformation of the offender or the\nensuring of social or governmental safety. These ends may be incidentally\nsecured through its infliction, but the great end of penalty is the\nvindication of the character of the Lawgiver. Penalty is essentially a\nnecessary reaction of the divine holiness against sin. Inasmuch, however,\nas wrong views of the object of penalty have so important a bearing upon\nour future studies of doctrine, we make fuller mention of the two\nerroneous theories which have greatest currency.\n\n(_a_) Penalty is not essentially reformatory.\u2014By this we mean that the\nreformation of the offender is not its primary design,\u2014as penalty, it is\nnot intended to reform. Penalty, in itself, proceeds not from the love and\nmercy of the Lawgiver, but from his justice. Whatever reforming influences\nmay in any given instance be connected with it are not parts of the\npenalty, but are mitigations of it, and they are added not in justice but\nin grace. If reformation follows the infliction of penalty, it is not the\neffect of the penalty, but the effect of certain benevolent agencies which\nhave been provided to turn into a means of good what naturally would be to\nthe offender only a source of harm.\n\nThat the object of penalty is not reformation appears from Scripture,\nwhere punishment is often referred to God\u2019s justice, but never to God\u2019s\nlove; from the intrinsic ill-desert of sin, to which penalty is\ncorrelative; from the fact that punishment must be vindicative, in order\nto be disciplinary, and just, in order to be reformatory; from the fact\nthat upon this theory punishment would not be just when the sinner was\nalready reformed or could not be reformed, so that the greater the sin the\nless the punishment must be.\n\n\n Punishment is essentially different from chastisement. The latter\n proceeds from love (_Jer. 10:24_\u2014\u201c_correct me, but in measure; not\n in thine anger_\u201d; _Heb. 12:6_\u2014\u201c_Whom the Lord loveth he\n chasteneth_\u201d). Punishment proceeds not from love but from\n justice\u2014see _Ez. 28:22_\u2014\u201c_I shall have executed judgments in her,\n and shall be sanctified in her_\u201d; _36:21, 22_\u2014in judgment, \u201c_I do\n not this for your sake, but for my holy name_\u201d; _Heb. 12:29_\u2014\u201c_our\n God is a consuming fire_\u201d; _Rev. 15:1, 4_\u2014\u201c_wrath of God ... thou\n only art holy ... thy righteous acts have been made manifest_\u201d;\n _16:5_\u2014\u201c_Righteous art thou, ... thou Holy One, because thou didst\n thus judge_\u201d; _19:2_\u2014\u201c_true and righteous are his judgments; for\n he hath judged the great harlot._\u201d So untrue is the saying of Sir\n Thomas More\u2019s Utopia: \u201cThe end of all punishment is the\n destruction of vice, and the saving of men.\u201d Luther: \u201cGod has two\n rods: one of mercy and goodness; another of anger and fury.\u201d\n Chastisement is the former; penalty the latter.\n\n If the reform-theory of penalty is correct, then to punish crime,\n without asking about reformation, makes the state the\n transgressor; its punishments should be proportioned, not to the\n greatness of the crime, but to the sinner\u2019s state; the\n death-penalty should be abolished, upon the ground that it will\n preclude all hope of reformation. But the same theory would\n abolish any final judgment, or eternal punishment; for, when the\n soul becomes so wicked that there is no more hope of reform, there\n is no longer any justice in punishing it. The greater the sin, the\n less the punishment; and Satan, the greatest sinner, should have\n no punishment at all.\n\n Modern denunciations of capital punishment are often based upon\n wrong conceptions of the object of penalty. Opposition to the\n doctrine of future punishment would give way, if the opposers\n realized what penalty is ordained to secure. Harris, God the\n Creator, 2:447, 451\u2014\u201cPunishment is not primarily reformatory; it\n educates conscience and vindicates the authority of law.\u201d R. W.\n Dale: \u201cIt is not necessary to prove that hanging is beneficial to\n the person hanged. The theory that society has no right to send a\n man to jail, to feed him on bread and water, to make him pick hemp\n or work a treadmill, except to reform him, is utterly rotten. He\n must deserve to be punished, or else the law has no right to\n punish him.\u201d A House of Refuge or a State Industrial School is\n primarily a penal institution, for it deprives persons of their\n liberty and compels them against their will to labor. This loss\n and deprivation on their part cannot be justified except upon the\n ground that it is the desert of their wrong doing. Whatever\n gracious and philanthropic influences may accompany this\n confinement and compulsion, they cannot of themselves explain the\n penal element in the institution. If they could, a _habeas corpus_\n decree could be sought, and obtained, from any competent court.\n\n God\u2019s treatment of men in this world also combines the elements of\n penalty and of chastisement. Suffering is first of all deserved,\n and this justifies its infliction. But it is at the beginning\n accompanied with all manner of alleviating influences which tend\n to draw men back to God. As these gracious influences are\n resisted, the punitive element becomes preponderating, and penalty\n reflects God\u2019s holiness rather than his love. Moberly, Atonement\n and Personality, 1-25\u2014\u201cPain is not the immediate object of\n punishment. It must be a means to an end, a moral end, namely,\n penitence. But where the depraved man becomes a human tiger, there\n punishment must reach its culmination. There is a punishment which\n is not restorative. According to the spirit in which punishment is\n received, it may be internal or external. All punishment begins as\n discipline. It tends to repentance. Its triumph would be the\n triumph within. It becomes retributive only as the sinner refuses\n to repent. Punishment is only the development of sin. The ideal\n penitent condemns himself, identifies himself with righteousness\n by accepting penalty. In proportion as penalty fails in its\n purpose to produce penitence, it acquires more and more a\n retributive character, whose climax is not Calvary but Hell.\u201d\n\n Alexander, Moral Order and Progress, 327-333 (quoted in Ritchie,\n Darwin, and Hegel, 67)\u2014\u201cPunishment has three characters: It is\n retributive, in so far as it falls under the general law that\n resistance to the dominant type recoils on the guilty or resistant\n creature; it is preventive, in so far as, being a statutory\n enactment, it aims at securing the maintenance of the law\n irrespective of the individual\u2019s character. But this latter\n characteristic is secondary, and the former is comprehended in the\n third idea, that of reformation, which is the superior form in\n which retribution appears when the type is a mental ideal and is\n affected by conscious persons.\u201d Hyslop on Freedom, Responsibility,\n and Punishment, in Mind, April, 1894:167-189\u2014\u201cIn the Elmira\n Reformatory, out of 2295 persons paroled between 1876 and 1889,\n 1907 or 83 per cent. represent a probably complete reformation.\n Determinists say that this class of persons cannot do otherwise.\n Something is wrong with their theory. We conclude that 1. Causal\n responsibility justifies preventive punishment; 2. Potential moral\n responsibility justifies corrective punishment; 3. Actual moral\n responsibility justifies retributive punishment.\u201d Here we need\n only to point out the incorrect use of the word \u201cpunishment,\u201d\n which belongs only to the last class. In the two former cases the\n word \u201cchastisement\u201d should have been used. See Julius M\u00fcller,\n Lehre von der S\u00fcnde, 1:334; Thornton, Old Fashioned Ethics, 70-73;\n Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:238, 239 (Syst. Doct., 3:134,135);\n Robertson\u2019s Sermons, 4th Series, no. 18 (Harper\u2019s ed., 752); see\n also this Compendium, references on Holiness, A. (_d_), page 273.\n\n\n(_b_) Penalty is not essentially deterrent and preventive.\u2014By this we mean\nthat its primary design is not to protect society, by deterring men from\nthe commission of like offences. We grant that this end is often secured\nin connection with punishment, both in family and civil government and\nunder the government of God. But we claim that this is a merely incidental\nresult, which God\u2019s wisdom and goodness have connected with the infliction\nof penalty,\u2014it cannot be the reason and ground for penalty itself. Some of\nthe objections to the preceding theory apply also to this. But in addition\nto what has been said, we urge:\n\nPenalty cannot be primarily designed to secure social and governmental\nsafety, for the reason that it is never right to punish the individual\nsimply for the good of society. No punishment, moreover, will or can do\ngood to others that is not just and right in itself. Punishment does good,\nonly when the person punished deserves punishment; and that _desert_ of\npunishment, and not the good effects that will follow it, must be the\nground and reason why it is inflicted. The contrary theory would imply\nthat the criminal might go free but for the effect of his punishment on\nothers, and that man might rightly commit crime if only he were willing to\nbear the penalty.\n\n\n Kant, Praktische Vernunft, 151 (ed. Rosenkranz)\u2014\u201cThe notion of\n ill-desert and punishableness is necessarily implied in the idea\n of voluntary transgression; and the idea of punishment excludes\n that of happiness in all its forms. For though he who inflicts\n punishment may, it is true, also have a benevolent purpose to\n produce by the punishment some good effect upon the criminal, yet\n the punishment must be justified first of all as pure and simple\n requital and retribution.... In every punishment as such, justice\n is the very first thing and constitutes the essence of it. A\n benevolent purpose, it is true, may be conjoined with punishment;\n but the criminal cannot claim this as his due, and he has no right\n to reckon on it.\u201d These utterances of Kant apply to the deterrent\n theory as well as to the reformatory theory of penalty. The\n element of desert or retribution is the basis of the other\n elements in punishment. See James Seth, Ethical Principles,\n 333-338; Shedd, Dogm. Theology, 2:717; Hodge, Essays, 133.\n\n A certain English judge, in sentencing a criminal, said that he\n punished him, not for stealing sheep, but that sheep might not be\n stolen. But it is the greatest injustice to punish a man for the\n mere sake of example. Society cannot be benefited by such\n injustice. The theory can give no reason why one should be\n punished rather than another, nor why a second offence should be\n punished more heavily than the first. On this theory, moreover, if\n there were but one creature in the universe, and none existed\n beside himself to be affected by his suffering, he could not\n justly be punished, however great might be his sin. The only\n principle that can explain punishment is the principle of\n _desert_. See Martineau, Types of Ethical Theory, 2:348.\n\n \u201cCrime is most prevented by the conviction that crime deserves\n punishment; the greatest deterrent agency is conscience.\u201d So in\n the government of God \u201cthere is no hint that future punishment\n works good to the lost or to the universe. The integrity of the\n redeemed is not to be maintained by subjecting the lost to a\n punishment they do not deserve. The wrong merits punishment, and\n God is bound to punish it, whether good comes of it or not. Sin is\n intrinsically ill-deserving. Impurity must be banished from God.\n God must vindicate himself, or cease to be holy\u201d (see art. on the\n Philosophy of Punishment, by F. L. Patton, in Brit. and For.\n Evang. Rev., Jan. 1878:126-139).\n\n Bowne, Principles of Ethics, 186, 274\u2014Those who maintain\n punishment to be essentially deterrent and preventive \u201cignore the\n metaphysics of responsibility and treat the problem \u2018positively\n and objectively\u2019 on the basis of physiology, sociology, etc., and\n in the interests of public safety. The question of guilt or\n innocence is as irrelevant as the question concerning the guilt or\n innocence of wasps and hornets. An ancient holder of this view set\n forth the opinion that \u2018_it was expedient that one man should die\n for the people_\u2019 (_John 18:14_), and so Jesus was put to death....\n A mob in eastern Europe might be persuaded that a Jew had\n slaughtered a Christian child as a sacrifice. The authorities\n might be perfectly sure of the man\u2019s innocence, and yet proceed to\n punish him because of the mob\u2019s clamor, and the danger of an\n outbreak.\u201d Men high up in the French government thought it was\n better that Dreyfus should suffer for the sake of France, than\n that a scandal affecting the honor of the French army should be\n made public. In perfect consistency with this principle, McKim,\n Heredity and Human Progress, 192, advocates infliction of painless\n death upon idiots, imbeciles, epileptics, habitual drunkards,\n insane criminals, murderers, nocturnal house breakers, and all\n dangerous and incorrigible persons. He would change the place of\n slaughter from our streets and homes to our penal institutions; in\n other words, he would abandon punishment, but protect society.\n\n Failure to recognize holiness as the fundamental attribute of God,\n and the affirmation of that holiness as conditioning the exercise\n of love, vitiates the discussion of penalty by A. H. Bradford, Age\n of Faith, 243-250\u2014\u201cWhat is penal suffering designed to accomplish?\n Is it to manifest the holiness of God? Is it to express the\n sanctity of the moral law? Is it simply a natural consequence?\n Does it manifest the divine Fatherhood? God does not inflict\n penalty simply to satisfy himself or to manifest his holiness, any\n more than an earthly father inflicts suffering on his child to\n show his wrath against the wrongdoer or to manifest his own\n goodness. The idea of punishment is essentially barbaric and\n foreign to all that is known of the Deity. Penalty that is not\n reformatory or protective is barbarism. In the home, punishment is\n always discipline. Its object is the welfare of the child and the\n family. Punishment as an expression of wrath or enmity, with no\n remedial purpose beyond, is a relic of barbarism. It carries with\n it the content of vengeance. It is the expression of anger, of\n passion, or at best of cold justice. Penal suffering is\n undoubtedly the divine holiness expressing its hatred of sin. But,\n if it stops with such expression, it is not holiness, but\n selfishness. If on the other hand that expression of holiness is\n used or permitted in order that the sinner may be made to hate his\n sin, then it is no more punishment, but chastisement. On any other\n hypothesis, penal suffering has no justification except the\n arbitrary will of the Almighty, and such a hypothesis is an\n impeachment both of his justice and his love.\u201d This view seems to\n us to ignore the necessary reaction of divine holiness against\n sin; to make holiness a mere form of love; a means to an end and\n that end utilitarian; and so to deny to holiness any independent,\n or even real, existence in the divine nature.\n\n The wrath of God is calm and judicial, devoid of all passion or\n caprice, but it is the expression of eternal and unchangeable\n righteousness. It is vindicative but not vindictive. Without it\n there could be no government, and God would not be God. F. W.\n Robertson: \u201cDoes not the element of vengeance exist in all\n punishment, and does not the feeling exist, not as a sinful, but\n as an essential, part of human nature? If so, there must be wrath\n in God.\u201d Lord Bacon: \u201cRevenge is a wild sort of justice.\u201d Stephen:\n \u201cCriminal law provides legitimate satisfaction of the passions of\n revenge.\u201d Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 1:287. _Per contra_, see Bib.\n Sac., Apr. 1881:286-302; H. B. Smith, System of Theology, 46, 47;\n Chitty\u2019s ed. of Blackstone\u2019s Commentaries, 4:7; Wharton, Criminal\n Law, vol. 1, bk. 1, chap. 1.\n\n\n2. The actual penalty of sin.\n\n\nThe one word in Scripture which designates the total penalty of sin is\n\u201cdeath.\u201d Death, however, is twofold:\n\nA. Physical death,\u2014or the separation of the soul from the body, including\nall those temporal evils and sufferings which result from disturbance of\nthe original harmony between body and soul, and which are the working of\ndeath in us. That physical death is a part of the penalty of sin, appears:\n\n(_a_) From Scripture.\n\nThis is the most obvious import of the threatening in Gen. 2:17\u2014\u201cthou\nshalt surely die\u201d; _cf._ 3:19\u2014\u201cunto dust shalt thou return.\u201d Allusions to\nthis threat in the O. T. confirm this interpretation: Num. 16:29\u2014\u201cvisited\nafter the visitation of all men,\u201d where \u05e4\u05e7\u05d3 = judicial visitation, or\npunishment; 27:3 (LXX.\u2014\u03b4\u03b9\u1fbd \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6). The prayer of Moses in Ps. 90:\n7-9, 11, and the prayer of Hezekiah in Is. 38:17, 18, recognize plainly\nthe penal nature of death. The same doctrine is taught in the N. T., as\nfor example, John 8:44; Rom. 5:12, 14, 16, 17, where the judicial\nphraseology is to be noted (_cf._ 1:32); see 6:23 also. In 1 Pet. 4:6,\nphysical death is spoken of as God\u2019s judgment against sin. In 1 Cor.\n15:21, 22, the bodily resurrection of all believers, in Christ, is\ncontrasted with the bodily death of all men, in Adam. Rom. 4:24, 25; 6:9,\n10; 8:3, 10, 11; Gal. 3:13, show that Christ submitted to physical death\nas the penalty of sin, and by his resurrection from the grave gave proof\nthat the penalty of sin was exhausted and that humanity in him was\njustified. \u201cAs the resurrection of the body is a part of the redemption,\nso the death of the body is a part of the penalty.\u201d\n\n\n _Ps. 90:7, 9_\u2014\u201c_we are consumed in thine anger ... all our days\n are passed away in thy wrath_\u201d; _Is. 38:17, 18_\u2014\u201c_thou hast in\n love to my soul delivered it from the pit ... thou hast cast all\n my sins behind thy back. For Sheol cannot praise thee_\u201d; _John\n 8:44_\u2014\u201c_He_ [Satan] _was a murderer from the beginning_\u201d;\n _11:33_\u2014Jesus \u201c_groaned in the spirit_\u201d = was moved with\n indignation at what sin had wrought; _Rom. 5:12, 14, 16,\n 17_\u2014\u201c_death through sin ... death passed unto all men, for that\n all sinned ... death reigned ... even over them that had not\n sinned after the likeness of Adam\u2019s transgression ... the judgment\n came of one_ [trespass] _unto condemnation ... by the trespass of\n the one, death reigned through the one_\u201d; _cf._ the legal\n phraseology in _1:32_\u2014\u201c_who, knowing the ordinance of God, that\n they that practise such things are worthy of death._\u201d _Rom.\n 6:23_\u2014\u201c_the wages of sin is death_\u201d = death is sin\u2019s just due. _1\n Pet. 4:6_\u2014\u201c_that they might be judged indeed according to men in\n the flesh_\u201d = that they might suffer physical death, which to men\n in general is the penalty of sin. _1 Cor. 15:21, 22_\u2014\u201c_as in Adam\n all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive_\u201d; _Rom. 4:24,\n 25_\u2014\u201c_raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up\n for our trespasses, and was raised for our justification_\u201d; _6:9,\n 10_\u2014\u201c_Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death no\n more hath dominion over him. For the death that he died, he died\n unto sin once: but the life that he liveth, he liveth unto God_\u201d;\n _8:3, 10, 11_\u2014\u201c_God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful\n flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh ... the body is dead\n because of sin_\u201d (= a corpse, on account of sin\u2014Meyer; so Julius\n M\u00fcller, Doct. Sin, 2:291) ... \u201c_he that raised up Christ Jesus\n from the dead shall give life also to your mortal bodies_\u201d; _Gal.\n 3:13_\u2014\u201c_Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having\n become a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that\n hangeth on a tree._\u201d\n\n On the relation between death and sin, see Griffith-Jones, Ascent\n through Christ, 169-185\u2014\u201cThey are not antagonistic, but\n complementary to each other\u2014the one spiritual and the other\n biological. The natural fact is fitted to a moral use.\u201d Savage,\n Life after Death, 33\u2014\u201cMen did not at first believe in natural\n death. If a man died, it was because some one had killed him. No\n ethical reason was desired or needed. At last however they sought\n some moral explanation, and came to look upon death as a\n punishment for human sin.\u201d If this has been the course of human\n evolution, we should conclude that the later belief represents the\n truth rather than the earlier. Scripture certainly affirms the\n doctrine that death itself, and not the mere accompaniments of\n death, is the consequence and penalty of sin. For this reason we\n cannot accept the very attractive and plausible theory which we\n have now to mention:\n\n Newman Smyth, Place of Death in Evolution, holds that as the bow\n in the cloud was appointed for a moral use, so death, which before\n had been simply the natural law of the creation, was on occasion\n of man\u2019s sin appointed for a moral use. It is this _acquired_\n moral character of death with which Biblical Genesis has to do.\n Death becomes a curse, by being a fear and a torment. Animals have\n not this fear. But in man death stirs up conscience. Redemption\n takes away the fear, and death drops back into its natural aspect,\n or even becomes a gateway to life. Death is a curse to no animal\n but man. The retributive element to death is the effect of sin.\n When man has become perfected, death will cease to be of use, and\n will, as the last enemy, be destroyed. Death here is Nature\u2019s\n method of securing always fresh, young, thrifty life, and the\n greatest possible exuberance and joy of it. It is God\u2019s way of\n securing the greatest possible number and variety of immortal\n beings. There are many schoolrooms for eternity in God\u2019s universe,\n and a ceaseless succession of scholars through them. There are\n many folds, but one flock. The reaper Death keeps making room.\n Four or five generations are as many as we can individually love,\n and get moral stimulus from.\n\n Methuselahs too many would hold back the new generations. Bagehot\n says that civilization needs first to form a cake of custom, and\n secondly to break it up. Death, says Martineau, Study, 1:372-374,\n is the provision for taking us abroad, before we have stayed too\n long at home to lose our receptivity. Death is the liberator of\n souls. The death of successive generations gives variety to\n heaven. Death perfects love, reveals it to itself, unites as life\n could not. As for Christ, so for us, it is expedient that we\n should go away.\n\n While we welcome this reasoning as showing how God has overruled\n evil for good, we regard the explanation as unscriptural and\n unsatisfactory, for the reason that it takes no account of the\n ethics of natural law. The law of death is an expression of the\n nature of God, and specially of his holy wrath against sin. Other\n methods of propagating the race and reinforcing its life could\n have been adopted than that which involves pain and suffering and\n death. These do not exist in the future life,\u2014they would not exist\n here, if it were not for the fact of sin. Dr. Smyth shows how the\n evil of death has been overruled,\u2014he has not shown the reason for\n the original existence of the evil. The Scriptures explain this as\n the penalty and stigma which God has attached to sin: _Psalm 90:7,\n 8_ makes this plain: \u201c_For we are consumed in thine anger, And in\n thy wrath are we troubled. Thou hast set our iniquities before\n thee, Our secret sins in the light of thy countenance._\u201d The whole\n psalm has for its theme: Death as the wages of sin. And this is\n the teaching of Paul, in _Rom. 5:12_\u2014\u201c_through one man sin entered\n into the world, and death through sin._\u201d\n\n\n(_b_) From reason.\n\nThe universal prevalence of suffering and death among rational creatures\ncannot be reconciled with the divine justice, except upon the supposition\nthat it is a judicial infliction on account of a common sinfulness of\nnature belonging even to those who have not reached moral consciousness.\n\nThe objection that death existed in the animal creation before the Fall\nmay be answered by saying that, but for the fact of man\u2019s sin, it would\nnot have existed. We may believe that God arranged even the geologic\nhistory to correspond with the foreseen fact of human apostasy (_cf._ Rom.\n8:20-23\u2014where the creation is said to have been made subject to vanity by\nreason of man\u2019s sin).\n\n\n On _Rom. 8:20-23_\u2014\u201c_the creation was subjected to vanity, not of\n its own will_\u201d\u2014see Meyer\u2019s Com., and Bap. Quar., 1:143; also _Gen.\n 3:17-19_\u2014\u201c_cursed is the ground for thy sake._\u201d See also note on\n the Relation of Creation to the Holiness and Benevolence of God,\n and references, pages 402, 403. As the vertebral structure of the\n first fish was an \u201canticipative consequence\u201d of man, so the\n suffering and death of fish pursued and devoured by other fish\n were an \u201canticipative consequence\u201d of man\u2019s foreseen war with God\n and with himself.\n\n\nThe translation of Enoch and Elijah, and of the saints that remain at\nChrist\u2019s second coming, seems intended to teach us that death is not a\nnecessary law of organized being, and to show what would have happened to\nAdam if he had been obedient. He was created a \u201cnatural,\u201d \u201cearthly\u201d body,\nbut might have attained a higher being, the \u201cspiritual,\u201d \u201cheavenly\u201d body,\nwithout the intervention of death. Sin, however, has turned the normal\ncondition of things into the rare exception (_cf._ 1 Cor. 15:42-50). Since\nChrist endured death as the penalty of sin, death to the Christian becomes\nthe gateway through which he enters into full communion with his Lord (see\nreferences below).\n\n\n Through physical death all Christians will pass, except those few\n who like Enoch and Elijah were translated, and those many who\n shall be alive at Christ\u2019s second coming. Enoch and Elijah were\n possible types of those surviving saints. On _1 Cor. 15:51_\u2014\u201c_We\n shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,_\u201d see Edward\n Irving, Works, 5:135. The apocryphal Assumption of Moses, verse 9,\n tells us that Joshua, being carried in vision to the spot at the\n moment of Moses\u2019 decease, beheld a double Moses, one dropped into\n the grave as belonging to the earth, the other mingling with the\n angels. The belief in Moses\u2019 immortality was not conditioned upon\n any resuscitation of the earthly corpse; see Martineau, Seat of\n Authority, 364. When Paul was caught up to the third heaven, it\n may have been a temporary translation of the disembodied spirit.\n Set free for a brief space from the prison house which confined\n it, it may have passed within the veil and have seen and heard\n what mortal tongue could not describe; see Luckock, Intermediate\n State, 4. So Lazarus probably could not tell what he saw: \u201cHe told\n it not; or something sealed The lips of that Evangelist\u201d; see\n Tennyson, In Memoriam, xxxi.\n\n Nicoll, Life of Christ: \u201cWe have every one of us to face the last\n enemy, death. Ever since the world began, all who have entered it\n sooner or later have had this struggle, and the battle has always\n ended in one way. Two indeed escaped, but they did not escape by\n meeting and mastering their foe; they escaped by being taken away\n from the battle.\u201d But this physical death, for the Christian, has\n been turned by Christ into a blessing. A pardoned prisoner may be\n still kept in prison, as the best possible benefit to an exhausted\n body; so the external fact of physical death may remain, although\n it has ceased to be penalty. Macaulay: \u201cThe aged prisoner\u2019s chains\n are needed to support him; the darkness that has weakened his\n sight is necessary to preserve it.\u201d So spiritual death is not\n wholly removed from the Christian; a part of it, namely,\n depravity, still remains; yet it has ceased to be punishment,\u2014it\n is only chastisement. When the finger unties the ligature that\n bound it, the body which previously had only chastised begins to\n cure the trouble. There is still pain, but the pain is no longer\n punitive,\u2014it is now remedial. In the midst of the whipping, when\n the boy repents, his punishment is changed to chastisement.\n\n _John 14:3_\u2014\u201c_And if I go and prepare a place for you, I come\n again, and will receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye\n may be also_\u201d; _1 Cor. 15:54-57_\u2014\u201c_Death is swallowed up in\n victory ... O death, where is thy sting? The sting of death is\n sin; and the power of sin is the law_\u201d\u2014_i. e._, the law\u2019s\n condemnation, its penal infliction; _2 Cor. 5:1-9_\u2014\u201c_For we know\n that if the earthly house of our tabernacle be dissolved we have a\n building from God ... we are of good courage, I say, and are\n willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be at home with\n the Lord_\u201d; _Phil. 1:21, 23_\u2014\u201c_to die is gain ... having the\n desire to depart and be with Christ; for it is very far better._\u201d\n In Christ and his bearing the penalty of sin, the Christian has\n broken through the circle of natural race-connection, and is saved\n from corporate evil so far as it is punishment. The Christian may\n be chastised, but he is never punished: _Rom. 8:1_\u2014\u201c_There is\n therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus._\u201d\n At the house of Jairus Jesus said: \u201c_Why make ye a tumult, and\n weep?_\u201d and having reproved the doleful clamorists, \u201c_he put them\n all forth_\u201d (_Mark 5:39, 40_). The wakes and requiems and masses\n and vigils of the churches of Rome and of Russia are all heathen\n relics, entirely foreign to Christianity.\n\n Palmer, Theological Definition, 57\u2014\u201cDeath feared and fought\n against is terrible; but a welcome to death is the death of death\n and the way to life.\u201d The idea that punishment yet remains for the\n Christian is \u201cthe bridge to the papal doctrine of purgatorial\n fires.\u201d Browning\u2019s words, in The Ring and the Book, 2:60\u2014\u201cIn His\n face is light, but in his shadow healing too,\u201d are applicable to\n God\u2019s fatherly chastenings, but not to his penal retributions. On\n _Acts 7:60_\u2014\u201c_he fell asleep_\u201d\u2014Arnot remarks: \u201cWhen death becomes\n the property of the believer, it receives a new name, and is\n called sleep.\u201d Another has said: \u201cChrist did not send, but came\n himself to save; The ransom-price he did not lend, but gave;\n Christ _died_, the shepherd for the sheep; We only _fall asleep_.\u201d\n _Per contra_, see Kreibig, Vers\u00f6hnungslehre, 375, and\n Hengstenberg, Ev. K.-Z., 1864:1065\u2014\u201cAll suffering is punishment.\u201d\n\n\nB. Spiritual death,\u2014or the separation of the soul from God, including all\nthat pain of conscience, loss of peace, and sorrow of spirit, which result\nfrom disturbance of the normal relation between the soul and God.\n\n(_a_) Although physical death is a part of the penalty of sin, it is by no\nmeans the chief part. The term \u201cdeath\u201d is frequently used in Scripture in\na moral and spiritual sense, as denoting the absence of that which\nconstitutes the true life of the soul, namely, the presence and favor of\nGod.\n\n\n _Mat. 8:22_\u2014\u201c_Follow me; and leave the_ [spiritually] _dead to\n bury their own_ [physically] _dead_\u201d; _Luke 15:32_\u2014\u201c_this thy\n brother was dead, and is alive again_\u201d; _John 5:24_\u2014\u201c_He that\n heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal\n life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death\n into life_\u201d; _8:51_\u2014\u201c_If a man keep my word, he shall never see\n death_\u201d; _Rom. 8:13_\u2014\u201c_if ye live after the flesh, ye must die;\n but if by the Spirit ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye\n shall live_\u201d; _Eph. 2:1_\u2014\u201c_when ye were dead through your\n trespasses and sins_\u201d; _5:14_\u2014\u201c_Awake, thou that sleepest, and\n arise from the dead_\u201d; _1 Tim. 5:6_\u2014\u201c_she that giveth herself to\n pleasure is dead while __ she liveth_\u201d; _James 5:20_\u2014\u201c_he who\n converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul\n from death_\u201d; _1 John 3:14_\u2014\u201c_He that loveth not abideth in\n death_\u201d; _Rev. 3:1_\u2014\u201c_thou hast a name that thou livest, and thou\n art dead._\u201d\n\n\n(_b_) It cannot be doubted that the penalty denounced in the garden and\nfallen upon the race is primarily and mainly that death of the soul which\nconsists in its separation from God. In this sense only, death was fully\nvisited upon Adam in the day on which he ate the forbidden fruit (Gen.\n2:17). In this sense only, death is escaped by the Christian (John 11:26).\nFor this reason, in the parallel between Adam and Christ (Rom. 5:12-21),\nthe apostle passes from the thought of mere physical death in the early\npart of the passage to that of both physical and spiritual death at its\nclose (verse 21\u2014\u201cas sin reigned in death, even so might grace reign\nthrough righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our\nLord\u201d\u2014where \u201ceternal life\u201d is more than endless physical existence, and\n\u201cdeath\u201d is more than death of the body).\n\n\n _Gen. 2:17_\u2014\u201c_in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt\n surely die_\u201d; _John 11:26_\u2014\u201c_whosoever liveth and believeth on me\n shall never die_\u201d; _Rom. 5:14, 18, 21_\u2014\u201c_justification of life ...\n eternal life_\u201d; contrast these with \u201c_death reigned ... sin\n reigned in death._\u201d\n\n\n(_c_) Eternal death may be regarded as the culmination and completion of\nspiritual death, and as essentially consisting in the correspondence of\nthe outward condition with the inward state of the evil soul (Acts 1:25).\nIt would seem to be inaugurated by some peculiar repellent energy of the\ndivine holiness (Mat. 25:41; 2 Thess. 1:9), and to involve positive\nretribution visited by a personal God upon both the body and the soul of\nthe evil-doer (Mat. 10:28; Heb. 10:31; Rev. 14:11).\n\n\n _Acts 1:25_\u2014\u201c_Judas fell away, that he might go to his own\n place_\u201d; _Mat. 25:41_\u2014\u201c_Depart from me, ye cursed, into the\n eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels_\u201d; _2\n Thess. 1:9_\u2014\u201c_who shall suffer punishment, even eternal\n destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his\n might_\u201d; _Mat. 10:28_\u2014\u201c_fear him who is able to destroy both soul\n and body in hell_\u201d; _Heb. 10:31_\u2014\u201c_It is a fearful thing to fall\n into the hands of the living God_\u201d; _Rev. 14:11_\u2014\u201c_the smoke of\n their torment goeth up for ever and ever._\u201d\n\n Kurtz, Religionslehre, 67\u2014\u201cSo long as God is holy, he must\n maintain the order of the world, and where this is destroyed,\n restore it. This however can happen in no other way than this: the\n injury by which the sinner has destroyed the order of the world\n falls back upon himself,\u2014and this is penalty. Sin is the negation\n of the law. Penalty is the negation of that negation, that is, the\n re\u00ebstablishment of the law. Sin is a thrust of the sinner against\n the law. Penalty is the adverse thrust of the elastic because\n living law, which encounters the sinner.\u201d\n\n Plato, Gorgias, 472 E; 509 B; 511 A; 515 B\u2014\u201cImpunity is a more\n dreadful curse than any punishment, and nothing so good can befall\n the criminal as his retribution, the failure of which would make a\n double disorder in the universe. The offender himself may spend\n his arts in devices of escape and think himself happy if he is not\n found out. But all this plotting is but part of the delusion of\n his sin; and when he comes to himself and sees his transgression\n as it really is, he will yield himself up the prisoner of eternal\n justice and know that it is good for him to be afflicted, and so\n for the first time to be set at one with truth.\u201d\n\n On the general subject of the penalty of sin, see Julius M\u00fcller,\n Doct. Sin, 1:245 _sq._; 2:286-397; Baird, Elohim Revealed,\n 263-279; Bushnell, Nature and the Supernatural, 194-219; Krabbe,\n Lehre von der S\u00fcnde und vom Tode; Weisse, in Studien und Kritiken,\n 1836:371; S. R. Mason, Truth Unfolded, 369-384; Bartlett, in New\n Englander, Oct. 1871:677, 678.\n\n\n\nSection VII.\u2014The Salvation Of Infants.\n\n\nThe views which have been presented with regard to inborn depravity and\nthe reaction of divine holiness against it suggest the question whether\ninfants dying before arriving at moral consciousness are saved, and if so,\nin what way. To this question we reply as follows:\n\n(_a_) Infants are in a state of sin, need to be regenerated, and can be\nsaved only through Christ.\n\n\n _Job 14:4_\u2014\u201c_Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not\n one_\u201d; _Ps. 51:5_\u2014\u201c_Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And\n in sin did my mother conceive me_\u201d; _John 3:6_\u2014\u201c_That which is\n born of the flesh is flesh_\u201d; _Rom. 5:14_\u2014\u201c_Nevertheless death\n reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned\n after the likeness of Adam\u2019s transgression_\u201d; _Eph. 2:3_\u2014\u201c_by\n nature children of wrath_\u201d; _1 Cor. 7:14_\u2014\u201c_else were your\n children unclean_\u201d\u2014clearly intimate the naturally impure state of\n infants; and _Mat. 19:14_\u2014\u201c_Suffer the little children, and forbid\n them not, to come unto me_\u201d\u2014is not only consistent with this\n doctrine, but strongly confirms it; for the meaning is: \u201c_forbid\n them not to come unto me_\u201d\u2014whom they need as a Savior. \u201cComing to\n Christ\u201d is always the coming of a sinner, to him who is the\n sacrifice for sin; _cf._ _Mat. 11:28_\u2014\u201c_Come unto me, all ye that\n labor._\u201d\n\n\n(_b_) Yet as compared with those who have personally transgressed, they\nare recognized as possessed of a relative innocence, and of a\nsubmissiveness and trustfulness, which may serve to illustrate the graces\nof Christian character.\n\n\n _Deut 1:39_\u2014\u201c_your little ones ... and your children, that this\n day have no knowledge of good or evil_\u201d; _Jonah 4:11_\u2014\u201c_sixscore\n thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and\n their left hand_\u201d; _Rom. 9:11_\u2014\u201c_for the children being not yet\n born, neither having done anything good or bad_\u201d; _Mat. 18:3,\n 4_\u2014\u201c_Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no\n wise enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall\n humble himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in\n the kingdom of heaven._\u201d See Julius M\u00fcller, Doct. Sin, 2:265.\n Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 2:50\u2014\u201cUnpretentious receptivity, ... not\n the reception of the kingdom of God at a childlike _age_, but in a\n childlike _character_ ... is the condition of entering; ... not\n blamelessness, but receptivity itself, on the part of those who do\n not regard themselves as too good or too bad for the offered gift,\n but receive it with hearty desire. Children have this\n unpretentious receptivity for the kingdom of God which is\n characteristic of them generally, since they have not yet other\n possessions on which they pride themselves.\u201d\n\n\n(_c_) For this reason, they are the objects of special divine compassion\nand care, and through the grace of Christ are certain of salvation.\n\n\n _Mat. 18:5, 6, 10, 14_\u2014\u201c_whoso shall receive one such little child\n in my name receiveth me: but whoso shall cause one of these little\n ones that believe on me to stumble, it is profitable for him that\n a great millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he\n should be sunk in the depth of the sea.... See that ye despise not\n one of these little ones: for I say unto you, that in heaven their\n angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven....\n Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven, that\n one of these little ones should perish_\u201d; _19:14_\u2014\u201c_Suffer the\n little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for to such\n belongeth the kingdom of heaven_\u201d\u2014not God\u2019s kingdom of nature, but\n his kingdom of grace, the kingdom of saved sinners. \u201cSuch\u201d means,\n not children as children, but childlike believers. Meyer, on _Mat.\n 19:14_, refers the passage to spiritual infants only: \u201cNot little\n children,\u201d he says, \u201cbut men of a childlike disposition.\u201d Geikie:\n \u201cLet the little children come unto me, and do not forbid them, for\n the kingdom of heaven is given only to such as have a childlike\n spirit and nature like theirs.\u201d The Savior\u2019s words do not intimate\n that little children are either (1) sinless creatures, or (2)\n subjects for baptism; but only that their (1) humble\n teachableness, (2) intense eagerness, and (3) artless trust,\n illustrate the traits necessary for admission into the divine\n kingdom. On the passages in Matthew, see Commentaries of Bengel,\n De Wette, Lange; also Neander, Planting and Training (ed.\n Robinson), 407.\n\n We therefore substantially agree with Dr. A. C. Kendrick, in his\n article in the Sunday School Times: \u201cTo infants and children, as\n such, the language cannot apply. It must be taken figuratively,\n and must refer to those qualities in childhood, its dependence,\n its trustfulness, its tender affection, its loving obedience,\n which are typical of the essential Christian graces.... If asked\n after the _logic_ of our Savior\u2019s words\u2014how he could assign, as a\n reason for allowing _literal_ little children to be brought to\n him, that _spiritual_ little children have a claim to the kingdom\n of heaven\u2014I reply: the persons that thus, as a class, typify the\n subjects of God\u2019s spiritual kingdom cannot be in themselves\n objects of indifference to him, or be regarded otherwise than with\n intense interest.... The class that in its very nature thus\n shadows forth the brightest features of Christian excellence must\n be subjects of God\u2019s special concern and care.\u201d\n\n To these remarks of Dr. Kendrick we would add, that Jesus\u2019 words\n seem to us to intimate more than special concern and care. While\n these words seem intended to exclude all idea that infants are\n saved by their natural holiness, or without application to them of\n the blessings of his atonement, they also seem to us to include\n infants among the number of those who have the right to these\n blessings; in other words, Christ\u2019s concern and care go so far as\n to choose infants to eternal life, and to make them subjects of\n the kingdom of heaven. _Cf._ _Mat. 18:14_\u2014\u201c_it is not the will of\n your Father who is in heaven, that one of those little ones should\n perish_\u201d\u2014those whom Christ has received here, he will not reject\n hereafter. Of course this to said to infants, as infants. To\n those, therefore, who die before coming to moral consciousness,\n Christ\u2019s words assure salvation. Personal transgression, however,\n involves the necessity, before death, of a personal repentance and\n faith, in order to achieve salvation.\n\n\n(_d_) The descriptions of God\u2019s merciful provision as co\u00ebxtensive with the\nruin of the Fall also lead us to believe that those who die in infancy\nreceive salvation through Christ as certainly as they inherit sin from\nAdam.\n\n\n _John 3:16_\u2014\u201c_For God so loved the world_\u201d\u2014includes infants. _Rom.\n 5:14_\u2014\u201c_death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that\n had not sinned after the likeness of Adam\u2019s transgression, who is\n a figure of him that was to come_\u201d\u2014there is an application to\n infants of the life in Christ, as there was an application to them\n of the death in Adam; _19-21_\u2014\u201c_For as through the one man\u2019s\n disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the\n obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous. And the law\n came in besides, that the trespass might abound; but when sin\n abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly: that, as sin reigned\n in death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto\n eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord_\u201d\u2014as without personal\n act of theirs infants inherited corruption from Adam, so without\n personal act of theirs salvation is provided for them in Christ.\n\n Hovey, Bib. Eschatology, 170, 171\u2014\u201cThough the sacred writers say\n nothing in respect to the future condition of those who die in\n infancy, one can scarcely err in deriving from this silence a\n favorable conclusion. That no prophet or apostle, that no devout\n father or mother, should have expressed any solicitude as to those\n who die before they are able to discern good from evil is\n surprising, unless such solicitude was prevented by the Spirit of\n God. There are no instances of prayer for children taken away in\n infancy. The Savior nowhere teaches that they are in danger of\n being lost. We therefore heartily and confidently believe that\n they are redeemed by the blood of Christ and sanctified by his\n Spirit, so that when they enter the unseen world they will be\n found with the saints.\u201d David ceased to fast and weep when his\n child died, for he said: \u201c_I shall go to him, but he will not\n return to me_\u201d (_2 Sam. 12:23_).\n\n\n(_e_) The condition of salvation for adults is personal faith. Infants are\nincapable of fulfilling this condition. Since Christ has died for all, we\nhave reason to believe that provision is made for their reception of\nChrist in some other way.\n\n\n _2 Cor. 5:15_\u2014\u201c_he died for all_\u201d; _Mark 16:16_\u2014\u201c_He that\n believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth\n shall be condemned_\u201d (_verses 9-20_ are of canonical authority,\n though probably not written by Mark). Dr. G. W. Northrop held\n that, as death to the Christian has ceased to be penalty, so death\n to all infants is no longer penalty, Christ having atoned for and\n removed the guilt of original sin for all men, infants included.\n But we reply that there is no evidence that there is any guilt\n taken away except for those who come into vital union with Christ.\n E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 166\u2014\u201cThe curse falls alike on\n every one by birth, but may be alleviated or intensified by every\n one who comes to years of responsibility, according as his nature\n which brings the curse rules, or is ruled by, his reason and\n conscience. So the blessings of salvation are procured for all\n alike, but may be lost or secured according to the attitude of\n everyone toward Christ who alone procures them. To infants, as the\n curse comes without their election, so in like manner comes its\n removal.\u201d\n\n\n(_f_) At the final judgment, personal conduct is made the test of\ncharacter. But infants are incapable of personal transgression. We have\nreason, therefore, to believe that they will be among the saved, since\nthis rule of decision will not apply to them.\n\n\n _Mat. 25:45, 46_\u2014\u201c_Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these\n least, ye did it not unto me. And these shall go away into eternal\n punishment_\u201d; _Rom. 2:5, 6_\u2014\u201c_the day of wrath and revelation of\n the righteous judgment of God; who __ will render to every man\n according to his works._\u201d Norman Fox, The Unfolding of Baptist\n Doctrine, 24\u2014\u201cNot only the Roman Catholics believed in the\n damnation of infants. The Lutherans, in the Augsburg Confession,\n condemn the Baptists for affirming that children are saved without\n baptism\u2014\u2018damnant Anabaptistas qui ... affirmant pueros sine\n baptismo salvos fieri\u2019\u2014and the favorite poet of Presbyterian\n Scotland, in his Tam O\u2019Shanter, names among objects from hell \u2018Twa\n span-lang, wee, unchristened bairns.\u2019 The Westminster Confession,\n in declaring that \u2018elect infants dying in infancy\u2019 are saved,\n implies that non-elect infants dying in infancy are lost. This was\n certainly taught by some of the framers of that creed.\u201d\n\n Yet John Calvin did not believe in the damnation of infants, as he\n has been charged with believing. In the Amsterdam edition of his\n works, 8:522, we read: \u201cI do not doubt that the infants whom the\n Lord gathers together from this life are regenerated by a secret\n operation of the Holy Spirit.\u201d In his Institutes, book 4, chap.\n 16, p. 335, he speaks of the exemption of infants from the grace\n of salvation \u201cas an idea not free from execrable blasphemy.\u201d The\n Presb. and Ref. Rev., Oct. 1890:634-651, quotes Calvin as follows:\n \u201cI everywhere teach that no one can be justly condemned and perish\n except on account of actual sin; and to say that the countless\n mortals taken from life while yet infants are precipitated from\n their mothers\u2019 arms into eternal death is a blasphemy to be\n universally detested.\u201d So also John Owen, Works, 8:522\u2014\u201cThere are\n two ways by which God saveth infants. First, by interesting them\n in the covenant, if their immediate or remote parents have been\n believers; ... Secondly, by his grace of election, which is most\n free and not tied to any conditions; by which I make no doubt but\n God taketh unto him in Christ many whose parents never knew, or\n were despisers of, the gospel.\u201d\n\n\n(_g_) Since there is no evidence that children dying in infancy are\nregenerated prior to death, either with or without the use of external\nmeans, it seems most probable that the work of regeneration may be\nperformed by the Spirit in connection with the infant soul\u2019s first view of\nChrist in the other world. As the remains of natural depravity in the\nChristian are eradicated, not by death, but at death, through the sight of\nChrist and union with him, so the first moment of consciousness for the\ninfant may be coincident with a view of Christ the Savior which\naccomplishes the entire sanctification of its nature.\n\n\n _2 Cor. 3:18_\u2014\u201c_But we all, beholding as in a mirror the glory of\n the Lord, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory,\n even as from the Lord the Spirit_\u201d; _1 John 3:2_\u2014\u201c_We know that,\n if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him; for we shall see\n him as he is._\u201d If asked why more is not said upon the subject in\n Scripture, we reply: It is according to the analogy of God\u2019s\n general method to hide things that are not of immediate practical\n value. In some past ages, moreover, knowledge of the fact that all\n children dying in infancy are saved might have seemed to make\n infanticide a virtue.\n\n While we agree with the following writers as to the salvation of\n all infants who die before the age of conscious and wilful\n transgression, we dissent from the seemingly Arminian tendency of\n the explanation which they suggest. H. E. Robins, Harmony of\n Ethics with Theology: \u201cThe judicial declaration of acquittal on\n the ground of the death of Christ which comes upon all men, into\n the benefits of which they are introduced by natural birth, is\n inchoate justification, and will become perfected justification\n through the new birth of the Holy Spirit, unless the working of\n this divine agent is resisted by the personal moral action of\n those who are lost.\u201d So William Ashmore, in Christian Review,\n 26:245-264. F. O. Dickey: \u201cAs infants are members of the race, and\n as they are justified from the penalty against inherited sin by\n the mediatorial work of Christ, so the race itself is justified\n from the same penalty and to the same extent as are they, and were\n the race to die in infancy it would be saved.\u201d The truth in the\n above utterances seems to us to be that Christ\u2019s union with the\n race secures the objective reconciliation of the race to God. But\n subjective and personal reconciliation depends upon a moral union\n with Christ which can be accomplished for the infant only by his\n own appropriation of Christ at death.\n\n\nWhile, in the nature of things and by the express declarations of\nScripture, we are precluded from extending this doctrine of regeneration\nat death to any who have committed personal sins, we are nevertheless\nwarranted in the conclusion that, certain and great as is the guilt of\noriginal sin, no human soul is eternally condemned solely for this sin of\nnature, but that, on the other hand, all who have not consciously and\nwilfully transgressed are made partakers of Christ\u2019s salvation.\n\n\n The advocates of a second probation, on the other hand, should\n logically hold that infants in the next world are in a state of\n sin, and that at death they only enter upon a period of probation\n in which they may, or may not, accept Christ,\u2014a doctrine much less\n comforting than that propounded above. See Prentiss, in Presb.\n Rev., July, 1883: 548-580\u2014\u201cLyman Beecher and Charles Hodge first\n made current in this country the doctrine of the salvation of all\n who die in infancy. If this doctrine be accepted, then it follows:\n (1) that these partakers of original sin must be saved wholly\n through divine grace and power; (2) that in the child unborn there\n is the promise and potency of complete spiritual manhood; (3) that\n salvation is possible entirely apart from the visible church and\n the means of grace; (4) that to a full half of the race this life\n is not in any way a period of probation; (5) that heathen may be\n saved who have never even heard of the gospel; (6) that the\n providence of God includes in its scope both infants and heathen.\u201d\n\n \u201cChildren exert a redeeming and reclaiming influence upon us,\n their casual acts and words and simple trust recalling our\n world-hardened and wayward hearts again to the feet of God. Silas\n Marner, the old weaver of Raveloe, so pathetically and vividly\n described in George Eliot\u2019s novel, was a hard, desolate, godless\n old miser, but after little Eppie strayed into his miserable\n cottage that memorable winter night, he began again to believe. \u2018I\n think now,\u2019 he said at last, \u2018I can trusten God until I die.\u2019 An\n incident in a Southern hospital illustrates the power of children\n to call men to repentance. A little girl was to undergo a\n dangerous operation. When she mounted the table, and the doctor\n was about to etherize her, he said: \u2018Before we can make you well,\n we must put you to sleep.\u2019 \u2018Oh then, if you are going to put me to\n sleep,\u2019 she sweetly said, \u2018I must say my prayers first.\u2019 Then,\n getting down on her knees, and folding her hands, she repeated\n that lovely prayer learned at every true mother\u2019s feet: \u2018Now I lay\n me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep.\u2019 Just for a\n moment there were moist eyes in that group, for deep chords were\n touched, and the surgeon afterwards said: \u2018I prayed that night for\n the first time in thirty years.\u2019 \u201d The child that is old enough to\n sin against God is old enough to trust in Christ as the Savior of\n sinners. See Van Dyke, Christ and Little Children; Whitsitt and\n Warfield, Infant Baptism and Infant Salvation; Hodge, Syst.\n Theol., 1:26, 27; Ridgeley, Body of Div., 1:422-425; Calvin,\n Institutes, II, i, 8; Westminster Larger Catechism, x, 3; Krauth,\n Infant Salvation in the Calvinistic System; Candlish on Atonement,\n part ii, chap. 1; Geo. P. Fisher, in New Englander, Apr. 1868:338;\n J. F. Clarke, Truths and Errors of Orthodoxy, 360.\n\n\n\n\n\nPART VI. SOTERIOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION THROUGH THE WORK OF\nCHRIST AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.\n\n\n\n\nChapter I. Christology, Or The Redemption Wrought By Christ.\n\n\n\nSection I.\u2014Historical Preparation For Redemption.\n\n\nSince God had from eternity determined to redeem mankind, the history of\nthe race from the time of the Fall to the coming of Christ was\nprovidentially arranged to prepare the way for this redemption. The\npreparation was two-fold:\n\n\nI. Negative Preparation,\u2014in the history of the heathen world.\n\n\nThis showed (1) the true nature of sin, and the depth of spiritual\nignorance and of moral depravity to which the race, left to itself, must\nfall; and (2) the powerlessness of human nature to preserve or regain an\nadequate knowledge of God, or to deliver itself from sin by philosophy or\nart.\n\n\n Why could not Eve have been the mother of the chosen seed, as she\n doubtless at the first supposed that she was? (_Gen. 4:1_\u2014\u201c_and\n she conceived, and bare Cain_ [_i. e._, \u201cgotten\u201d, or \u201cacquired\u201d],\n _and said, I have gotten a man, even Jehovah_\u201d). Why was not the\n cross set up at the gates of Eden? Scripture intimates that a\n preparation was needful (_Gal 4:4_\u2014\u201c_but when the fulness of the\n time came, God hath sent forth his Son_\u201d). Of the two agencies\n made use of, we have called heathenism the negative preparation.\n But it was not wholly negative; it was partly positive also.\n Justin Martyr spoke of a \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 among the heathen.\n Clement of Alexandria called Plato a \u039c\u03c9\u03c3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd\u2014a\n Greek-speaking Moses. Notice the priestly attitude of Pythagoras,\n Socrates, Plato, Pindar, Sophocles. The Bible recognizes Job,\n Balaam, Melchisedek, as instances of priesthood, or divine\n communication, outside the bounds of the chosen people. Heathen\n religions either were not religions, or God had a part in them.\n Confucius, Buddha, Zoroaster, were at least reformers, raised up\n in God\u2019s providence. _Gal 4:3_ classes Judaism with the\n \u201c_rudiments of the world_,\u201d and _Rom. 5:20_ tells us that \u201c_the\n law came in beside_,\u201d as a force co\u00f6perating with other human\n factors, primitive revelation, sin, _etc._\n\n The positive preparation in heathenism receives greater attention\n when we conceive of Christ as the immanent God, revealing himself\n in conscience and in history. This was the real meaning of Justin\n Martyr, Apol. 1:46; 2:10, 13\u2014\u201cThe whole race of men partook of the\n Logos, and those who lived according to reason (\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5), were\n Christians, even though they were accounted atheists. Such among\n the Greeks were Socrates and Heracleitus, and those who resembled\n them.... Christ was known in part even to Socrates.... The\n teachings of Plato are not alien to those of Christ, though not in\n all respects similar. For all the writers of antiquity were able\n to have a dim vision of realities by means of the indwelling seed\n of the implanted Word (\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5).\u201d Justin Martyr claimed inspiration\n for Socrates. Tertullian spoke of Socrates as \u201cp\u00e6ne\n noster\u201d\u2014\u201calmost one of us.\u201d Paul speaks of the Cretans as having:\n \u201c_a prophet of their own_\u201d (_Tit. 1:12_)\u2014probably Epimenides (596\n B. C.) whom Plato calls a \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03c1\u2014\u201ca man of God,\u201d and whom\n Cicero couples with Bacis and the Erythr\u00e6an Sibyl. Clement of\n Alexandria, Stromata, 1:19; 6:5\u2014\u201cThe same God who furnished both\n the covenants was the giver of the Greek philosophy to the Greeks,\n by which the Almighty is glorified among the Greeks.\u201d Augustine:\n \u201cPlato made me know the true God; Jesus Christ showed me the way\n to him.\u201d\n\n Bruce, Apologetics, 207\u2014\u201cGod gave to the Gentiles at least the\n starlight of religious knowledge. The Jews were elected for the\n sake of the Gentiles. There was some light even for pagans, though\n heathenism on the whole was a failure. But its very failure was a\n preparation for receiving the true religion.\u201d Hatch, Hibbert\n Lectures, 133, 238\u2014\u201cNeo-Platonism, that splendid vision of\n incomparable and irrecoverable cloudland in which the sun of Greek\n philosophy set.... On its ethical side Christianity had large\n elements in common with reformed Stoicism; on its theological side\n it moved in harmony with the new movements of Platonism.\u201d E. G.\n Robinson: \u201cThe idea that all religions but the Christian are the\n direct work of the devil is a Jewish idea, and is now abandoned.\n On the contrary, God has revealed himself to the race just so far\n as they have been capable of knowing him.... Any religion is\n better than none, for all religion implies restraint.\u201d\n\n _John 1:9_\u2014\u201c_There was the true light, even the light which\n lighteth every man, coming into the world_\u201d\u2014has its Old Testament\n equivalent in _Ps. 94:10_\u2014\u201c_He that chastiseth the nations, shall\n not he correct, Even he that teacheth man knowledge?_\u201d Christ is\n the great educator of the race. The preincarnate Word exerted an\n influence upon the consciences of the heathen. He alone makes it\n true that \u201canima naturaliter Christiana est.\u201d Sabatier, Philos.\n Religion, 138-140\u2014\u201cReligion is union between God and the soul.\n That experience was first perfectly realized in Christ. Here are\n the ideal fact and the historical fact united and blended.\n Origen\u2019s and Tertullian\u2019s rationalism and orthodoxy each has its\n truth. The religious consciousness of Christ is the fountain head\n from which Christianity has flowed. He was a beginning of life to\n men. He had the spirit of sonship\u2014God in man, and man in God.\n \u2018Quid interius Deo?\u2019 He showed us insistence on the moral ideal,\n yet the preaching of mercy to the sinner. The gospel was the\n acorn, and Christianity is the oak that has sprung from it. In the\n acorn, as in the tree, are some Hebraic elements that are\n temporary. Paganism is the materializing of religion; Judaism is\n the legalizing of religion. \u2018In me,\u2019 says Charles Secretan, \u2018lives\n some one greater than I.\u2019 \u201d\n\n But the positive element in heathenism was slight. Her altars and\n sacrifices, her philosophy and art, roused cravings which she was\n powerless to satisfy. Her religious systems became sources of\n deeper corruption. There was no hope, and no progress. \u201cThe\n Sphynx\u2019s moveless calm symbolizes the monotony of Egyptian\n civilization.\u201d Classical nations became more despairing, as they\n became more cultivated. To the best minds, truth seemed impossible\n of attainment, and all hope of general well-being seemed a dream.\n The Jews were the only forward-looking people; and all our modern\n confidence in destiny and development comes from them. They, in\n their turn, drew their hopefulness solely from prophecy. Not their\n \u201cgenius for religion,\u201d but special revelation from God, made them\n what they were.\n\n Although God was in heathen history, yet so exceptional were the\n advantages of the Jews, that we can almost assent to the doctrine\n of the New Englander, Sept. 1883:576\u2014\u201cThe Bible does not recognize\n other revelations. It speaks of the \u2018_face of the covering that\n covereth all peoples, and the veil that is spread over all\n nations_\u2019 (_Is. 25:7_); _Acts 14:16, 17_\u2014\u2018_who in the generations\n gone by suffered all the nations to walk in their own ways. And\n yet he left not himself without witness_\u2019 = not an internal\n revelation in the hearts of sages, but an external revelation in\n nature, \u2018_in that he did good and gave you from heaven rains and\n fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness._\u2019\n The convictions of heathen reformers with regard to divine\n inspiration were dim and intangible, compared with the\n consciousness of prophets and apostles that God was speaking\n through them to his people.\u201d\n\n On heathenism as a preparation for Christ, see Tholuck, Nature and\n Moral Influence of Heathenism, in Bib. Repos., 1832:80, 246, 441;\n D\u00f6llinger, Gentile and Jew; Pressens\u00e9, Religions before Christ;\n Max M\u00fcller, Science of Religion, 1-128; Cocker, Christianity and\n Greek Philosophy; Ackerman, Christian Element in Plato; Farrar,\n Seekers after God; Renan, on Rome and Christianity, in Hibbert\n Lectures for 1880.\n\n\nII. Positive Preparation,\u2014in the history of Israel.\n\n\nA single people was separated from all others, from the time of Abraham,\nand was educated in three great truths: (1) the majesty of God, in his\nunity, omnipotence, and holiness; (2) the sinfulness of man, and his moral\nhelplessness; (3) the certainty of a coming salvation. This education from\nthe time of Moses was conducted by the use of three principal agencies:\n\nA. Law.\u2014The Mosaic legislation, (_a_) by its theophanies and miracles,\ncultivated faith in a personal and almighty God and Judge; (_b_) by its\ncommands and threatenings, wakened the sense of sin; (_c_) by its priestly\nand sacrificial system, inspired hope of some way of pardon and access to\nGod.\n\n\n The education of the Jews was first of all an education by Law. In\n the history of the world, as in the history of the individual, law\n must precede gospel, John the Baptist must go before Christ,\n knowledge of sin must prepare a welcome entrance for knowledge of\n a Savior. While the heathen were studying God\u2019s works, the chosen\n people were studying God. Men teach by words as well as by\n works,\u2014so does God. And words reveal heart to heart, as works\n never can. \u201cThe Jews were made to know, on behalf of all mankind,\n the guilt and shame of sin. Yet just when the disease was at its\n height, the physicians were beneath contempt.\u201d Wrightnour: \u201cAs if\n to teach all subsequent ages that no outward cleansing would\n furnish a remedy, the great deluge, which washed away the whole\n sinful antediluvian world with the exception of one comparatively\n pure family, had not cleansed the world from sin.\u201d\n\n With this gradual growth in the sense of sin there was also a\n widening and deepening faith. Kuyper, Work of the Holy Spirit,\n 67\u2014\u201cAbel, Abraham, Moses = the individual, the family, the nation.\n By faith Abel obtained witness; by faith Abraham received the son\n of the promise; and by faith Moses led Israel through the Red\n Sea.\u201d Kurtz, Religionslehre, speaks of the relation between law\n and gospel as \u201cEin fliessender Gegensatz\u201d\u2014\u201ca flowing\n antithesis\u201d\u2014like that between flower and fruit. A. B. Davidson,\n Expositor, 6:163\u2014\u201cThe course of revelation is like a river, which\n cannot be cut up into sections.\u201d E. G. Robinson: \u201cThe two\n fundamental ideas of Judaism were: 1. theological\u2014the unity of\n God; 2. philosophical\u2014the distinctness of God from the material\n world. Judaism went to seed. Jesus, with the sledge-hammer of\n truth, broke up the dead forms, and the Jews thought he was\n destroying the Law.\u201d On methods pursued with humanity by God, see\n Simon, Reconciliation, 232-251.\n\n\nB. Prophecy.\u2014This was of two kinds: (_a_) verbal,\u2014beginning with the\nprotevangelium in the garden, and extending to within four hundred years\nof the coming of Christ; (_b_) typical,\u2014in persons, as Adam, Melchisedek,\nJoseph, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Jonah; and in acts, as Isaac\u2019s\nsacrifice, and Moses\u2019 lifting up the serpent in the wilderness.\n\n\n The relation of law to gospel was like that of a sketch to the\n finished picture, or of David\u2019s plan for the temple to Solomon\u2019s\n execution of it. When all other nations were sunk in pessimism and\n despair, the light of hope burned brightly among the Hebrews. The\n nation was forward-bound. Faith was its very life. The O. T.\n saints saw all the troubles of the present \u201csub specie\n eternitatis,\u201d and believed that \u201c_Light is sown for the righteous,\n And gladness for the upright in heart_\u201d (_Ps. 97:11_). The hope of\n Job was the hope of the chosen people: \u201c_I know that my Redeemer\n liveth, And at last he will stand up upon the earth_\u201d (_Job\n 19:25_). Hutton, Essays, 2:237\u2014\u201cHebrew supernaturalism has\n transmuted forever the pure naturalism of Greek poetry. And now no\n modern poet can ever become really great who does not feel and\n reproduce in his writings the difference between the natural and\n the supernatural.\u201d\n\n Christ was the reality, to which the types and ceremonies of\n Judaism pointed; and these latter disappeared when Christ had\n come, just as the petals of the blossom drop away when the fruit\n appears. Many promises to the O. T. saints which seemed to them\n promises of temporal blessing, were fulfilled in a better, because\n a more spiritual, way than they expected. Thus God cultivated in\n them a boundless trust\u2014a trust which was essentially the same\n thing with the faith of the new dispensation, because it was the\n absolute reliance of a consciously helpless sinner upon God\u2019s\n method of salvation, and so was implicitly, though not explicitly,\n a faith in Christ.\n\n The protevangelium (_Gen. 3:15_) said \u201c_it_ [this promised seed]\n _shall bruise thy head_.\u201d The \u201c_it_\u201d was rendered in some Latin\n manuscripts \u201c_ipsa_.\u201d Hence Roman Catholic divines attributed the\n victory to the Virgin. Notice that Satan was cursed, but not Adam\n and Eve; for they were candidates for restoration. The promise of\n the Messiah narrowed itself down as the race grew older, from\n Abraham to Judah, David, Bethlehem, and the Virgin. Prophecy spoke\n of \u201c_the sceptre_\u201d and of \u201c_the seventy weeks_.\u201d Haggai and\n Malachi foretold that the Lord should suddenly come to the second\n temple. Christ was to be true man and true God; prophet, priest,\n and king; humbled and exalted. When prophecy had become complete,\n a brief interval elapsed, and then he, of whom Moses in the law,\n and the prophets, did write, actually came.\n\n All these preparations for Christ\u2019s coming, however, through the\n perversity of man became most formidable obstacles to the progress\n of the gospel. The Roman Empire put Christ to death. Philosophy\n rejected Christ as foolishness. Jewish ritualism, the mere shadow,\n usurped the place of worship and faith, the substance of religion.\n God\u2019s last method of preparation in the case of Israel was that of\n\n\nC. Judgment\u2014Repeated divine chastisements for idolatry culminated in the\noverthrow of the kingdom, and the captivity of the Jews. The exile had two\nprincipal effects: (_a_) religious,\u2014in giving monotheism firm root in the\nheart of the people, and in leading to the establishment of the\nsynagogue-system, by which monotheism was thereafter preserved and\npropagated; (_b_) civil,\u2014in converting the Jews from an agricultural to a\ntrading people, scattering them among all nations, and finally imbuing\nthem with the spirit of Roman law and organization.\n\nThus a people was made ready to receive the gospel and to propagate it\nthroughout the world, at the very time when the world had become conscious\nof its needs, and, through its greatest philosophers and poets, was\nexpressing its longings for deliverance.\n\n\n At the junction of Europe, Asia, and Africa, there lay a little\n land through which passed all the caravan-routes from the East to\n the West. Palestine was \u201cthe eye of the world.\u201d The Hebrews\n throughout the Roman world were \u201cthe greater Palestine of the\n Dispersion.\u201d The scattering of the Jews through all lands had\n prepared a monotheistic starting point for the gospel in every\n heathen city. Jewish synagogues had prepared places of assembly\n for the hearing of the gospel. The Greek language\u2014the universal\n literary language of the world\u2014had prepared a medium in which that\n gospel could be spoken. \u201cC\u00e6sar had unified the Latin West, as\n Alexander the Greek East\u201d; and universal peace, together with\n Roman roads and Roman law, made it possible for that gospel, when\n once it had got a foothold, to spread itself to the ends of the\n earth. The first dawn of missionary enterprise appears among the\n proselyting Jews before Christ\u2019s time. Christianity laid hold of\n this proselyting spirit, and sanctified it, to conquer the world\n to the faith of Christ.\n\n Beyschlag, N. T. Theology, 2:9, 10\u2014\u201cIn his great expedition across\n the Hellespont, Paul reversed the course which Alexander took, and\n carried the gospel into Europe to the centres of the old Greek\n culture.\u201d In all these preparations we see many lines converging\n to one result, in a manner inexplicable, unless we take them as\n proofs of the wisdom and power of God preparing the way for the\n kingdom of his Son; and all this in spite of the fact that \u201c_a\n hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fulness of the\n Gentiles be come in_\u201d (_Rom. 11:25_). James Robertson, Early\n Religion of Israel, 15\u2014\u201cIsrael now instructs the world in the\n Worship of Mammon, after having once taught it the knowledge of\n God.\u201d\n\n On Judaism, as a preparation for Christ, see D\u00f6llinger, Gentile\n and Jew, 2:291-419; Martensen, Dogmatics, 224-236; Hengstenberg,\n Christology of the O. T.; Smith, Prophecy a Preparation for\n Christ; Van Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 458-485; Fairbairn, Typology;\n MacWhorter, Jahveh Christ; Kurtz, Christliche Religionslehre, 114;\n Edwards\u2019 History of Redemption, in Works, 1:297-395; Walker,\n Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation; Conybeare and Howson, Life\n and Epistles of St. Paul, 1:1-37; Luthardt, Fundamental Truths,\n 257-281; Schaff, Hist. Christian Ch., 1:32-49; Butler\u2019s Analogy,\n Bohn\u2019s ed., 228-238; Bushnell, Vicarious Sac., 63-66; Max M\u00fcller,\n Science of Language, 2:443; Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk,\n 1:463-485; Fisher, Beginnings of Christianity, 47-73.\n\n\n\nSection II.\u2014The Person Of Christ.\n\n\nThe redemption of mankind from sin was to be effected through a Mediator\nwho should unite in himself both the human nature and the divine, in order\nthat he might reconcile God to man and man to God. To facilitate an\nunderstanding of the Scriptural doctrine under consideration, it will be\ndesirable at the outset to present a brief historical survey of views\nrespecting the Person of Christ.\n\n\n In the history of doctrine, as we have seen, beliefs held in\n solution at the beginning are only gradually precipitated and\n crystallized into definite formulas. The first question which\n Christians naturally asked themselves was \u201c_What think ye of the\n Christ_\u201d (_Mat 22:42_); then his relation to the Father; then, in\n due succession, the nature of sin, of atonement, of justification,\n of regeneration. Connecting these questions with the names of the\n great leaders who sought respectively to answer them, we have: 1.\n the Person of Christ, treated by Gregory Nazianzen (328); 2. the\n Trinity, by Athanasius (325-373); 3. Sin, by Augustine (353-430);\n 4. Atonement, by Anselm (1033-1109); 5. Justification by faith, by\n Luther (1485-1560); 6. Regeneration, by John Wesley\n (1703-1791);\u2014six weekdays of theology, leaving only a seventh, for\n the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, which may be the work of our age.\n _John 10:36_\u2014\u201c_him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the\n world_\u201d\u2014hints at some mysterious process by which the Son was\n prepared for his mission. Athanasius: \u201cIf the Word of God is in\n the _world_, as in a body, what is there strange in affirming that\n he has also entered into _humanity_?\u201d This is the natural end of\n evolution from lower to higher. See Medd, Bampton Lectures for\n 1882, on The One Mediator: The Operation of the Son of God in\n Nature and in Grace; Orr, God\u2019s Image in Man.\n\n\nI. Historical Survey of Views Respecting the Person of Christ.\n\n\n1. _The Ebionites_ (\u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05df = \u201cpoor\u201d; A. D. 107?) denied the reality of\nChrist\u2019s divine nature, and held him to be merely man, whether naturally\nor supernaturally conceived. This man, however, held a peculiar relation\nto God, in that, from the time of his baptism, an unmeasured fulness of\nthe divine Spirit rested upon him. Ebionism was simply Judaism within the\npale of the Christian church, and its denial of Christ\u2019s godhood was\noccasioned by the apparent incompatibility of this doctrine with\nmonotheism.\n\n\n F\u00fcrst (Heb. Lexicon) derives the name \u201cEbionite\u201d from the word\n signifying \u201cpoor\u201d; see _Is. 25:4_\u2014\u201c_thou hast been a stronghold to\n the poor_\u201d; _Mat 5:3_\u2014\u201c_Blessed are the poor in spirit._\u201d It means\n \u201coppressed, pious souls.\u201d Epiphanius traces them back to the\n Christians who took refuge, A. D. 66, at Pella, just before the\n destruction of Jerusalem. They lasted down to the fourth century.\n Dorner can assign no age for the formation of the sect, nor any\n historically ascertained person as its head. It was not Judaic\n Christianity, but only a fraction of this. There were two\n divisions of the Ebionites:\n\n (_a_) The Nazarenes, who held to the supernatural birth of Christ,\n while they would not go to the length of admitting the pre\u00ebxisting\n hypostasis of the Son. They are said to have had the gospel of\n Matthew, in Hebrew.\n\n (_b_) The Cerinthian Ebionites, who put the baptism of Christ in\n place of his supernatural birth, and made the ethical sonship the\n cause of the physical. It seemed to them a heathenish fable that\n the Son of God should be born of the Virgin. There was no personal\n union between the divine and human in Christ. Christ, as distinct\n from Jesus, was not a merely impersonal power descending upon\n Jesus, but a pre\u00ebxisting hypostasis above the world-creating\n powers. The Cerinthian Ebionites, who on the whole best represent\n the spirit of Ebionism, approximated to Pharisaic Judaism, and\n were hostile to the writings of Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews,\n in fact, is intended to counteract an Ebionitic tendency to\n overstrain law and to underrate Christ. In a complete view,\n however, should also be mentioned:\n\n (_c_) The Gnostic Ebionism of the pseudo-Clementines, which in\n order to destroy the deity of Christ and save the pure monotheism,\n so-called, of primitive religion, gave up even the best part of\n the Old Testament. In all its forms, Ebionism conceives of God and\n man as external to each other. God could not become man. Christ\n was no more than a prophet or teacher, who, as the reward of his\n virtue, was from the time of his baptism specially endowed with\n the Spirit. After his death he was exalted to kingship. But that\n would not justify the worship which the church paid him. A merely\n creaturely mediator would separate us from God, instead of uniting\n us to him. See Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:305-307 (Syst. Doct.,\n 3:201-204), and Hist. Doct. Person Christ, A.1:187-217; Reuss,\n Hist. Christ. Theol., 1:100-107; Schaff, Ch. Hist., 1:213-215.\n\n\n2. _The Docet\u00e6_ (\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03ad\u03c9\u2014\u201cto seem,\u201d \u201cto appear\u201d; A. D. 70-170), like most of\nthe Gnostics in the second century and the Manichees in the third, denied\nthe reality of Christ\u2019s human body. This view was the logical sequence of\ntheir assumption of the inherent evil of matter. If matter is evil and\nChrist was pure, then Christ\u2019s human body must have been merely\nphantasmal. Docetism was simply pagan philosophy introduced into the\nchurch.\n\n\n The Gnostic Basilides held to a real human Christ, with whom the\n divine \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 became united at the baptism; but the followers of\n Basilides became Docet\u00e6. To them, the body of Christ was merely a\n seeming one. There was no real life or death. Valentinus made the\n \u00c6on, Christ, with a body purely pneumatic and worthy of himself,\n pass through the body of the Virgin, as water through a reed,\n taking up into himself nothing of the human nature through which\n he passed; or as a ray of light through colored glass which only\n imparts to the light a portion of its own darkness. Christ\u2019s life\n was simply a theophany. The Patripassians and Sabellians, who are\n only sects of the Docet\u00e6, denied all real humanity to Christ.\n Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 141\u2014\u201cHe treads the thorns of death and\n shame \u2018like a triumphal path,\u2019 of which he never felt the\n sharpness. There was development only externally and in\n appearance. No ignorance can be ascribed to him amidst the\n omniscience of the Godhead.\u201d Shelley: \u201cA mortal shape to him Was\n as the vapor dim Which the orient planet animates with light.\u201d The\n strong argument against Docetism was found in _Heb. 2:14_\u2014\u201c_Since\n then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself\n in like manner partook of the same._\u201d\n\n That Docetism appeared so early, shows that the impression Christ\n made was that of a superhuman being. Among many of the Gnostics,\n the philosophy which lay at the basis of their Docetism was a\n pantheistic apotheosis of the world. God did not need to become\n man, for man was essentially divine. This view, and the opposite\n error of Judaism, already mentioned, both showed their\n insufficiency by attempts to combine with each other, as in the\n Alexandrian philosophy. See Dorner, Hist. Doct. Person Christ,\n A.1:218-253, and Glaubenslehre, 2:307-310 (Syst. Doct.,\n 3:204-206); Neander, Ch. Hist, 1:387.\n\n\n3. _The Arians_ (Arius, condemned at Nice, 325) denied the integrity of\nthe divine nature in Christ. They regarded the Logos who united himself to\nhumanity in Jesus Christ, not as possessed of absolute godhood, but as the\nfirst and highest of created beings. This view originated in a\nmisinterpretation of the Scriptural accounts of Christ\u2019s state of\nhumiliation, and in mistaking temporary subordination for original and\npermanent inequality.\n\n\n Arianism is called by Dorner a reaction from Sabellianism.\n Sabellius had reduced the incarnation of Christ to a temporary\n phenomenon. Arius thought to lay stress on the hypostasis of the\n Son, and to give it fixity and substance. But, to his mind, the\n reality of Sonship seemed to require subordination to the Father.\n Origen had taught the subordination of the Son to the Father, in\n connection with his doctrine of eternal generation. Arius held to\n the subordination, and also to the generation, but this last, he\n declared, could not be eternal, but must be in time. See Dorner,\n Person Christ, A.2:227-244, and Glaubenslehre, 2:307, 312, 313\n (Syst. Doct., 3:203, 207-210); Herzog, Encyclop\u00e4die, art.:\n Arianismus. See also this Compendium, Vol. I:328-330.\n\n\n4. _The Apollinarians_ (Apollinaris, condemned at Constantinople, 381)\ndenied the integrity of Christ\u2019s human nature. According to this view,\nChrist had no human \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 or \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, other than that which was furnished by\nthe divine nature. Christ had only the human \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 and \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae; the place of\nthe human \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 or \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 was filled by the divine Logos. Apollinarism is\nan attempt to construe the doctrine of Christ\u2019s person in the forms of the\nPlatonic trichotomy.\n\n\n Lest divinity should seem a foreign element, when added to this\n curtailed manhood, Apollinaris said that there was an eternal\n tendency to the human in the Logos himself; that in God was the\n true manhood; that the Logos is the eternal, archetypal man. But\n here is no _becoming_ man\u2014only a manifestation in flesh of what\n the Logos already _was_. So we have a Christ of great head and\n dwarfed body. Justin Martyr preceded Apollinaris in this view. In\n opposing it, the church Fathers said that \u201cwhat the Son of God has\n not taken to himself, he has not sanctified\u201d\u2014\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03bb\u03b7\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u1f00\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd. See Dorner, Jahrbuch f. d. Theol., 1:397-408\u2014\u201cThe\n impossibility, on the Arian theory, of making two finite souls\n into one, finally led to the [Apollinarian] denial of any human\n soul in Christ\u201d; see also, Dorner, Person Christ, A.2:352-399, and\n Glaubenslehre, 2:310 (Syst. Doct., 3:206, 207); Shedd, Hist.\n Doctrine, 1:394.\n\n Apollinaris taught that the eternal Word took into union with\n himself, not a complete human nature, but an irrational human\n animal. Simon, Reconciliation, 329, comes near to being an\n Apollinarian, when he maintains that the incarnate Logos was\n human, but was not a man. He is the constituter of man,\n self-limited, in order that he may save that to which he has given\n life. Gore, Incarnation, 93\u2014\u201cApollinaris suggested that the\n archetype of manhood exists in God, who made man in his own image,\n so that man\u2019s nature in some sense pre\u00ebxisted in God. The Son of\n God was eternally human, and he could fill the place of the human\n mind in Christ without his ceasing to be in some sense divine....\n This the church negatived,\u2014man is not God, nor God man. The first\n principle of theism is that manhood at the bottom is not the same\n thing as Godhead. This is a principle intimately bound up with\n man\u2019s responsibility and the reality of sin. The interests of\n theism were at stake.\u201d\n\n\n5. _The Nestorians_ (Nestorius, removed from the Patriarchate of\nConstantinople, 431) denied the real union between the divine and the\nhuman natures in Christ, making it rather a moral than an organic one.\nThey refused therefore to attribute to the resultant unity the attributes\nof each nature, and regarded Christ as a man in very near relation to God.\nThus they virtually held to two natures and two persons, instead of two\nnatures in one person.\n\n\n Nestorius disliked the phrase: \u201cMary, mother of God.\u201d The\n Chalcedon statement asserted its truth, with the significant\n addition: \u201cas to his humanity.\u201d Nestorius made Christ a peculiar\n temple of God. He believed in \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, not \u1f15\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2,\u2014junction and\n indwelling, but not absolute union. He made too much of the\n analogy of the union of the believer with Christ, and separated as\n much as possible the divine and the human. The two natures were,\n in his view, \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, instead of being \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf,\n which together constitute \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2\u2014one personality. The union which he\n accepted was a moral union, which makes Christ simply God and man,\n instead of the God-man.\n\n John of Damascus compared the passion of Christ to the felling of\n a tree on which the sun shines. The axe fells the tree, but does\n no harm to the sunbeams. So the blows which struck Christ\u2019s\n humanity caused no harm to his deity; while the flesh suffered,\n the deity remained impassible. This leaves, however, no divine\n efficacy of the human sufferings, and no personal union of the\n human with the divine. The error of Nestorius arose from a\n philosophic nominalism, which refused to conceive of nature\n without personality. He believed in nothing more than a local or\n moral union, like the marriage union, in which two become one; or\n like the state, which is sometimes called a moral person, because\n having a unity composed of many persons. See Dorner, Person\n Christ, B.1:53-79, and Glaubenslehre, 2:315, 316 (Syst. Doct.,\n 3:211-213); Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 4:210; Wilberforce,\n Incarnation, 152-154.\n\n \u201cThere was no need here of the virgin-birth,\u2014to secure a sinless\n father as well as mother would have been enough. Nestorianism\n holds to no real incarnation\u2014only to an alliance between God and\n man. After the fashion of the Siamese twins, Chang and Eng, man\n and God are joined together. But the incarnation is not merely a\n higher degree of the mystical union.\u201d Gore, Incarnation,\n 94\u2014\u201cNestorius adopted and popularized the doctrine of the famous\n commentator, Theodore of Mopsuestia. But the Christ of Nestorius\n was simply a deified man, not God incarnate,\u2014he was from below,\n not from above. If he was exalted to union with the divine\n essence, his exaltation was only that of one individual man.\u201d\n\n\n6. _The Eutychians_ (condemned at Chalcedon, 451) denied the distinction\nand co\u00ebxistence of the two natures, and held to a mingling of both into\none, which constituted a _tertium quid_, or third nature. Since in this\ncase the divine must overpower the human, it follows that the human was\nreally absorbed into or transmuted into the divine, although the divine\nwas not in all respects the same, after the union, that it was before.\nHence the Eutychians were often called Monophysites, because they\nvirtually reduced the two natures to one.\n\n\n They were an Alexandrian school, which included monks of\n Constantinople and Egypt. They used the words \u03c3\u03cd\u03b3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2,\n \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae\u2014confounding, transformation\u2014to describe the union of the\n two natures in Christ. Humanity joined to deity was as a drop of\n honey mingled with the ocean. There was a change in either\n element, but as when a stone attracts the earth, or a meteorite\n the sun, or when a small boat pulls a ship, all the movement was\n virtually on the part of the smaller object. Humanity was so\n absorbed in deity, as to be altogether lost. The union was\n illustrated by electron, a metal compounded of silver and gold. A\n more modern illustration would be that of the chemical union of an\n acid and an alkali, to form a salt unlike either of the\n constituents.\n\n In effect this theory denied the human element, and, with this,\n the possibility of atonement, on the part of human nature, as well\n as of real union of man with God. Such a magical union of the two\n natures as Eutyches described is inconsistent with any real\n _becoming man_ on the part of the Logos,\u2014the manhood is well-nigh\n as illusory as upon the theory of the Docet\u00e6. Mason, Faith of the\n Gospel, 140\u2014\u201cThis turns not the Godhead only but the manhood also\n into something foreign\u2014into some nameless nature, betwixt and\n between\u2014the fabulous nature of a semi-human demigod,\u201d like the\n Centaur.\n\n The author of \u201cThe German Theology\u201d says that \u201cChrist\u2019s human\n nature was utterly bereft of self, and was nothing else but a\n house and habitation of God.\u201d The Mystics would have human\n personality so completely the organ of the divine that \u201cwe may be\n to God what man\u2019s hand is to a man,\u201d and that \u201cI\u201d and \u201cmine\u201d may\n cease to have any meaning. Both these views savor of Eutychianism.\n On the other hand, the Unitarian says that Christ was \u201ca mere\n man.\u201d But there cannot be such a thing as a mere man, exclusive of\n aught above and beyond him, self-centered and self-moved. The\n Trinitarian sometimes declares himself as believing that Christ is\n God and man, thus implying the existence of two substances. Better\n say that Christ is the God-man, who manifests all the divine\n powers and qualities of which all men and all nature are partial\n embodiments. See Dorner, Person of Christ, B.1:83-93, and\n Glaubenslehre, 2:318, 319 (Syst. Doct., 3:214-216); Guericke, Ch.\n History, 1:356-360.\n\n\nThe foregoing survey would seem to show that history had exhausted the\npossibilities of heresy, and that the future denials of the doctrine of\nChrist\u2019s person must be, in essence, forms of the views already mentioned.\nAll controversies with regard to the person of Christ must, of necessity,\nhinge upon one of three points: first, the reality of the two natures;\nsecondly, the integrity of the two natures; thirdly, the union of the two\nnatures in one person. Of these points, Ebionism and Docetism deny the\nreality of the natures; Arianism and Apollinarianism deny their integrity;\nwhile Nestorianism and Eutychianism deny their proper union. In opposition\nto all these errors, the orthodox doctrine held its ground and maintains\nit to this day.\n\n\n We may apply to this subject what Dr. A. P. Peabody said in a\n different connection: \u201cThe canon of infidelity was closed almost\n as soon as that of the Scriptures\u201d\u2014modern unbelievers having, for\n the most part, repeated the objections of their ancient\n predecessors. Brooks, Foundations of Zo\u00f6logy, 126\u2014\u201cAs a shell\n which has failed to burst is picked up on some old battle-field,\n by some one on whom experience is thrown away, and is exploded by\n him in the bosom of his approving family, with disastrous results,\n so one of these abandoned beliefs may be dug up by the head of\n some intellectual family, to the confusion of those who follow him\n as their leader.\u201d\n\n\n7. _The Orthodox doctrine_ (promulgated at Chalcedon, 451) holds that in\nthe one person Jesus Christ there are two natures, a human nature and a\ndivine nature, each in its completeness and integrity, and that these two\nnatures are organically and indissolubly united, yet so that no third\nnature is formed thereby. In brief, to use the antiquated dictum, orthodox\ndoctrine forbids us either to divide the person or to confound the\nnatures.\n\nThat this doctrine is Scriptural and rational, we have yet to show. We may\nmost easily arrange our proofs by reducing the three points mentioned to\ntwo, namely: first, the reality and integrity of the two natures;\nsecondly, the union of the two natures in one person.\n\n\n The formula of Chalcedon is negative, with the exception of its\n assertion of a \u1f15\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae. It proceeds from the natures,\n and regards the result of the union to be the person. Each of the\n two natures is regarded as in movement toward the other. The\n symbol says nothing of an \u1f00\u03bd\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 of the human nature, nor\n does it say that the Logos furnishes the ego in the personality.\n John of Damascus, however, pushed forward to these conclusions,\n and his work, translated into Latin, was used by Peter Lombard,\n and determined the views of the Western church of the Middle Ages.\n Dorner regards this as having given rise to the Mariolatry,\n saint-invocation, and transubstantiation of the Roman Catholic\n Church. See Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 4:189 _sq._; Dorner, Person\n Christ, B.1:93-119, and Glaubenslehre, 2:320-328 (Syst. Doct.,\n 3:216-223), in which last passage may be found valuable matter\n with regard to the changing uses of the words \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2,\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, _etc._\n\n Gore, Incarnation, 96, 101\u2014\u201cThese decisions simply express in a\n new form, without substantial addition, the apostolic teaching as\n it is represented in the New Testament. They express it in a new\n form for protective purposes, as a legal enactment protects a\n moral principle. They are developments only in the sense that they\n represent the apostolic teaching worked out into formulas by the\n aid of a terminology which was supplied by Greek dialectics....\n What the church borrowed from Greek thought was her terminology,\n not the substance of her creed. Even in regard to her terminology\n we must make one important reservation; for Christianity laid all\n stress on the personality of God and man, of which Hellenism had\n thought but little.\u201d\n\n\nII. The two Natures of Christ,\u2014their Reality and Integrity.\n\n\n1. The Humanity of Christ.\n\n\nA. Its Reality.\u2014This may be shown as follows:\n\n(_a_) He expressly called himself, and was called, \u201cman.\u201d\n\n\n _John 8:40_\u2014\u201c_ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the\n truth_\u201d; _Acts 2:22_\u2014\u201c_Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God\n unto you_\u201d; _Rom. 5:15_\u2014\u201c_the one man, Jesus Christ_\u201d; _1 Cor.\n 15:21_\u2014\u201c_by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of\n the dead_\u201d; _1 Tim. 2:5_\u2014\u201c_one mediator also between God and man,\n himself man, Christ Jesus._\u201d Compare the genealogies in _Mat.\n 1:1-17_ and _Luke 3:23-38_, the former of which proves Jesus to be\n in the royal line, and the latter of which proves him to be in the\n natural line, of succession from David; the former tracing back\n his lineage to Abraham, and the latter to Adam. Christ is\n therefore the son of David, and of the stock of Israel. Compare\n also the phrase \u201c_Son of man_,\u201d _e. g._, in _Mat. 20:28_, which,\n however much it may mean in addition, certainly indicates the\n veritable humanity of Jesus. Compare, finally, the term \u201c_flesh_\u201d\n (= human nature), applied to him in _John 1:14_\u2014\u201c_And the Word\n became flesh_\u201d and in _1 John 4:2_\u2014\u201c_every spirit that confesseth\n that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God._\u201d\n\n \u201cJesus is the true Son of man whom he proclaimed himself to be.\n This implies that he is the representative of all humanity.\n Consider for a moment what is implied in your being a man. How\n many parents had you? You answer, Two. How many grandparents? You\n answer, Four. How many great-grandparents? Eight. How many\n great-great-grandparents? Sixteen. So the number of your ancestors\n increases as you go further back, and if you take in only twenty\n generations, you will have to reckon yourself as the outcome of\n more than a million progenitors. The name Smith, or Jones, which\n you bear, represents only one strain of all those million; you\n might almost as well bear any other name; your existence is more\n an expression of the race at large than of any particular family\n or line. What is true of you, was true, on the human side, of the\n Lord Jesus. In him all the lines of our common humanity converged.\n He was the Son of man, far more than he was Son of Mary\u201d; see A.\n H. Strong, Sermon before the London Baptist Congress.\n\n\n(_b_) He possessed the essential elements of human nature as at present\nconstituted\u2014a material body and a rational soul.\n\n\n _Mat. 26:38_\u2014\u201c_My soul is exceeding sorrowful_\u201d; _John 11:33_\u2014\u201c_he\n groaned in the spirit_\u201d; _Mat. 26:26_\u2014\u201c_this is my body_\u201d;\n _28_\u2014\u201c_this is my blood_\u201d; _Luke 24:39_\u2014\u201c_a spirit hath not flesh\n and bones, as ye behold me having_\u201d; _Heb. 2:14_\u2014\u201c_Since then the\n children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself in like\n manner partook of the same_\u201d; _1 John 1:1_\u2014\u201c_that which we have\n heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we\n beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life_\u201d;\n _4:2_\u2014\u201c_every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in\n the flesh is of God._\u201d\n\n Yet Christ was not all men in one, and he did not illustrate the\n development of all human powers. Laughter, painting, literature,\n marriage\u2014these provinces he did not invade. Yet we do not regard\n these as absent from the ideal man. The perfection of Jesus was\n the perfection of self-limiting love. For our sakes he sanctified\n himself (_John 17:19_), or separated himself from much that in an\n ordinary man would have been excellence and delight. He became an\n example to us, by doing God\u2019s will and reflecting God\u2019s character\n in his particular environment and in his particular mission\u2014that\n of the world\u2019s Redeemer; see H. E. Robins, Ethics of the Christian\n Life, 259-303.\n\n Moberly, Atonement and Personality, 86-105\u2014\u201cChrist was not a man\n only amongst men. His relation to the human race is not that he\n was another specimen, differing, by being another, from every one\n but himself. His relation to the race was not a differentiating\n but a consummating relation. He was not generically but\n inclusively man.... The only relation that can at all directly\n compare with it is that of Adam, who in a real sense was\n humanity.... That complete indwelling and possessing of even one\n other, which the yearnings of man toward man imperfectly approach,\n is only possible, in any fulness of the words, to that spirit of\n man which is the Spirit of God: to the Spirit of God become,\n through incarnation, the spirit of man.... If Christ\u2019s humanity\n were not the humanity of Deity, it could not stand in the wide,\n inclusive, consummating relation, in which it stands, in fact, to\n the humanity of all other men.... Yet the centre of Christ\u2019s being\n as man was not in himself but in God. He was the expression, by\n willing reflection, of Another.\u201d\n\n\n(_c_) He was moved by the instinctive principles, and he exercised the\nactive powers, which belong to a normal and developed humanity (hunger,\nthirst, weariness, sleep, love, compassion, anger, anxiety, fear,\ngroaning, weeping, prayer).\n\n\n _Mat 4:2_\u2014\u201c_he afterward hungered_\u201d; _John 19:28_\u2014\u201c_I thirst_\u201d;\n _4:6_\u2014\u201c_Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus\n by the well_\u201d; _Mat 8:24_\u2014\u201c_the boat was covered with the waves:\n but he was asleep_\u201d; _Mark 10:21_\u2014\u201c_Jesus looking upon him loved\n him_\u201d; _Mat. 9:36_\u2014\u201c_when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with\n compassion for them_\u201d; _Mark 3:5_\u2014\u201c_looked round about on them\n with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart_\u201d; _Heb.\n 5:7_\u2014\u201c_supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that\n was able to save him from death_\u201d; _John 12:27_\u2014\u201c_Now is my soul\n troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour_\u201d;\n _11:33_\u2014\u201c_he groaned in the spirit_\u201d; _35_\u2014\u201c_Jesus wept_\u201d; _Mat\n 14:23_\u2014\u201c_he went up into the mountain apart to pray._\u201d _Heb.\n 2:16_\u2014\u201c_For it is not doubtless angels whom he rescueth, but he\n rescueth the seed of Abraham_\u201d (Kendrick).\n\n Prof. J. P. Silvernail, on The Elocution of Jesus, finds the\n following intimations as to his delivery. It was characterized by\n 1. Naturalness (sitting, as at Capernaum); 2. Deliberation\n (cultivates responsiveness in his hearers); 3. Circumspection (he\n looked at Peter); 4. Dramatic action (woman taken in adultery); 5.\n Self-control (authority, poise, no vociferation, denunciation of\n Scribes and Pharisees). All these are manifestations of truly\n human qualities and virtues. The epistle of James, the brother of\n our Lord, with its exaltation of a meek, quiet and holy life, may\n be an unconscious reflection of the character of Jesus, as it had\n appeared to James during the early days at Nazareth. So John the\n Baptist\u2019s exclamation, \u201c_I have need to be baptized of thee_\u201d\n (_Mat 3:14_), may be an inference from his intercourse with Jesus\n in childhood and youth.\n\n\n(_d_) He was subject to the ordinary laws of human development, both in\nbody and soul (grew and waxed strong in spirit; asked questions; grew in\nwisdom and stature; learned obedience; suffered being tempted; was made\nperfect through sufferings).\n\n\n _Luke 2:40_\u2014\u201c_the child grew, and waxed strong, filled with\n wisdom_\u201d; _46_\u2014\u201c_sitting in the midst of the teachers, both\n hearing them, and asking them questions_\u201d (here, at his twelfth\n year, he appears first to become fully conscious that he is the\n Sent of God, the Son of God); _49_\u2014\u201c_know ye not that I must be in\n my Father\u2019s house?_\u201d (lit. \u201cin the things of my Father\u201d);\n _52_\u2014\u201c_advanced in wisdom and stature_\u201d; _Heb. 5:8_\u2014\u201c_learned\n obedience by the things which he suffered_\u201d; _2:18_\u2014\u201c_in that he\n himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them\n that are tempted_\u201d; _10_\u2014\u201c_it became him ... to make the author of\n their salvation perfect through sufferings._\u201d\n\n Keble: \u201cWas not our Lord a little child, Taught by degrees to\n pray; By father dear and mother mild Instructed day by day?\u201d\n Adamson, The Mind in Christ: \u201cTo Henry Drummond Christianity was\n the crown of the evolution of the whole universe. Jesus\u2019 growth in\n stature and in favor with God and men is a picture in miniature of\n the age-long evolutionary process.\u201d Forrest, Christ of History and\n of Experience, 185\u2014\u201cThe incarnation of the Son was not his one\n revelation of God, but the interpretation to sinful humanity of\n all his other revelations of God in nature and history and moral\n experience, which had been darkened by sin.... The Logos,\n incarnate or not, is the \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 as well as the \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae of creation.\u201d\n\n Andrew Murray, Spirit of Christ, 26, 27\u2014\u201cThough now baptized\n himself, he cannot yet baptize others. He must first, in the power\n of his baptism, meet temptation and overcome it; must learn\n obedience and suffer; yea, through the eternal Spirit, offer\n himself a sacrifice to God and his Will; then only could he afresh\n receive the Holy Spirit as the reward of obedience, with the power\n to baptize all who belong to him\u201d; see _Acts 2:33_\u2014\u201c_Being\n therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of\n the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth\n this, which ye see and hear._\u201d\n\n\n(_e_) He suffered and died (bloody sweat; gave up his spirit; his side\npierced, and straightway there came out blood and water).\n\n\n _Luke 22:44_\u2014\u201c_being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his\n sweat became as it were great drops of blood falling down upon the\n ground_\u201d; _John 19:30_\u2014\u201c_he bowed his head, and gave up his\n spirit_\u201d; _34_\u2014\u201c_one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his\n side, and straightway there came out blood and water_\u201d\u2014held by\n Stroud, Physical Cause of our Lord\u2019s Death, to be proof that Jesus\n died of a broken heart.\n\n Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, 1:9-19\u2014\u201cThe Lord is said to have grown in\n wisdom and favor with God, not because it was so, but because he\n acted as if it were so. So he was exalted after death, as if this\n exaltation were on account of death.\u201d But we may reply: Resolve\n all signs of humanity into mere appearance, and you lose the\n divine nature as well as the human; for God is truth and cannot\n act a lie. The babe, the child, even the man, in certain respects,\n was ignorant. Jesus, the boy, was not making crosses, as in\n Overbeck\u2019s picture, but rather yokes and plows, as Justin Martyr\n relates\u2014serving a real apprenticeship in Joseph\u2019s workshop: _Mark\n 6:3_\u2014\u201c_Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?_\u201d\n\n See Holman Hunt\u2019s picture, \u201cThe Shadow of the Cross\u201d\u2014in which not\n Jesus, but only Mary, sees the shadow of the cross upon the wall.\n He lived a life of faith, as well as of prayer (_Heb.\n 12:2_\u2014\u201c_Jesus the author_ [captain, prince] _and perfecter of our\n faith_\u201d), dependent upon Scripture, which was much of it, as _Ps.\n 16_ and _118_, and _Is. 49, 50, 61,_ written for him, as well as\n about him. See Park, Discourses, 297-327; Deutsch, Remains,\n 131\u2014\u201cThe boldest transcendental flight of the Talmud is its\n saying: \u2018God prays.\u2019 \u201d In Christ\u2019s humanity, united as it is to\n deity, we have the fact answering to this piece of Talmudic\n poetry.\n\n\nB. Its Integrity. We here use the term \u201cintegrity\u201d to signify, not merely\ncompleteness, but perfection. That which is perfect is, _a fortiori_,\ncomplete in all its parts. Christ\u2019s human nature was:\n\n(_a_) Supernaturally conceived; since the denial of his supernatural\nconception involves either a denial of the purity of Mary, his mother, or\na denial of the truthfulness of Matthew\u2019s and Luke\u2019s narratives.\n\n\n _Luke 1:34, 35_\u2014\u201c_And Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be,\n seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her,\n The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most\n High shall overshadow thee._\u201d The \u201c_seed of the woman_\u201d (_Gen.\n 3:15_) was one who had no earthly father. \u201c_Eve_\u201d = life, not only\n as being the source of physical life to the race, but also as\n bringing into the world him who was to be its spiritual life.\n Julius M\u00fcller, Proof-texts, 29\u2014Jesus Christ \u201chad no earthly\n father; his birth was a creative act of God, breaking through the\n chain of human generation.\u201d Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:447 (Syst.\n Doct., 3:345)\u2014\u201cThe new science recognizes manifold methods of\n propagation, and that too even in one and the same species.\u201d\n\n Professor Loeb has found that the unfertilized egg of the\n sea-urchin may be made by chemical treatment to produce thrifty\n young, and he thinks it probable that the same effect may be\n produced among the mammalia. Thus parthenogenesis in the highest\n order of life is placed among the scientific possibilities.\n Romanes, even while he was an agnostic, affirmed that a\n virgin-birth even in the human race would be by no means out of\n the range of possibility; see his Darwin and After Darwin, 119,\n footnote\u2014\u201cEven if a virgin has ever conceived and borne a son, and\n even if such a fact in the human species has been unique, it would\n not betoken any breach of physiological continuity.\u201d Only a new\n impulse from the Creator could save the Redeemer from the long\n accruing fatalities of human generation. But the new creation of\n humanity in Christ is scientifically quite as possible as its\n first creation in Adam; and in both cases there may have been no\n violation of natural law, but only a unique revelation of its\n possibilities. \u201cBirth from a virgin made it clear that a new thing\n was taking place in the earth, and that One was coming into the\n world who was not simply man.\u201d A. B. Bruce: \u201cThoroughgoing\n naturalism excludes the virgin life as well as the virgin birth.\u201d\n See Griffith-Jones, Ascent through Christ, 254-270; A. H. Strong,\n Christ in Creation, 176.\n\n Paul Lobstein, Incarnation of our Lord, 217\u2014\u201cThat which is unknown\n to the teachings of St. Peter and St. Paul, St. John and St.\n James, and our Lord himself, and is absent from the earliest and\n the latest gospels, cannot be so essential as many people have\n supposed.\u201d This argument from silence is sufficiently met by the\n considerations that Mark passes over thirty years of our Lord\u2019s\n life in silence; that John presupposes the narratives of Matthew\n and of Luke; that Paul does not deal with the story of Jesus\u2019\n life. The facts were known at first only to Mary and to Joseph;\n their very nature involved reticence until Jesus was demonstrated\n to be \u201c_the Son of God with power ... by the resurrection from the\n dead_\u201d (_Rom. 1:4_); meantime the natural development of Jesus and\n his refusal to set up an earthly kingdom may have made the\n miraculous events of thirty years ago seem to Mary like a\n wonderful dream; so only gradually the marvellous tale of the\n mother of the Lord found its way into the gospel tradition and\n creeds of the church, and into the inmost hearts of Christians of\n all countries; see F. L. Anderson, in Baptist Review and\n Expositor, 1904:25-44, and Machen, on the N. T. Account of the\n Birth of Jesus, in Princeton Theol. Rev., Oct. 1905, and Jan.\n 1906.\n\n Cooke, on The Virgin Birth of our Lord, in Methodist Rev., Nov.\n 1904:849-857\u2014\u201cIf there is a moral taint in the human race, if in\n the very blood and constitution of humanity there is an\n ineradicable tendency to sin, then it is utterly inconceivable\n that any one born in the race by natural means should escape the\n taint of that race. And, finally, if the virgin birth is not\n historical, then a difficulty greater than any that destructive\n criticism has yet evolved from documents, interpolations,\n psychological improbabilities and unconscious contradictions\n confronts the reason and upsets all the long results of scientific\n observation,\u2014that a sinful and deliberately sinning and unmarried\n pair should have given life to the purest human being that ever\n lived or of whom the human race has ever dreamed, and that he,\n knowing and forgiving the sins of others, never knew the shame of\n his own origin.\u201d See also Gore, Dissertations, 1-68, on the Virgin\n Birth of our Lord, J. Armitage Robinson, Some Thoughts on the\n Incarnation, 42, both of whom show that without assuming the\n reality of the virgin birth we cannot account for the origin of\n the narratives of Matthew and of Luke, nor for the acceptance of\n the virgin birth by the early Christians. _Per contra_, see Hoben,\n in Am. Jour. Theol., 1902:478-506, 709-752. For both sides of the\n controversy, see Symposium by Bacon, Zenos, Rhees and Warfield, in\n Am. Jour. Theol., Jan. 1906:1-30; and especially Orr, Virgin Birth\n of Christ.\n\n\n(_b_) Free, both from hereditary depravity, and from actual sin; as is\nshown by his never offering sacrifice, never praying for forgiveness,\nteaching that all but he needed the new birth, challenging all to convict\nhim of a single sin.\n\n\n Jesus frequently went up to the temple, but he never offered\n sacrifice. He prayed: \u201c_Father, forgive them_\u201d (_Luke 23:34_); but\n he never prayed: \u201cFather, forgive _me_.\u201d He said: \u201c_Ye must be\n born anew_\u201d (_John 3:7_); but the words indicated that _he_ had no\n such need. \u201cAt no moment in all that life could a single detail\n have been altered, except for the worse.\u201d He not only _yielded_ to\n God\u2019s will when made known to him, but he _sought_ it: \u201c_I seek\n not mine own will, but the will of him that sent me_\u201d (_John\n 5:30_). The anger which he showed was no passionate or selfish or\n vindictive anger, but the indignation of righteousness against\n hypocrisy and cruelty\u2014an indignation accompanied with grief:\n \u201c_looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the\n hardening of their heart_\u201d (_Mark 3:5_). F. W. H. Myers, St. Paul,\n 19, 53\u2014\u201cThou with strong prayer and very much entreating Willest\n be asked, and thou wilt answer then, Show the hid heart beneath\n creation beating, Smile with kind eyes and be a man with men....\n Yea, through life, death, through sorrow and through sinning, He\n shall suffice me, for he hath sufficed: Christ is the end, for\n Christ was the beginning, Christ the beginning, for the end is\n Christ.\u201d Not personal experience of sin, but resistance to it,\n fitted him to deliver us from it.\n\n _Luke 1:35_\u2014\u201c_wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten\n shall be called the Son of God_\u201d; _John 8:46_\u2014\u201c_Which of you\n convicteth me of sin?_\u201d _14:30_\u2014\u201c_the prince of the world cometh:\n and he hath nothing in me_\u201d = not the slightest evil inclination\n upon which his temptations can lay hold; _Rom. 8:3_\u2014\u201c_in the\n likeness of sinful flesh_\u201d = in flesh, but without the sin which\n in other men clings to the flesh; _2 Cor. 5:21_\u2014\u201c_Him who knew no\n sin_\u201d; _Heb. 4:15_\u2014\u201c_in all points tempted like as we are, yet\n without sin_\u201d; _7:26_\u2014\u201c_holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from\n sinners_\u201d\u2014by the fact of his immaculate conception;\n _9:14_\u2014\u201c_through the eternal Spirit offered himself without\n blemish unto God_\u201d; _1 Pet. 1:19_\u2014\u201c_precious blood, as of a lamb\n without blemish and without spot, even the blood of Christ_\u201d;\n _2:22_\u2014\u201c_who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth_\u201d;\n _1 John 3:5, 7_\u2014\u201c_in him is no sin ... he is righteous._\u201d\n\n Julius M\u00fcller, Proof-texts, 29\u2014\u201cHad Christ been only human nature,\n he could not have been without sin. But _life_ can draw out of the\n putrescent clod materials for its own living. Divine life\n appropriates the human.\u201d Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:446 (Syst.\n Doct., 3:344)\u2014\u201cWhat with us is regeneration, is with him the\n incarnation of God.\u201d In this origin of Jesus\u2019 sinlessness from his\n union with God, we see the absurdity, both doctrinally and\n practically, of speaking of an immaculate conception of the\n Virgin, and of making her sinlessness precede that of her Son. On\n the Roman Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception of the\n Virgin, see H. B. Smith, System, 389-392; Mason, Faith of the\n Gospel, 129-131\u2014\u201cIt makes the regeneration of humanity begin, not\n with Christ, but with the Virgin. It breaks his connection with\n the race. Instead of springing sinless from the sinful race, he\n derives his humanity from something not like the rest of us.\u201d\n Thomas Aquinas and Liguori both call Mary the Queen of Mercy, as\n Jesus her Son is King of Justice; see Thomas, Pr\u00e6f. in Sept. Cath.\n Ep., Comment on Esther, 5:3, and Liguori, Glories of Mary, 1:80\n (Dublin version of 1866). Bradford, Heredity, 289\u2014\u201cThe Roman\n church has almost apotheosized Mary; but it must not be forgotten\n that the process began with Jesus. From what he was, an inference\n was drawn concerning what his mother must have been.\u201d\n\n \u201cChrist took human nature in such a way that this nature, without\n sin, bore the consequences of sin.\u201d That portion of human nature\n which the Logos took into union with himself was, in the very\n instant and by the fact of his taking it, purged from all its\n inherent depravity. But if in Christ there was no sin, or tendency\n to sin, how could he be tempted? In the same way, we reply, that\n Adam was tempted. Christ was not omniscient: _Mark 13:32_\u2014\u201c_of\n that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in\n heaven, neither the Son, but the Father._\u201d Only at the close of\n the first temptation does Jesus recognize Satan as the adversary\n of souls: _Mat. 4:10_\u2014\u201c_Get thee hence, Satan._\u201d Jesus could be\n tempted, not only because he was not omniscient, but also because\n he had the keenest susceptibility to all the forms of innocent\n desire. To these desires temptation may appeal. Sin consists, not\n in these desires, but in the gratification of them out of God\u2019s\n order, and contrary to God\u2019s will. Meyer: \u201cLust is appetite run\n wild. There is no harm in any natural appetite, considered in\n itself. But appetite has been spoiled by the Fall.\u201d So Satan\n appealed (_Mat. 4:1-11_) to our Lord\u2019s desire for food, for\n applause, for power; to \u201cUeberglaube, Aberglaude, Unglaube\u201d\n (Kurtz); _cf._ _Mat. 26:39; 27:42; 26:53_. All temptation must be\n addressed either to desire or fear; so Christ \u201c_was in all points\n tempted like as we are_\u201d (_Heb. 4:15_). The first temptation, in\n the wilderness, was addressed to desire; the second, in the\n garden, was addressed to fear. Satan, after the first, \u201c_departed\n from him for a season_\u201d (_Luke 4:13_); but he returned, in\n Gethsemane\u2014\u201c_the prince of the world cometh: and he hath nothing\n in me_\u201d (_John 14:30_)\u2014If possible, to deter Jesus from his work,\n by rousing within him vast and agonizing fears of the suffering\n and death that lay before him. Yet, in spite of both the desire\n and the fear with which his holy soul was moved, he was \u201c_without\n sin_\u201d (_Heb. 4:15_). The tree on the edge of the precipice is\n fiercely blown by the winds: the strain upon the roots is\n tremendous, but the roots hold. Even in Gethsemane and on Calvary,\n Christ never prays for forgiveness, he only imparts it to others.\n See Ullman, Sinlessness of Jesus; Thomasius, Christi Person und\n Werk, 2:7-17, 126-136, esp. 135, 136; Schaff, Person of Christ,\n 51-72; Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 3:330-349.\n\n\n(_c_) Ideal human nature,\u2014furnishing the moral pattern which man is\nprogressively to realize, although within limitations of knowledge and of\nactivity required by his vocation as the world\u2019s Redeemer.\n\n\n _Psalm 8:4-8_\u2014\u201c_thou hast made him but little lower than God, And\n crownest him with glory and honor. Thou madest him to have\n dominion over the works of thy hands; Thou hast put all things\n under his feet_\u201d\u2014a description of the ideal man, which finds its\n realization only in Christ. _Heb. 2:6-10_\u2014\u201c_But now we see not yet\n all things subjected to him. But we behold him who hath been made\n a little lower than the angels, even Jesus, because of the\n suffering of death crowned with glory and honor._\u201d _1 Cor.\n 15:45_\u2014\u201c_The first ... Adam ... The last Adam_\u201d\u2014implies that the\n second Adam realized the full concept of humanity, which failed to\n be realized in the first Adam; so _verse 49_\u2014\u201c_as we have borne\n the image of the earthly_ [man], _we shall also bear the image of\n the heavenly_\u201d [man]. _2 Cor. 3:18_\u2014\u201c_the glory of the Lord_\u201d is\n the pattern, into whose likeness we are to be changed. _Phil\n 3:21_\u2014\u201c_who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that\n it may be conformed to the body of his glory_\u201d; _Col. 1:18_\u2014\u201c_that\n in all things he might have the pre-eminence_\u201d; _1 Pet.\n 2:21_\u2014\u201c_suffered for you, leaving you an example, that ye should\n follow his steps_\u201d; _1 John 3:3_\u2014\u201c_every one that hath this hope\n set on him purifieth himself, even as he is pure._\u201d\n\n The phrase \u201c_Son of man_\u201d (_John 5:27_; _cf._ _Dan. 7:13_, Com. of\n Pusey, _in loco_, and Westcott, in Bible Com. on John, 32-35)\n seems to intimate that Christ answers to the perfect idea of\n humanity, as it at first existed in the mind of God. Not that he\n was surpassingly beautiful in physical form; for the only way to\n reconcile the seemingly conflicting intimations is to suppose that\n in all outward respects he took our average humanity\u2014at one time\n appearing without form or comeliness (_Is. 52:2_), and aged before\n his time (_John 8:57_\u2014\u201c_Thou art not yet fifty years old_\u201d), at\n another time revealing so much of his inward grace and glory that\n men were attracted and awed (_Ps. 45:2_\u2014\u201c_Thou art fairer than the\n children of men_\u201d; _Luke 4:22_\u2014\u201c_the words of grace which\n proceeded out of his mouth_\u201d; _Mark 10:32_\u2014\u201c_Jesus was going\n before them: and they were amazed; and they that followed were\n afraid_\u201d; _Mat. 17:1-8_\u2014the account of the transfiguration).\n Compare the Byzantine pictures of Christ with those of the Italian\n painters,\u2014the former ascetic and emaciated, the latter types of\n physical well-being. Modern pictures make Jesus too exclusively a\n Jew. Yet there is a certain truth in the words of Mozoomdar:\n \u201cJesus was an Oriental, and we Orientals understand him. He spoke\n in figure. We understand him. He was a mystic. You take him\n literally: you make an Englishman of him.\u201d So Japanese Christians\n will not swallow the Western system of theology, because they say\n that this would be depriving the world of the Japanese view of\n Christ.\n\n But in all spiritual respects Christ was perfect. In him are\n united all the excellences of both the sexes, of all temperaments\n and nationalities and characters. He possesses, not simply passive\n innocence, but positive and absolute holiness, triumphant through\n temptation. He includes in himself all objects and reasons for\n affection and worship; so that, in loving him, \u201clove can never\n love too much.\u201d Christ\u2019s human nature, therefore, and not human\n nature as it is in us, is the true basis of ethics and of\n theology. This absence of narrow individuality, this ideal,\n universal manhood, could not have been secured by merely natural\n laws of propagation,\u2014it was secured by Christ\u2019s miraculous\n conception; see Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:446 (Syst. Doct., 3:344).\n John G. Whittier, on the Birmingham philanthropist, Joseph Sturge:\n \u201cTender as woman, manliness and meekness In him were so allied,\n That they who judged him by his strength or weakness Saw but a\n single side.\u201d\n\n Seth, Ethical Principles, 420\u2014\u201cThe secret of the power of the\n moral Ideal is the conviction which it carries with it that it is\n no _mere_ ideal, but the expression of the supreme Reality.\u201d\n Bowne, Theory of Thought and Knowledge, 364\u2014\u201cThe _a priori_ only\n outlines a _possible_, and does not determine what shall be\n _actual_ within the limits of the possible. If experience is to be\n possible, it must take on certain forms, but those forms are\n compatible with an infinite variety of experience.\u201d No _a priori_\n truths or ideals can guarantee Christianity. We want a historical\n basis, an actual Christ, a _realization_ of the divine ideal.\n \u201cGreat men,\u201d says Amiel, \u201care the true men.\u201d Yes, we add, but only\n Christ, the greatest man, shows what the true man is. The heavenly\n perfection of Jesus discloses to us the greatness of our own\n possible being, while at the same time it reveals our infinite\n shortcoming and the source from which all restoration must come.\n\n Gore, Incarnation, 168\u2014\u201cJesus Christ is the catholic man. In a\n sense, all the greatest men have overlapped the boundaries of\n their time. \u2018The truly great Have all one age, and from one\n visible space Shed influence. They, both in power and act Are\n permanent, and time is not with them, Save as it worketh for them,\n they in it.\u2019 But in a unique sense the manhood of Jesus is\n catholic; because it is exempt, not from the limitations which\n belong to manhood, but from the limitations which make our manhood\n narrow and isolated, merely local or national.\u201d Dale, Ephesians,\n 42\u2014\u201cChrist is a servant and something more. There is an ease, a\n freedom, a grace, about his doing the will of God, which can\n belong only to a Son.... There is nothing constrained ... he was\n born to it.... He does the will of God as a child does the will of\n its father, naturally, as a matter of course, almost without\n thought.... No irreverent familiarity about his communion with the\n Father, but also no trace of fear, or even of wonder.... Prophets\n had fallen to the ground when the divine glory was revealed to\n them, but Christ stands calm and erect. A subject may lose his\n self-possession in the presence of his prince, but not a son.\u201d\n\n Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 148\u2014\u201cWhat once he had perceived, he\n thenceforth knew. He had no opinions, no conjectures; we are never\n told that he forgot, nor even that he remembered, which would\n imply a degree of forgetting; we are not told that he arrived at\n truths by the process of reasoning them out; but he reasons them\n out for others. It is not recorded that he took counsel or formed\n plans; but he desired, and he purposed, and he did one thing with\n a view to another.\u201d On Christ, as the ideal man, see\n Griffith-Jones, Ascent through Christ, 307-336; F. W. Robertson,\n Sermon on The Glory of the Divine Son, 2nd Series, Sermon XIX;\n Wilberforce, Incarnation, 22-99; Ebrard, Dogmatik, 2:25;\n Moorhouse, Nature and Revelation, 37; Tennyson, Introduction to In\n Memoriam; Farrar, Life of Christ, 1:148-154, and 2:excursus iv;\n Bushnell, Nature and the Supernatural, 276-332; Thomas Hughes, The\n Manliness of Christ; Hopkins, Scriptural Idea of Man, 121-145;\n Tyler, in Bib. Sac., 22:51, 620; Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:451\n _sq._\n\n\n(_d_) A human nature that found its personality only in union with the\ndivine nature,\u2014in other words, a human nature impersonal, in the sense\nthat it had no personality separate from the divine nature, and prior to\nits union therewith.\n\n\n By the impersonality of Christ\u2019s human nature, we mean only that\n it had no personality before Christ took it, no personality before\n its union with the divine. It was a human nature whose\n consciousness and will were developed only in union with the\n personality of the Logos. The Fathers therefore rejected the word\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, and substituted the word \u1f10\u03bd\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1,\u2014they favored\n not _un_personality but _in_personality. In still plainer terms,\n the Logos did not take into union with himself an already\n developed human person, such as James, Peter, or John, but human\n nature before it had become personal or was capable of receiving a\n name. It reached its personality only in union with his own divine\n nature. Therefore we see in Christ not two persons\u2014a human person\n and a divine person\u2014but one person, and that person possessed of a\n human nature as well as of a divine. For proof of this, see pages\n 683-700, also Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:289-308.\n\n Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 136\u2014\u201cWe count it no defect in our\n bodies that they have no personal subsistence apart from\n ourselves, and that, if separated from ourselves, they are\n nothing. They share in a true personal life because we, whose\n bodies they are, are persons. What happens to them happens to us.\u201d\n In a similar manner the personality of the Logos furnished the\n organizing principle of Jesus\u2019 two-fold nature. As he looked\n backward he could see himself dwelling in eternity with God, so\n far as his divine nature was concerned. But as respects his\n humanity he could remember that it was not eternal,\u2014it had had its\n beginnings in time. Yet this humanity had never had a separate\n personal existence,\u2014its personality had been developed only in\n connection with the divine nature. G\u00f6schel, quoted in Dorner\u2019s\n Person of Christ, 5:170\u2014\u201cChrist _is_ humanity; we have it; he is\n it entirely; we participate therein. His personality precedes and\n lies at the basis of the personality of the race and its\n individuals. As idea, he is implanted in the whole of humanity; he\n lies at the basis of every human consciousness, without however\n attaining realization in an individual; for this is only possible\n in the entire race at the end of the times.\u201d\n\n Emma Marie Caillard, on Man in the Light of Evolution, in Contemp.\n Rev., Dec. 1893: 873-881\u2014\u201cChrist is not only the goal of the race\n which is to be conformed to him, but he is also the vital\n principle which moulds each individual of that race into its own\n similitude. The perfect type exists potentially through all the\n intermediate stages by which it is more and more nearly\n approached, and, if it did not exist, neither could they. There\n could be no development of an absent life. The goal of man\u2019s\n evolution, the perfect type of manhood, is Christ. He exists and\n always has existed potentially in the race and in the individual,\n equally before as after his visible incarnation, equally in the\n millions of those who do not, as in the far fewer millions of\n those who do, bear his name. In the strictest sense of the words,\n he is the life of man, and that in a far deeper and more intimate\n sense than he can be said to be the life of the universe.\u201d Dale,\n Christian Fellowship, 159\u2014\u201cChrist\u2019s incarnation was not an\n isolated and abnormal wonder. It was God\u2019s witness to the true and\n ideal relation of all men to God.\u201d The incarnation was no detached\n event,\u2014it was the issue of an eternal process of utterance on the\n part of the Word \u201c_whose goings forth are from of old, from\n everlasting_\u201d (_Micah 5:2_).\n\n\n(_e_) A human nature germinal, and capable of self-communication,\u2014so\nconstituting him the spiritual head and beginning of a new race, the\nsecond Adam from whom fallen man individually and collectively derives new\nand holy life.\n\n\n In _Is. 9:6_, Christ is called \u201c_Everlasting Father_.\u201d In _Is.\n 53:10_, it is said that \u201c_he shall see his seed_.\u201d In _Rev.\n 22:16_, he calls himself \u201c_the root_\u201d as well as \u201c_the offspring\n of David_.\u201d See also _John 5.21_\u2014\u201c_the Son also giveth life to\n whom he will_\u201d; _15:1_\u2014\u201c_I am the true vine_\u201d\u2014whose roots are\n planted in heaven, not on earth; the vine-man, from whom as its\n stock the new life of humanity is to spring, and into whom the\n half-withered branches of the old humanity are to be grafted that\n they may have life divine. See Trench, Sermon on Christ, the True\n Vine, in Hulsean Lectures. _John 17:2_\u2014\u201c_thou gavest him authority\n over all flesh, that to all whom thou hast given him, he should\n give eternal life_\u201d; _1 Cor. 15:45_\u2014\u201c_the last Adam became a\n life-giving spirit_\u201d\u2014here \u201c_spirit_\u201d = not the Holy Spirit, nor\n Christ\u2019s divine nature, but \u201cthe ego of his total divine-human\n personality.\u201d\n\n _Eph. 5:23_\u2014\u201c_Christ also is the head of the church_\u201d = the head\n to which all the members are united, and from which they derive\n life and power. Christ calls the disciples his \u201c_little children_\u201d\n (_John 13:33_); when he leaves them they are \u201c_orphans_\u201d (_14:18_\n marg.). \u201cHe represents himself as a father of children, no less\n than as a brother\u201d (_20:17_\u2014\u201c_my brethren_\u201d; _cf._ _Heb.\n 2:11_\u2014\u201c_brethren_\u201d, and _13_\u2014\u201c_Behold, I and the children whom God\n hath given me_\u201d; see Westcott, Com. on _John 13:33_). The new race\n is propagated after the analogy of the old; the first Adam is the\n source of the physical, the second Adam of spiritual, life; the\n first Adam the source of corruption, the second of holiness. Hence\n _John 12:24_\u2014\u201c_if it die, it beareth much fruit_\u201d; _Mat. 10:37_\n and _Luke 14:26_\u2014\u201c_He that loveth father or mother more than me is\n not worthy of me_\u201d = none is worthy of me, who prefers his old\n natural ancestry to his new spiritual descent and relationship.\n Thus Christ is not simply the noblest embodiment of the old\n humanity, but also the fountain-head and beginning of a new\n humanity, the new source of life for the race. _Cf._ _1 Tim.\n 2:15_\u2014\u201c_she shall be saved through the child-bearing_\u201d\u2014which\n brought Christ into the world. See Wilberforce, Incarnation,\n 227-241; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 638-664; Dorner, Glaubenslehre,\n 2:451 _sq._ (Syst. Doct., 3:349 _sq._).\n\n Lightfoot on _Col. 1:18_\u2014\u201c_who is the beginning, the fruits from\n the dead_\u201d\u2014\u201cHere \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae = 1. priority in time. Christ was first\n fruits of the dead (_1 Cor. 15:20, 23_); 2. originating power, not\n only _principium principiatum_, but also _principium principians_.\n As he _is_ first with respect to the universe, so he _becomes_\n first with respect to the church; _cf._ _Heb. 7:15, 16_\u2014\u2018_another\n priest, who hath been made, not after the law of a carnal\n commandment but after the power of an endless life_\u2019.\u201d Paul\n teaches that \u201c_the head of every man is Christ_\u201d (_1 Cor. 11:3_),\n and that \u201c_in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily_\u201d\n (_Col. 2:9_). Whiton, Gloria Patri, 88-92, remarks on _Eph. 1:10_,\n that God\u2019s purpose is \u201c_to sum up all things in Christ, the things\n in the heavens, and the things upon the earth_\u201d\u2014to bring all\n things to a head (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9). History is a perpetually\n increasing incarnation of life, whose climax and crown is the\n divine fulness of life in Christ. In him the before unconscious\n sonship of the world awakes to consciousness of the Father. He is\n worthiest to bear the name of _the_ Son of God, in a pre\u00ebminent,\n but not exclusive right. We agree with these words of Whiton, if\n they mean that Christ is the only giver of life to man as he is\n the only giver of life to the universe.\n\n Hence Christ is the only ultimate authority in religion. He\n reveals himself in nature, in man, in history, in Scripture, but\n each of these is only a mirror which reflects _him_ to us. In each\n case the mirror is more or less blurred and the image obscured,\n yet _he_ appears in the mirror notwithstanding. The mirror is\n useless unless there is an eye to look into it, and an object to\n be seen in it. The Holy Spirit gives the eyesight, while Christ\n himself, living and present, furnishes the object (_James\n 1:23-25_; _2 Cor. 3:18_; _1 Cor. 13:12_).\n\n Over against mankind is Christ-kind; over against the fallen and\n sinful race is the new race created by Christ\u2019s indwelling.\n Therefore only when he ascended with his perfected manhood could\n he send the Holy Spirit, for the Holy Spirit which makes men\n children of God is the Spirit of Christ. Christ\u2019s humanity now, by\n virtue of its perfect union with Deity, has become universally\n communicable. It is as consonant with evolution to derive\n spiritual gifts from the second Adam, a solitary source, as it is\n to derive the natural man from the first Adam, a solitary source;\n see George Harris, Moral Evolution, 409; and A. H. Strong, Christ\n in Creation, 174.\n\n Simon, Reconciliation, 308\u2014\u201cEvery man is in a true sense\n essentially of divine nature\u2014even as Paul teaches, \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n (_Acts 17:29_).... At the centre, as it were, enswathed in fold\n after fold, after the manner of a bulb, we discern the living\n divine spark, impressing us qualitatively if not quantitatively,\n with the absoluteness of the great sun to which it belongs.\u201d The\n idea of truth, beauty, right, has in it an absolute and divine\n quality. It comes from God, yet from the depths of our own nature.\n It is the evidence that Christ, \u201c_the light that lighteth every\n man_\u201d (_John 1:9_), is present and is working within us.\n\n Pfleiderer, Philos. of Religion, 1:272\u2014\u201cThat the divine idea of\n man as \u2018_the son of his love_\u2019 (_Col. 1:13_), and of humanity as\n the kingdom of this Son of God, is the immanent final cause of all\n existence and development even in the prior world of nature, this\n has been the fundamental thought of the Christian Gnosis since the\n apostolic age, and I think that no philosophy has yet been able to\n shake or to surpass this thought\u2014the corner stone of an idealistic\n view of the world.\u201d But Mead, Ritschl\u2019s Place in the History of\n Doctrine, 10, says of Pfleiderer and Ritschl: \u201cBoth recognize\n Christ as morally perfect and as the head of the Christian Church.\n Both deny his pre-existence and his essential Deity. Both reject\n the traditional conception of Christ as an atoning Redeemer.\n Ritschl calls Christ God, though inconsistently; Pfleiderer\n declines to say one thing when he seems to mean another.\u201d\n\n\nThe passages here alluded to abundantly confute the Docetic denial of\nChrist\u2019s veritable human body, and the Apollinarian denial of Christ\u2019s\nveritable human soul. More than this, they establish the reality and\nintegrity of Christ\u2019s human nature, as possessed of all the elements,\nfaculties, and powers essential to humanity.\n\n\n2. The Deity of Christ.\n\n\nThe reality and integrity of Christ\u2019s divine nature have been sufficiently\nproved in a former chapter (see pages 305-315). We need only refer to the\nevidence there given, that, during his earthly ministry, Christ:\n\n(_a_) Possessed a knowledge of his own deity.\n\n\n _John 3:13_\u2014\u201c_the Son of man, who is in heaven_\u201d\u2014a passage with\n clearly indicates Christ\u2019s consciousness, at certain times in his\n earthly life at least, that he was not confined to earth but was\n also in heaven [here, however, Westcott and Hort, with \u05d0 and B,\n omit \u1f41 \u1f62\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7; for advocacy of the common reading, see\n Broadus, in Hovey\u2019s Com. on _John 3:13_]; _8:58_\u2014\u201c_Before Abraham\n was born, I am_\u201d\u2014here Jesus declares that there is a respect in\n which the idea of birth and beginning does not apply to him, but\n in which he can apply to himself the name \u201c_I am_\u201d of the eternal\n God; _14:9, 10_\u2014\u201c_Have I been so long time with you, and dost thou\n not know me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;\n how sayest thou, Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am\n in the Father, and the Father in me?_\u201d\n\n Adamson, The Mind in Christ, 24-49, gives the following instances\n of Jesus\u2019 supernatural knowledge: 1. Jesus\u2019 knowledge of Peter\n (_John 1:42_); 2. his finding of Philip (_1:43_); 3. his\n recognition of Nathanael (_1:47-50_); 4. of the woman of Samaria\n (_4:17-19, 39_); 5. miraculous draughts of fishes (_Luke 5:6-9_;\n _John 21:6_); 6. death of Lazarus (_John 11:14_); 7. of the ass\u2019s\n colt (_Mat. 21:2_); 8. of the upper room (_Mark 14:15_); 9. of\n Peter\u2019s denial (_Mat. 26:34_); 10. of the manner of his own death\n (_John 12:33_; _18:32_); 11. of the manner of Peter\u2019s death (_John\n 21:19_); 12. of the fall of Jerusalem (_Mat. 24:2_).\n\n Jesus does not say \u201cour Father\u201d but \u201c_my Father_\u201d (_John 20:17_).\n Rejection of him is a greater sin than rejection of the prophets,\n because he is the \u201c_beloved Son_\u201d of God (_Luke 20:13_). He knows\n God\u2019s purposes better than the angels, because he is the Son of\n God (_Mark 13:32_). As Son of God, he alone knows, and he alone\n can reveal, the Father (_Mat. __ 11:27_). There to clearly\n something more in his Sonship than in that of his disciples (_John\n 1:14_\u2014\u201c_only begotten_\u201d; _Heb. 1:6_\u2014\u201c_first begotten_\u201d). See\n Chapman, Jesus Christ and the Present Age, 37; Denney, Studies in\n Theology, 33.\n\n\n(b) Exercised divine powers and prerogatives.\n\n\n _John 2:24, 25_\u2014\u201c_But Jesus did not trust himself unto them, for\n that he knew all man, and because he needed not that any one\n should bear witness concerning man; for he himself knew what was\n in man_\u201d; _18:4_\u2014\u201c_Jesus therefore, knowing all the things that\n were coming upon him, went forth_\u201d; _Mark 4:39_\u2014\u201c_he awoke, and\n rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the\n wind ceased, and there was a great calm_\u201d; _Mat. 9:6_\u2014\u201c_But that\n ye may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive\n sins (then saith he to the sick of the palsy), Arise, and take up\n thy bed, and go unto thy house_\u201d; _Mark 2:7_\u2014\u201c_Why doth this man\n thus speak? he blasphemeth: who can forgive sins but one, even\n God?_\u201d\n\n It is not enough to keep, like Alexander Severus, a bust of\n Christ, in a private chapel, along with Virgil, Orpheus, Abraham,\n Apollonius, and other persons of the same kind; see Gibbon,\n Decline and Fall, chap. xvi. \u201cChrist is all in all. The prince in\n the Arabian story took from a walnut-shell a miniature tent, but\n that tent expanded so as to cover, first himself, then his palace,\n then his army, and at last his whole kingdom. So Christ\u2019s being\n and authority expand, as we reflect upon them, until they take in,\n not only ourselves, our homes and our country, but the whole world\n of sinning and suffering men, and the whole universe of God\u201d; see\n A. H. Strong, Address at the Ecumenical Missionary Conference,\n April 23, 1900.\n\n Matheson, Voices of the Spirit, 39\u2014\u201cWhat is that law which I call\n gravitation, but the sign of the Son of man in heaven? It is the\n gospel of self-surrender in nature. It is the inability of any\n world to be its own centre, the necessity of every world to center\n in something else.... In the firmament as on the earth, the many\n are made one by giving the one for the many.\u201d \u201cSubtlest thought\n shall fail and learning falter; Churches change, forms perish,\n systems go; But our human needs, they will not alter, Christ no\n after age will e\u2019er outgrow. Yea, amen, O changeless One, thou\n only Art life\u2019s guide and spiritual goal; Thou the light across\n the dark vale lonely, Thou the eternal haven of the soul.\u201d\n\n\nBut this is to say, in other words, that there were, in Christ, a\nknowledge and a power such as belong only to God. The passages cited\nfurnish a refutation of both the Ebionite denial of the reality, and the\nArian denial of the integrity, of the divine nature in Christ.\n\n\n Napoleon to Count Montholon (Bertrand\u2019s Memoirs): \u201cI think I\n understand somewhat of human nature, and I tell you all these\n [heroes of antiquity] were men, and I am a man; but not one is\n like him: Jesus Christ was more than man.\u201d See other testimonies\n in Schaff, Person of Christ. Even Spinoza, Tract. Theol.-Pol.,\n cap. 1 (vol. 1:383), says that \u201cChrist communed with God, mind to\n mind ... this spiritual closeness is unique\u201d (Martineau, Types,\n 1:254), and Channing speaks of Christ as more than a human\n being,\u2014as having exhibited a spotless purity which is the highest\n distinction of heaven. F. W. Robertson has called attention to the\n fact that the phrase \u201cSon of man\u201d (_John 5:27_; _cf._ _Dan. 7:13_)\n itself implies that Christ was more than man; it would have been\n an impertinence for him to have proclaimed himself Son of man,\n unless he had claimed to be something more; could not every human\n being call himself the same? When one takes this for his\n characteristic designation, as Jesus did, he implies that there is\n something strange in his being Son of man; that this is not his\n original condition and dignity; in other words, that he is also\n Son of God.\n\n It corroborates the argument from Scripture, to find that\n Christian experience instinctively recognizes Christ\u2019s Godhead,\n and that Christian history shows a new conception of the dignity\n of childhood and of womanhood, of the sacredness of human life,\n and of the value of a human soul,\u2014all arising from the belief\n that, in Christ, the Godhead honored human nature by taking it\n into perpetual union with itself, by bearing its guilt and\n punishment, and by raising it up from the dishonors of the grave\n to the glory of heaven. We need both the humanity and the deity of\n Christ; the humanity,\u2014for, as Michael Angelo\u2019s Last Judgment\n witnesses, the ages that neglect Christ\u2019s humanity must have some\n human advocate and Savior, and find a poor substitute for the\n ever-present Christ in Mariolatry, the invocation of the saints,\n and the \u201creal presence\u201d of the wafer and the mass; the deity,\u2014for,\n unless Christ is God, he cannot offer an infinite atonement for\n us, nor bring about a real union between our souls and the Father.\n Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:325-327 (Syst. Doct., 3:221-223)\u2014\u201cMary\n and the saints took Christ\u2019s place as intercessors in heaven;\n transubstantiation furnished a present Christ on earth.\u201d It might\n almost be said that Mary was made a fourth person in the Godhead.\n\n Harnack, Das Wesen des Christenthums: \u201cIt is no paradox, and\n neither is it rationalism, but the simple expression of the actual\n position as it lies before us in the gospels: Not the Son, but the\n Father alone, has a place in the gospel as Jesus proclaimed it\u201d;\n _i. e._, Jesus has no place, authority, supremacy, in the\n gospel,\u2014the gospel is a Christianity without Christ; see Nicoll,\n The Church\u2019s One Foundation, 48. And this in the face of Jesus\u2019\n own words: \u201c_Come unto me_\u201d (_Mat. 11:28_); \u201c_the Son of man ...\n shall sit on the throne of his glory: and before him shall be\n gathered all the nations_\u201d (_Mat. 25:31, 32_); \u201c_he that hath seen\n me hath seen the Father_\u201d (_John 14:9_); \u201c_he that obeyeth not the\n Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him_\u201d\n (_John 3:36_). Loisy, The Gospel and the Church, advocates the\n nut-theory in distinction from the onion-theory of doctrine. Does\n the fourth gospel appear a second century production? What of it?\n There is an evolution of doctrine as to Christ. \u201cHarnack does not\n conceive of Christianity as a seed, at first a plant in\n potentiality, then a real plant, identical from the beginning of\n its evolution to the final limit, and from the root to the summit\n of the stem. He conceives of it rather as a fruit ripe, or over\n ripe, that must be peeled to reach the incorruptible kernel, and\n he peels his fruit so thoroughly that little remains at the end.\u201d\n R. W. Gilder: \u201cIf Jesus is a man, And only a man, I say That of\n all mankind I will cleave to him, And will cleave alway. If Jesus\n Christ is a God, And the only God, I swear I will follow him\n through heaven and hell, The earth, the sea, and the air.\u201d\n\n On Christ manifested in Nature, see Jonathan Edwards, Observations\n on Trinity, ed. Smyth, 92-97\u2014\u201cHe who, by his immediate influence,\n gives being every moment, and by his Spirit actuates the world,\n because he inclines to communicate himself and his excellencies,\n doth doubtless communicate his excellency to bodies, as far as\n there is any consent or analogy. And the beauty of face and sweet\n airs in men are not always the effect of the corresponding\n excellencies of the mind; yet the beauties of nature are really\n emanations or shadows of the excellencies of the Son of God. So\n that, when we are delighted with flowery meadows and gentle\n breezes of wind, we may consider that we see only the emanations\n of the sweet benevolence of Jesus Christ. When we behold the\n fragrant rose and lily, we see his love and purity. So the green\n trees and fields, and singing of birds, are the emanations of his\n infinite joy and benignity. The easiness and naturalness of trees\n and vines are shadows of his beauty and loveliness. The crystal\n rivers and murmuring streams are the footsteps of his favor, grace\n and beauty. When we behold the light and brightness of the sun,\n the golden edges of an evening cloud, or the beauteous bow, we\n behold the adumbrations of his glory and goodness, and in the blue\n sky, of his mildness and gentleness. There are also many things\n wherein we may behold his awful majesty: in the sun in his\n strength, in comets, in thunder, in the hovering thunder clouds,\n in ragged rocks and the brows of mountains. That beauteous light\n wherewith the world is filled in a clear day is a lively shadow of\n his spotless holiness, and happiness and delight in communicating\n himself. And doubtless this is a reason why Christ is compared so\n often to these things, and called by their names, as the Sun of\n Righteousness, the Morning Star, the Rose of Sharon, and Lily of\n the Valley, the apple tree among trees of the wood, a bundle of\n myrrh, a roe, or a young hart. By this we may discover the beauty\n of many of those metaphors and similes which to an unphilosophical\n person do seem so uncouth. In like manner, when we behold the\n beauty of man\u2019s body in its perfection, we still see like\n emanations of Christ\u2019s divine perfections, although they do not\n always flow from the mental excellencies of the person that has\n them. But we see the most proper image of the beauty of Christ\n when we see beauty in the human soul.\u201d\n\n On the deity of Christ, see Shedd, History of Doctrine, 1:262,\n 351; Liddon, Our Lord\u2019s Divinity, 127, 207, 458; Thomasius,\n Christi Person und Werk, 1:61-64; Hovey, God with Us, 17-23;\n Bengel on _John 10:30_. On the two natures of Christ, see A. H.\n Strong, Philosophy and Religion, 201-212.\n\n\nIII. The Union of the two Natures in one Person.\n\n\nDistinctly as the Scriptures represent Jesus Christ to have been possessed\nof a divine nature and of a human nature, each unaltered in essence and\nundivested of its normal attributes and powers, they with equal\ndistinctness represent Jesus Christ as a single undivided personality in\nwhom these two natures are vitally and inseparably united, so that he is\nproperly, not God and man, but the God-man. The two natures are bound\ntogether, not by the moral tie of friendship, nor by the spiritual tie\nwhich links the believer to his Lord, but by a bond unique and\ninscrutable, which constitutes them one person with a single consciousness\nand will,\u2014this consciousness and will including within their possible\nrange both the human nature and the divine.\n\n\n Whiton, Gloria Patri, 79-81, would give up speaking of the union\n of God _and_ man; for this, he says, involves the fallacy of two\n natures. He would speak rather of the manifestation of God _in_\n man. The ordinary Unitarian insists that Christ was \u201ca mere man.\u201d\n As if there could be such a thing as _mere_ man, exclusive of\n aught above him and beyond him, self-centered and self-moved. We\n can sympathize with Whiton\u2019s objection to the phrase \u201cGod _and_\n man,\u201d because of its implication of an imperfect union. But we\n prefer the term \u201cGod-man\u201d to the phrase \u201cGod _in_ man,\u201d for the\n reason that this latter phrase might equally describe the union of\n Christ with every believer. Christ is \u201cthe only begotten,\u201d in a\n sense that every believer is not. Yet we can also sympathize with\n Dean Stanley, Life and Letters, 1:115\u2014\u201cAlas that a Church that has\n so divine a service should keep its long list of Articles! I am\n strengthened more than ever in my opinion that there is only\n needed, that there only should be, one, _viz_., \u2018I believe that\n Christ is both God and man.\u2019 \u201d\n\n\n1. Proof of this Union.\n\n\n(_a_) Christ uniformly speaks of himself, and is spoken of, as a single\nperson. There is no interchange of \u201cI\u201d and \u201cthou\u201d between the human and\nthe divine natures, such as we find between the persons of the Trinity\n(John 17:23). Christ never uses the plural number in referring to himself,\nunless it be in John 3:11\u2014\u201cwe speak that we do know,\u201d\u2014and even here \u201cwe\u201d\nis more probably used as inclusive of the disciples. 1 John 4:2\u2014\u201cis come\nin the flesh\u201d\u2014is supplemented by John 1:14\u2014\u201cbecame flesh\u201d; and these texts\ntogether assure us that Christ so came in human nature as to make that\nnature an element in his single personality.\n\n\n _John 17:23_\u2014\u201c_I in them, and thou in me, that they may be\n perfected into one; that the world may know that thou didst send\n me, and lovedst them, even as thou lovedst me_\u201d; _3:11_\u2014\u201c_We speak\n that which we know, and bear witness of that which we have seen;\n and ye receive not our witness_\u201d; _1 John 4:2_\u2014\u201c_every spirit that\n confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God_\u201d;\n _John 1:14_\u2014\u201c_And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us_\u201d\u2014he\n so came in human nature that human nature and himself formed, not\n two persons, but one person.\n\n In the Trinity, the Father is objective to the Son, the Son to the\n Father, and both to the Spirit. But Christ\u2019s divinity is never\n objective to his humanity, nor his humanity to his divinity.\n Moberly, Atonement and Personality, 97\u2014\u201cHe is not so much God\n _and_ man, as God _in_, and _through_, and _as_ man. He is one\n indivisible personality throughout.... We are to study the divine\n in and through the human. By looking for the divine side by side\n with the human, instead of discerning the divine within the human,\n we miss the significance of them both.\u201d We mistake when we say\n that certain words of Jesus with regard to his ignorance of the\n day of the end (_Mark 13:32_) were spoken by his human nature,\n while certain other words with regard to his being in heaven at\n the same time that he was on earth (_John 3:13_) were spoken by\n his divine nature. There was never any separation of the human\n from the divine, or of the divine from the human,\u2014all Christ\u2019s\n words were spoken, and all Christ\u2019s deeds were done, by the one\n person, the God-man. See Forrest, The Authority of Christ, 49-100.\n\n\n(_b_) The attributes and powers of both natures are ascribed to the one\nChrist, and conversely the works and dignities of the one Christ are\nascribed to either of the natures, in a way inexplicable, except upon the\nprinciple that these two natures are organically and indissolubly united\nin a single person (examples of the former usage are Rom. 1:3 and 1 Pet.\n3:18; of the latter, 1 Tim. 2:5 and Heb. 1:2, 3). Hence we can say, on the\none hand, that the God-man existed before Abraham, yet was born in the\nreign of Augustus C\u00e6sar, and that Jesus Christ wept, was weary, suffered,\ndied, yet is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever; on the other hand,\nthat a divine Savior redeemed us upon the cross, and that the human Christ\nis present with his people even to the end of the world (Eph. 1:23; 4:10;\nMat. 28:20).\n\n\n _Rom. 1:3_\u2014\u201c_his Son, who was born of the seed of David according\n to the flesh_\u201d; _1 Pet. 3:18_\u2014\u201c_Christ also suffered for sins once\n ... being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the\n spirit_\u201d; _1 Tim. 2:5_\u2014\u201c_one mediator also between God and men,\n himself man, Christ Jesus_\u201d; _Heb. 1:2, 3_\u2014\u201c_his Son, whom he\n appointed heir of all things ... who being the effulgence of his\n glory ... when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the\n right hand of the Majesty on high_\u201d; _Eph. 1:22, 23_\u2014\u201c_put all\n things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over\n all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him\n that filleth all in all_\u201d; _4:10_\u2014\u201c_He that descended is the same\n also that ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill\n all things_\u201d; _Mat. 28:20_\u2014\u201c_lo, I am with you always, even unto\n the end of the world._\u201d\n\n Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 142-145\u2014\u201cMary was Theotokos, but she\n was not the mother of Christ\u2019s Godhood, but of his humanity. We\n speak of the blood of God the Son, but it is not as God that he\n has blood. The hands of the babe Jesus made the worlds, only in\n the sense that he whose hands they were was the Agent in\n creation.... Spirit and body in us are not merely put side by\n side, and insulated from each other. The spirit does not have the\n rheumatism, and the reverent body does not commune with God. The\n reason why they affect each other is because they are equally\n ours.... Let us avoid sensuous, fondling, modes of addressing\n Christ\u2014modes which dishonor him and enfeeble the soul of the\n worshiper.... Let us also avoid, on the other hand, such phrases\n as \u2018the dying God\u2019, which loses the manhood in the Godhead.\u201d\n Charles H. Spurgeon remarked that people who \u201cdear\u201d everybody\n reminded him of the woman who said she had been reading in \u201cdear\n Hebrews.\u201d\n\n\n(_c_) The constant Scriptural representations of the infinite value of\nChrist\u2019s atonement and of the union of the human race with God which has\nbeen secured in him are intelligible only when Christ is regarded, not as\na man of God, but as the God-man, in whom the two natures are so united\nthat what each does has the value of both.\n\n\n _1 John 2:2_\u2014\u201c_he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for\n ours only, but also for the whole world,_\u201d\u2014as John in his gospel\n proves that Jesus is the Son of God, the Word, God, so in his\n first Epistle he proves that the Son of God, the Word, God, has\n become man; _Eph. 2:16-18_\u2014\u201c_might reconcile them both_ [Jew and\n Gentile] _in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the\n enmity thereby; and he came and preached peace to you that were\n far off, and peace to them that were nigh: for through him we both\n have our access in one Spirit unto the Father_\u201d; _21, 22_\u2014\u201c_in\n whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a\n holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for\n a habitation of God in the Spirit_\u201d; _2 Pet. 1:4_\u2014\u201c_that through\n these_ [promises] _ye may become partakers of the divine nature._\u201d\n John Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 2:107\u2014\u201cWe cannot separate\n Christ\u2019s divine from his human acts, without rending in twain the\n unity of his person and life.\u201d\n\n\n(_d_) It corroborates this view to remember that the universal Christian\nconsciousness recognizes in Christ a single and undivided personality, and\nexpresses this recognition in its services of song and prayer.\n\nThe foregoing proof of the union of a perfect human nature and of a\nperfect divine nature in the single person of Jesus Christ suffices to\nrefute both the Nestorian separation of the natures and the Eutychian\nconfounding of them. Certain modern forms of stating the doctrine of this\nunion, however\u2014forms of statement into which there enter some of the\nmisconceptions already noticed\u2014need a brief examination, before we proceed\nto our own attempt at elucidation.\n\n\n Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:403-411 (Syst. Doct., 3:300-308)\u2014\u201cThree\n ideas are included in incarnation: (1) assumption of human nature\n on the part of the Logos (_Heb. 2:14_\u2014\u2018_partook __ of ... flesh\n and blood_\u2019; _2 Cor. 5:19_\u2014\u2018_God was in Christ_\u2019; _Col. 2:9_\u2014\u2018_in\n him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily_\u2019); (2) new\n creation of the second Adam, by the Holy Ghost and power of the\n Highest (_Rom. 5:14_\u2014\u2018_Adam\u2019s\u2019 transgression, who is a figure of\n him that was to come_\u2019; _1 Cor. 15:22_\u2014\u2018_as in Adam all die, so\n also in Christ shall all be made alive_\u2019; _15:45_\u2014\u2018_The first man\n Adam became a living soul, the last Adam became a life-giving\n Spirit_\u2019; _Luke 1:35_\u2014\u2018_the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and\n the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee_\u2019; _Mat.\n 1:20_\u2014\u2018_that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit_\u2019);\n (3) becoming flesh, without contraction of deity or humanity (_1\n Tim. 3:16_\u2014\u2018_who was manifested in the flesh_\u2019; _1 John\n 4:2_\u2014\u2018_Jesus Christ is come in the flesh_\u2019; _John 6:41, 51_\u2014\u2018_I am\n the bread which came down out of heaven.... I am the living\n bread_\u2019; _2 John 7_\u2014\u2018_Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh_\u2019; _John\n 1:14_\u2014\u2018_the word became flesh_\u2019). This last text cannot mean: The\n Logos ceased to be what he was, and began to be only man. Nor can\n it be a mere theophany, in human form. The reality of the humanity\n is intimated, as well as the reality of the Logos.\u201d\n\n The Lutherans hold to a communion of the natures, as well as to an\n impartation of their properties: (1) _genus\n idiomaticum_\u2014impartation of attributes of both natures to the one\n person; (2) _genus apotelesmaticum_ (from \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, \u201cthat which\n is finished or completed,\u201d _i. e._, Jesus\u2019 work)\u2014attributes of the\n one person imparted to each of the constituent natures. Hence Mary\n may be called \u201cthe mother of God,\u201d as the Chalcedon symbol\n declares, \u201cas to his humanity,\u201d and what each nature did has the\n value of both; (3) _genus majestaticum_\u2014attributes of one nature\n imparted to the other, yet so that the divine nature imparts to\n the human, not the human to the divine. The Lutherans do not\n believe in a _genus tapeinoticon_, _i. e._, that the human\n elements communicated themselves to the divine. The only\n communication of the human was to the person, not to the divine\n nature, of the God-man. Examples of this third _genus\n majestaticum_ are found is _John 3:13_\u2014\u201c_no one hath ascended into\n heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man,\n who is in heaven_\u201d [here, however, Westcott and Hort, with \u05d0 and\n B, omit \u1f41 \u1f62\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7]; _5:27_\u2014\u201c_he gave him authority to\n execute judgment, because he is a son of man._\u201d Of the explanation\n that this is the figure of speech called \u201c_all\u00e6osis,_\u201d Luther\n says: \u201c_All\u00e6osis_ est larva qu\u00e6dam diaboli, secundum cujus\n rationes ego certe nolim esse Christianus.\u201d\n\n The _genus majestaticum_ is denied by the Reformed Church, on the\n ground that it does not permit a clear distinction of the natures.\n And this is one great difference between it and the Lutheran\n Church. So Hooker, in commenting upon the Son of man\u2019s \u201cascending\n up where he was before,\u201d says: \u201cBy the \u2018_Son of man_\u2019 must be\n meant the whole person of Christ, who, being man upon earth,\n filled heaven with his glorious presence; but not according to\n that nature for which the title of man is given him.\u201d For the\n Lutheran view of this union and its results in the communion of\n natures, see Hase, Hutterus Redivivus, 11th ed., 195-197;\n Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, 2:24, 25. For the Reformed\n view, see Turretin, loc. 13, qu\u00e6st. 8; Hodge, Syst. Theol.,\n 2:387-397, 407-418.\n\n\n2. Modern misrepresentations of this Union.\n\n\nA. Theory of an incomplete humanity.\u2014Gess and Beecher hold that the\nimmaterial part in Christ\u2019s humanity is only contracted and metamorphosed\ndeity.\n\nThe advocates of this view maintain that the divine Logos reduced himself\nto the condition and limits of human nature, and thus literally became a\nhuman soul. The theory differs from Apollinarianism, in that it does not\nnecessarily presuppose a trichotomous view of man\u2019s nature. While\nApollinarianism, however, denied the human origin only of Christ\u2019s \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1,\nthis theory extends the denial to his entire immaterial being,\u2014his body\nalone being derived from the Virgin. It is held, in slightly varying\nforms, by the Germans, Hofmann and Ebrard, as well as by Gess; and Henry\nWard Beecher was its chief representative in America.\n\n\n Gess holds that Christ gave up his eternal holiness and divine\n self-consciousness, to become man, so that he never during his\n earthly life thought, spoke, or wrought as God, but was at all\n times destitute of divine attributes. See Gess, Scripture Doctrine\n of the Person of Christ; and synopsis of his view, by Reubelt, in\n Bib. Sac., 1870:1-32; Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, 1:234-241, and 2:20;\n Ebrard, Dogmatik, 2:144-151, and in Herzog, Encyclop\u00e4die, art.:\n Jesus Christ, der Gottmensch; also Liebner, Christliche Dogmatik.\n Henry Ward Beecher, in his Life of Jesus the Christ, chap. 3,\n emphasizes the word \u201c_flesh,_\u201d in _John 1:14_ and declares the\n passage to mean that the divine Spirit enveloped himself in a\n human _body_, and in that condition was subject to the\n indispensable limitations of material laws. All these advocates of\n the view hold that Deity was dormant, or paralyzed, in Christ\n during his earthly life. Its essence is there, but not its\n efficiency at any time.\n\n\nAgainst this theory we urge the following objections:\n\n(_a_) It rests upon a false interpretation of the passage John 1:14\u2014\u1f41\n\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u1f70\u03c1\u03be \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf. The word \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03be here has its common New Testament\nmeaning. It designates neither soul nor body alone, but human nature in\nits totality (_cf._ John 3:6\u2014\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03be \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd;\nRom. 7:18\u2014\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u03af, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd). That\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf does not imply a transmutation of the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 into human nature, or\ninto a human soul, is evident from \u1f10\u03c3\u03ba\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd which follows\u2014an allusion to\nthe Shechinah of the Mosaic tabernacle; and from the parallel passage 1\nJohn 4:2\u2014\u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03c5\u03b8\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u2014where we are taught not only the oneness of\nChrist\u2019s person, but the distinctness of the constituent natures.\n\n\n _John 1:14_\u2014\u201c_the Word became flesh, and dwelt_ [tabernacled]\n _among us, and we behold his glory_\u201d; _3:6_\u2014\u201c_That which is born\n of the flesh is flesh_\u201d; _Rom., 7:18_\u2014\u201c_in me, that is, in my\n flesh, dwelleth no good thing_\u201d; _1 John 4:2_\u2014\u201c_Jesus Christ is\n come in the flesh._\u201d Since \u201c_flesh_,\u201d in Scriptural usage, denotes\n human nature in its entirety, there is as little reason to infer\n from these passages a change of the Logos into a human body, as a\n change of the Logos into a human soul. There is no curtailed\n humanity in Christ. One advantage of the monistic doctrine is that\n it avoids this error. Omnipresence is the presence of the whole of\n God in every place. _Ps. 85:9_\u2014\u201c_Surely his salvation is nigh them\n that fear him, That glory may dwell in our land_\u201d\u2014was fulfilled\n when Christ, the true Shekinah, tabernacled in human flesh and men\n \u201c_beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father,\n full of grace and truth_\u201d (_John 1:14_). And Paul can say in _2\n Cor. 12:9_\u2014\u201c_Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my\n weaknesses, that the power of Christ may spread a tabernacle over\n me._\u201d\n\n\n(_b_) It contradicts the two great classes of Scripture passages already\nreferred to, which assert on the one hand the divine knowledge and power\nof Christ and his consciousness of oneness with the Father, and on the\nother hand the completeness of his human nature and its derivation from\nthe stock of Israel and the seed of Abraham (Mat. 1:1-16; Heb. 2:16). Thus\nit denies both the true humanity, and the true deity, of Christ.\n\n\n See the Scripture passages cited in proof of the Deity of Christ,\n pages 305-315. Gess himself acknowledges that, if the passages in\n which Jesus avers his divine knowledge and power and his\n consciousness of oneness with the Father refer to his earthly\n life, his theory is overthrown. \u201cApollinarianism had a certain\n sort of grotesque grandeur, in giving to the human body and soul\n of Christ an infinite, divine \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1. It maintained at least the\n divine side of Christ\u2019s person. But the theory before us denies\n both sides.\u201d While it so curtails deity that it is no proper\n deity, it takes away from humanity all that is valuable in\n humanity; for a manhood that consists only in body is no proper\n manhood. Such manhood is like the \u201chalf length\u201d portrait which\n depicted only the _lower half_ of the man. _Mat. 1:1-16_, the\n genealogy of Jesus, and _Heb. 2:16_\u2014\u201c_taketh hold of the seed of\n Abraham_\u201d\u2014intimate that Christ took all that belonged to human\n nature.\n\n\n(_c_) It is inconsistent with the Scriptural representations of God\u2019s\nimmutability, in maintaining that the Logos gives up the attributes of\nGodhead, and his place and office as second person of the Trinity, in\norder to contract himself into the limits of humanity. Since attributes\nand substance are correlative terms, it is impossible to hold that the\nsubstance of God is in Christ, so long as he does not possess divine\nattributes. As we shall see hereafter, however, the possession of divine\nattributes by Christ does not necessarily imply his constant exercise of\nthem. His humiliation indeed, consisted in his giving up their independent\nexercise.\n\n\n See Dorner, Unver\u00e4nderlichkeit Gottes, in Jahrbuch f\u00fcr deutsche\n Theologie, 1:361; 2:440; 3:579; esp. 1:390-412\u2014\u201cGess holds that,\n during the thirty-three years of Jesus\u2019 earthly life, the Trinity\n was altered; the Father no more poured his fulness into the Son;\n the Son no more, with the Father, sent forth the Holy Spirit; the\n world was upheld and governed by Father and Spirit alone, without\n the mediation of the Son; the Father ceased to beget the Son. He\n says the Father alone has _aseity_; he is the only Monas. The\n Trinity is a family, whose head is the Father, but whose number\n and condition is variable. To Gess, it is indifferent whether the\n Trinity consists of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or (as during\n Jesus\u2019 life) of only one. But this is a Trinity in which two\n members are accidental. A Trinity that can get along without one\n of its members is not the Scriptural Trinity. The Father depends\n on the Son, and the Spirit depends on the Son, as much as the Son\n depends on the Father. To take away the Son is to take away the\n Father and the Spirit. This giving up of the actuality of his\n attributes, even of his holiness, on the part of the Logos, is in\n order to make it possible for Christ to sin. But can we ascribe\n the possibility of sin to a being who is really God? The reality\n of temptation requires us to postulate a veritable human soul.\u201d\n\n\n(_d_) It is destructive of the whole Scriptural scheme of salvation, in\nthat it renders impossible any experience of human nature on the part of\nthe divine,\u2014for when God becomes man he ceases to be God; in that it\nrenders impossible any sufficient atonement on the part of human\nnature,\u2014for mere humanity, even though its essence be a contracted and\ndormant deity, is not capable of a suffering which shall have infinite\nvalue; in that it renders impossible any proper union of the human race\nwith God in the person of Jesus Christ,\u2014for where true deity and true\nhumanity are both absent, there can be no union between the two.\n\n\n See Dorner, Jahrbuch f. d. Theologie, 1:390\u2014\u201cUpon this theory only\n an exhibitory atonement can be maintained. There is no real\n humanity that, in the strength of divinity, can bring a sacrifice\n to God. Not substitution, therefore, but obedience, on this view,\n reconciles us to God. Even if it is said that God\u2019s Spirit is the\n real soul in all men, this will not help the matter; for we should\n then have to make an essential distinction between the indwelling\n of the Spirit in the unregenerate, the regenerate, and Christ,\n respectively. But in that case we lose the likeness between\n Christ\u2019s nature and our own,\u2014Christ\u2019s being pre\u00ebxistent, and ours\n not. Without this pantheistic doctrine, Christ\u2019s unlikeness to us\n is yet greater; for he is really a wandering God, clothed in a\n human body, and cannot properly be called a human soul. We have\n then no middle-point between the body and the Godhead; and in the\n state of exaltation, we have no manhood at all,\u2014only the infinite\n Logos, in a glorified body as his garment.\u201d\n\n Isaac Watts\u2019s theory of a pre\u00ebxistent humanity in like manner\n implies that humanity is originally in deity; it does not proceed\n from a human stock, but from a divine; between the human and the\n divine there is no proper distinction; hence there can be no\n proper redeeming of humanity; see Bib. Sac., 1875:421. A. A.\n Hodge, Pop. Lectures, 226\u2014\u201cIf Christ does not take a human \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1,\n he cannot be a high-priest who feels with us in all our\n infirmities, having been tempted like us.\u201d Mason, Faith of the\n Gospel, 138\u2014\u201cThe conversion of the Godhead into flesh would have\n only added one more man to the number of men\u2014a sinless one,\n perhaps, among sinners\u2014but it would have effected no union of God\n and men.\u201d On the theory in general, see Hovey, God with Us, 62-69;\n Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:430-440; Philippi, Glaubenslehre,\n 4:386-408; Biedermann, Christliche Dogmatik, 356-359; Bruce,\n Humiliation of Christ, 187, 230; Schaff, Christ and Christianity,\n 115-119.\n\n\nB. Theory of a gradual incarnation.\u2014Dorner and Rothe hold that the union\nbetween the divine and the human natures is not completed by the\nincarnating act.\n\nThe advocates of this view maintain that the union between the two natures\nis accomplished by a gradual communication of the fulness of the divine\nLogos to the man Christ Jesus. This communication is mediated by the human\nconsciousness of Jesus. Before the human consciousness begins, the\npersonality of the Logos is not yet divine-human. The personal union\ncompletes itself only gradually, as the human consciousness is\nsufficiently developed to appropriate the divine.\n\n\n Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:660 (Syst. Doct., 4:125)\u2014\u201cIn order that\n Christ might show his high-priestly love by suffering and death,\n the different sides of his personality yet stood to one another in\n relative separableness. The divine-human union in him,\n accordingly, was before his death not yet completely actualized,\n although its completion was from the beginning divinely assured.\u201d\n 2:431 (Syst. Doct., 3:328)\u2014\u201cIn spite of this _becoming_, inside of\n the _Unio_, the Logos is from the beginning united with Jesus in\n the deepest foundation of his being, and Jesus\u2019 life has ever been\n a divine-human one, in that a present receptivity for the Godhead\n has never remained without its satisfaction.... Even the\n unconscious humanity of the babe turns receptively to the Logos,\n as the plant turns toward the light. The initial union makes\n Christ already the God-man, but not in such a way as to prevent a\n subsequent _becoming_; for surely he did become omniscient and\n incapable of death, as he was not at the beginning.\u201d\n\n 2:464 _sq._ (Syst. Doct., 3:363 _sq._)\u2014\u201cThe actual life of God, as\n the Logos, reaches beyond the beginnings of the divine-human life.\n For if the _Unio_ is to complete itself by growth, the relation of\n impartation and reception must continue. In his personal\n consciousness, there was a distinction between duty and being. The\n will had to take up practically, and turn into action, each new\n revelation or perception of God\u2019s will on the part of intellect or\n conscience. He had to maintain, with his will, each revelation of\n his nature and work. In his twelfth year, he says: \u2018_I must be\n about my Father\u2019s business._\u2019 To Satan\u2019s temptation: \u2018_Art thou\n God\u2019s Son?_\u2019 he must reply with an affirmation that suppresses all\n doubt, though he will not prove it by miracle. This moral growth,\n as it was the will of the Father, was his task. He hears from his\n Father, and obeys. In him, imperfect knowledge was never the same\n with false conception. In us, ignorance has error for its obverse\n side. But this was never the case with him, though he grew in\n knowledge unto the end.\u201d Dorner\u2019s view of the Person of Christ may\n be found in his Hist. Doct. Person Christ, 5:248-261;\n Glaubenslehre, 2:347-474 (Syst. Doct., 3:243-373).\n\n A summary of his views is also given in Princeton Rev.,\n 1873:71-87\u2014Dorner illustrates the relation between the humanity\n and the deity of Christ by the relation between God and man, in\n conscience, and in the witness of the Spirit. \u201cSo far as the human\n element was immature or incomplete, so far the Logos was not\n present. Knowledge advanced to unity with the Logos, and the human\n will afterwards confirmed the best and highest knowledge. A\n resignation of both the Logos and the human nature to the union is\n involved in the incarnation. The growth continues until the idea,\n and the reality, of divine humanity perfectly coincide. The\n assumption of unity was gradual, in the life of Christ. His\n exaltation began with the perfection of this development.\u201d Rothe\u2019s\n statement of the theory can be found in his Dogmatik, 2:49-182;\n and in Bib. Sac., 27:386.\n\n\nIt is objectionable for the following reasons:\n\n(_a_) The Scripture plainly teaches that that which was born of Mary was\nas completely Son of God as Son of man (Luke 1:35); and that in the\nincarnating act, and not at his resurrection, Jesus Christ became the\nGod-man (Phil. 2:7). But this theory virtually teaches the birth of a man\nwho subsequently and gradually became the God-man, by consciously\nappropriating the Logos to whom he sustained ethical relations\u2014relations\nwith regard to which the Scripture is entirely silent. Its radical error\nis that of mistaking an incomplete consciousness of the union for an\nincomplete union.\n\n\n In _Luke 1:35_\u2014\u201c_the holy thing which is begotten shall be called\n the Son of God_\u201d\u2014and _Phil. 2:7_\u2014\u201c_emptied himself, taking the\n form of servant, being made in the likeness of men_\u201d\u2014we have\n evidence that Christ was both Son of God and Son of man from the\n very beginning of his earthly life. But, according to Dorner,\n before there was any human consciousness, the personality of Jesus\n Christ was not divine-human.\n\n\n(_b_) Since consciousness and will belong to personality, as distinguished\nfrom nature, the hypothesis of a mutual, conscious, and voluntary\nappropriation of divinity by humanity and of humanity by divinity, during\nthe earthly life of Christ, is but a more subtle form of the Nestorian\ndoctrine of a double personality. It follows, moreover, that as these two\npersonalities do not become absolutely one until the resurrection, the\ndeath of the man Jesus Christ, to whom the Logos has not yet fully united\nhimself, cannot possess an infinite atoning efficacy.\n\n\n Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, 2:68-70, objects to Dorner\u2019s\n view, that it \u201cleads us to a man who is in intimate communion with\n God,\u2014a man of God, but not a man who is God.\u201d He maintains,\n against Dorner, that \u201cthe union between the divine and human in\n Christ exists before the consciousness of it.\u201d 193-195\u2014Dorner\u2019s\n view \u201cmakes each element, the divine and the human, long for the\n other, and reach its truth and reality only in the other. This, so\n far as the divine is concerned, is very like pantheism. Two\n _willing_ personalities are presupposed, with ethical relation to\n each other,\u2014two persons, at least at the first. Says Dorner: \u2018So\n long as the manhood is yet unconscious, the person of the Logos is\n not yet the central _ego_ of this man. At the beginning, the Logos\n does not impart himself, so far as he is person or\n self-consciousness. He keeps apart by himself, just in proportion\n as the manhood fails in power of perception.\u2019 At the beginning,\n then, this man is not yet the God-man; the Logos only works in\n him, and on him. \u2018The _unio personalis_ grows and completes\n itself,\u2014becomes ever more all-sided and complete. Till the\n resurrection, there is a relative separability still.\u2019 Thus\n Dorner. But the Scripture knows nothing of an ethical relation of\n the divine, to the human in Christ\u2019s person. It knows only of one\n divine-human subject.\u201d See also Thomasius, 2:80-92.\n\n\n(_c_) While this theory asserts a final complete union of God and man in\nJesus Christ, it renders this union far more difficult to reason, by\ninvolving the merging of two persons in one, rather than the union of two\nnatures in one person. We have seen, moreover, that the Scripture gives no\ncountenance to the doctrine of a double personality during the earthly\nlife of Christ. The God-man never says: \u201cI and the Logos are one\u201d; \u201che\nthat hath seen me hath seen the Logos\u201d; \u201cthe Logos is greater than I\u201d; \u201cI\ngo to the Logos.\u201d In the absence of all Scripture evidence in favor of\nthis theory, we must regard the rational and dogmatic arguments against it\nas conclusive.\n\n\n Liebner, in Jahrbuch f. d. Theologie, 3:349-366, urges, against\n Dorner, that there is no sign in Scripture of such communion\n between the two natures of Christ as exists between the three\n persons of the Trinity. Philippi also objects to Dorner\u2019s view:\n (1) that it implies a pantheistic identity of essence in both God\n and man; (2) that it makes the resurrection, not the birth, the\n time when the Word became flesh; (3) that it does not explain how\n two personalities can become one; see Philippi, Glaubenslehre,\n 4:364-380. Philippi quotes Dorner as saying: \u201cThe unity of essence\n of God and man is the great discovery of this age.\u201d But that\n Dorner was no pantheist appears from the following quotations from\n his Hist. Doctrine of the Person of Christ, II, 3:5, 23, 69,\n 115\u2014\u201cProtestant philosophy has brought about the recognition of\n the essential connection and unity of the human and the divine....\n To the theology of the present day, the divine and human are not\n mutually exclusive but connected magnitudes, having an inward\n relation to each other and reciprocally confirming each other, by\n which view both separation and identification are set aside....\n And now the common task of carrying on the union of faculties and\n qualities to a union of essence was devolved on both. The\n difference between them is that only God has aseity.... Were we to\n set our face against every view which represents the divine and\n human as intimately and essentially related, we should be wilfully\n throwing away the gains of centuries, and returning to a soil\n where a Christology is an absolute impossibility.\u201d\n\n See also Dorner, System, 1:123\u2014\u201cFaith postulates a difference\n between the world and God, between whom religion seeks a union.\n Faith does not wish to be a mere relation to itself or to its own\n representations and thoughts. That would be a monologue; faith\n desires a dialogue. Therefore it does not consent with a monism\n which recognizes only God or the world (with the ego). The duality\n (not the dualism, which is opposed to such monism, but which has\n no desire to oppose the rational demand for unity) is in fact a\n condition of true and vital unity.\u201d The _unity_ is the foundation\n of religion; the _difference_ is the foundation of morality.\n Morality and religion are but different manifestations of the same\n principle. Man\u2019s moral endeavor is the working of God within him.\n God can be revealed only in the perfect character and life of\n Jesus Christ. See Jones, Robert Browning, 146.\n\n Stalker, Imago Christi: \u201cChrist was not half a God and half a man,\n but he was perfectly God and perfectly man.\u201d Moberly, Atonement\n and Personality, 95\u2014\u201cThe Incarnate did not oscillate between being\n God and being man. He was indeed _always_ God, and yet never\n otherwise God than as expressed within the possibilities of human\n consciousness and character.\u201d He knew that he was something more\n than he was as incarnate. His miracles showed what humanity might\n become. John Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 14\u2014\u201cThe divinity\n of Christ was not that of a divine nature in local or mechanical\n juxtaposition with a human, but of a divine nature that suffused,\n blended, identified itself with the thoughts, feelings, volitions\n of a human individuality. Whatever of divinity could not\n organically unite itself with and breathe through a human spirit,\n was not and could not be present in one who, whatever else he was,\n was really and truly human.\u201d See also Biedermann, Dogmatik,\n 351-353; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:428-430.\n\n\n3. The real nature of this Union.\n\n\n(_a_) Its great importance.\u2014While the Scriptures represent the person of\nChrist as the crowning mystery of the Christian scheme (Matt 11:27; Col.\n1:27; 2:2; 1 Tim. 3:16), they also incite us to its study (John 17:3;\n20:27; Luke 24:39; Phil. 3:8, 10). This is the more needful, since Christ\nis not only the central point of Christianity, but is Christianity\nitself\u2014the embodied reconciliation and union between man and God. The\nfollowing remarks are offered, not as fully explaining, but only as in\nsome respects relieving, the difficulties of the subject.\n\n\n _Matt. 11:27_\u2014\u201c_no one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither\n doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the\n Son willeth to reveal him._\u201d Here it seems to be intimated that\n the mystery of the nature of the Son is even greater than that of\n the Father. Shedd, Hist. Doct., 1:408\u2014The Person of Christ is in\n some respects more baffling to reason than the Trinity. Yet there\n is a profane neglect, as well as a profane curiosity: _Col.\n 1:27_\u2014\u201c_the riches of the glory of this mystery ... which is\n Christ in you, the hope of glory_\u201d; _2:2, 3_\u2014\u201c_the mystery of God,\n even Christ, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge\n hidden_\u201d; _1 Tim. 3:16_\u2014\u201c_great is the mystery of godliness; He\n who was manifested in the flesh_\u201d\u2014here the Vulgate, the Latin\n Fathers, and Buttmann make \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd the antecedent of \u1f45\u03c2, the\n relative taking the _natural_ gender of its antecedent, and\n \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd referring to Christ; _Heb. 2:11_\u2014\u201c_both he that\n sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one_ [not\n father, but race, or substance]\u201d (_cf._ _Acts 17:26_\u2014\u201c_he made of\n one every nation of men_\u201d)\u2014an allusion to the solidarity of the\n race and Christ\u2019s participation in all that belongs to us.\n\n _John 17:3_\u2014\u201c_this is life eternal, that they should know thee the\n only true God, and him who thou didst send, even Jesus Christ_\u201d;\n _20:27_\u2014\u201c_Reach hither thy finger, and see my hands; and reach\n hither thy hand, and put it into my side: and be not faithless,\n but believing_\u201d; _Luke 24:39_\u2014\u201c_See my hands and my feet, that it\n is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and\n bones, as ye behold me having_\u201d; _Phil. 3:8, 10_\u2014\u201c_I count all\n things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ\n Jesus my Lord ... that I may know him_\u201d; _1 John 1:1_\u2014\u201c_that which\n we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which\n we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life._\u201d\n\n Nash, Ethics and Revelation, 254, 255\u2014\u201cRanke said that Alexander\n was one of the few men in whom biography is identical with\n universal history. The words apply far better to Christ.\u201d Crane,\n Religion of To-morrow, 267\u2014\u201cReligion being merely the personality\n of God, Christianity the personality of Christ.\u201d Pascal: \u201cJesus\n Christ is the centre of everything and the object of everything,\n and he who does not know him knows nothing of the order of nature\n and nothing of himself.\u201d Goethe in his last years wrote: \u201cHumanity\n cannot take a retrograde step, and we may say that the Christian\n religion, now that it has once appeared, can never again\n disappear; now that it has once found a divine embodiment, cannot\n again be dissolved.\u201d H. B. Smith, that man of clear and devout\n thought, put his whole doctrine into one sentence: \u201cLet us come to\n Jesus,\u2014the person of Christ is the centre of theology.\u201d Dean\n Stanley never tired of quoting as his own Confession of Faith the\n words of John Bunyan: \u201cBlest Cross\u2014blest Sepulchre\u2014blest rather\n he\u2014The man who there was put to shame for me!\u201d And Charles Wesley\n wrote on Catholic Love: \u201cWeary of all this wordy strife, These\n motions, forms, and modes and names, To thee, the Way, the Truth,\n the Life, Whose love my simple heart inflames\u2014Divinely taught, at\n last I fly, With thee and thine to live and die.\u201d\n\n \u201cWe have two great lakes, named Erie and Ontario, and these are\n connected by the Niagara River through which Erie pours its waters\n into Ontario. The whole Christian Church throughout the ages has\n been called the overflow of Jesus Christ, who is infinitely\n greater than it. Let Lake Erie be the symbol of Christ, the\n pre-existent Logos, the Eternal Word, God revealed in the\n universe. Let Niagara River be a picture to us of this same Christ\n now confined to the narrow channel of His manifestation in the\n flesh, but within those limits showing the same eastward current\n and downward gravitation which men perceived so imperfectly\n before. The tremendous cataract, with its waters plunging into the\n abyss and shaking the very earth, is the suffering and death of\n the Son of God, which for the first time makes palpable to human\n hearts the forces of righteousness and love operative in the\n Divine nature from the beginning. The law of universal life has\n been made manifest; now it is seen that justice and judgment are\n the foundations of God\u2019s throne; that God\u2019s righteousness\n everywhere and always makes penalty to follow sin; that the love\n which creates and upholds sinners must itself be numbered with the\n transgressors, and must bear their iniquities. Niagara has\n demonstrated the gravitation of Lake Erie. And not in vain. For\n from Niagara there widens out another peaceful lake. Ontario is\n the offspring and likeness of Erie. So redeemed humanity is the\n overflow of Jesus Christ, but only of Jesus Christ after He has\n passed through the measureless self-abandonment of His earthly\n life and of His tragic death on Calvary. As the waters of Lake\n Ontario are ever fed by Niagara, so the Church draws its life from\n the cross. And Christ\u2019s purpose is, not that we should repeat\n Calvary, for that we can never do, but that we should reflect in\n ourselves the same onward movement and gravitation towards\n self-sacrifice which He has revealed as characterizing the very\n life of God\u201d (A. H. Strong, Sermon before the Baptist World\n Congress, London, July 12, 1905).\n\n\n(_b_) The chief problems.\u2014These problems are the following: 1. one\npersonality and two natures; 2. human nature without personality; 3.\nrelation of the Logos to the humanity during the earthly life of Christ;\n4. relation of the humanity to the Logos during the heavenly life of\nChrist. We may throw light on 1, by the figure of two concentric circles;\non 2, by remembering that two earthly parents unite in producing a single\nchild; on 3, by the illustration of latent memory, which contains so much\nmore than present recollection; on 4, by the thought that body is the\nmanifestation of spirit, and that Christ in his heavenly state is not\nconfined to place.\n\n\n Luther said that we should need \u201cnew tongues\u201d before we could\n properly set forth this doctrine,\u2014particularly a new language with\n regard to the nature of man. The further elucidation of the\n problems mentioned above will immediately occupy our attention.\n Our investigation should not be prejudiced by the fact that the\n divine element in Jesus Christ manifests itself within human\n limitations. This is the condition of all revelation. _John\n 14:9_\u2014\u201c_he that hath seen me hath seen the father_\u201d; _Col.\n 2:9_\u2014\u201c_in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily_\u201d =\n up to the measure of human capacity to receive and to express the\n divine. _Heb. 2:11_ and _Acts 17:26_ both attribute to man a\n consubstantiality with Christ, and Christ is the manifested God.\n It is a law of hydrostatics that the smallest column of water will\n balance the largest. Lake Erie will be no higher than the water in\n the tube connected therewith. So the person of Christ reached the\n level of God, though limited in extent and environment. He was God\n manifest in the flesh.\n\n Robert Browning, Death in the Desert: \u201cI say, the acknowledgment\n of God in Christ Accepted by thy reason, solves for thee All\n questions in the earth and out of it, And has so far advanced thee\n to be wise\u201d; Epilogue to Dramatis Person\u00e6: \u201cThat one Face, far\n from vanish, rather grows, Or decomposes but to recompose, Become\n my Universe that feels and knows.\u201d \u201cThat face,\u201d said Browning to\n Mrs. Orr, as he finished reading the poem, \u201cis the face of Christ.\n That is how I feel him.\u201d This is his answer to those victims of\n nineteenth century scepticism for whom incarnate Love has\n disappeared from the universe, carrying with it the belief in God.\n He thus attests the continued presence of God in Christ, both in\n nature and humanity. On Browning as a Christian Poet, see A. H.\n Strong, The Great Poets and their Theology, 373-447; S. Law\n Wilson, Theology of Modern Literature, 181-226.\n\n\n(_c_) Reason for mystery.\u2014The union of the two natures in Christ\u2019s person\nis necessarily inscrutable, because there are no analogies to it in our\nexperience. Attempts to illustrate it on the one hand from the union and\nyet the distinctness of soul and body, of iron and heat, and on the other\nhand from the union and yet the distinctness of Christ and the believer,\nof the divine Son and the Father, are one-sided and become utterly\nmisleading, if they are regarded as furnishing a rationale of the union\nand not simply a means of repelling objection. The first two illustrations\nmentioned above lack the essential element of two natures to make them\ncomplete: soul and body are not two natures, but one, nor are iron and\nheat two substances. The last two illustrations mentioned above lack the\nelement of single personality: Christ and the believer are two persons,\nnot one, even as the Son and the Father are not one person, but two.\n\n\n The two illustrations most commonly employed are the union of soul\n and body, and the union of the believer with Christ. Each of these\n illustrates one side of the great doctrine, but each must be\n complemented by the other. The former, taken by itself, would be\n Eutychian; the latter, taken by itself, would be Nestorian. Like\n the doctrine of the Trinity, the Person of Christ is an absolutely\n unique fact, for which we can find no complete analogies. But\n neither do we know how soul and body are united. See Blunt, Dict.\n Doct. and Hist. Theol., art.: Hypostasis; Sartorius, Person and\n Work of Christ, 27-65; Wilberforce, Incarnation, 39-77; Luthardt,\n Fund. Truths, 281-334.\n\n A. A. Hodge, Popular Lectures, 218, 230\u2014\u201cMany people are\n Unitarians, not because of the difficulties of the Trinity, but\n because of the difficulties of the Person of Christ.... The union\n of the two natures is not mechanical, as between oxygen and\n nitrogen in our air; nor chemical, as between oxygen and hydrogen\n in water; nor organic, as between our hearts and our brains; but\n personal. The best illustration is the union of body and soul in\n our own persons,\u2014how perfectly joined they are in the great\n orator! Yet here are not two natures, but one human nature. We\n need therefore to add the illustration of the union between the\n believer and Christ.\u201d And here too we must confess the\n imperfection of the analogy, for Christ and the believer are two\n persons, and not one. The person of the God-man is unique and\n without adequate parallel. But this constitutes its dignity and\n glory.\n\n\n(_d_) Ground of possibility.\u2014The possibility of the union of deity and\nhumanity in one person is grounded in the original creation of man in the\ndivine image. Man\u2019s kinship to God, in other words, his possession of a\nrational and spiritual nature, is the condition of incarnation. Brute-life\nis incapable of union with God. But human nature is capable of the divine,\nin the sense not only that it lives, moves, and has its being in God, but\nthat God may unite himself indissolubly to it and endue it with divine\npowers, while yet it remains all the more truly human. Since the moral\nimage of God in human nature has been lost by sin, Christ, the perfect\nimage of God after which man was originally made, restores that lost image\nby uniting himself to humanity and filling it with his divine life and\nlove.\n\n\n _2 Pet. 1:4_\u2014\u201c_partakers of the divine nature._\u201d Creation and\n providence do not furnish the last limit of God\u2019s indwelling.\n Beyond these, there is the spiritual union between the believer\n and Christ, and even beyond this, there is the unity of God and\n man in the person of Jesus Christ. Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:283\n (Syst. Doct., 3:180)\u2014\u201cHumanity in Christ is related to divinity,\n as woman to man in marriage. It is receptive, but it is exalted by\n receiving. Christ is the offspring of the [marriage] covenant\n between God and Israel.\u201d _Ib._, 2:403-411 (Syst. Doct.,\n 3:301-308)\u2014\u201cThe question is: How can Christ be both Creator and\n creature? The Logos, as such, stands over against the creature as\n a distinct object. How can he become, and be, that which exists\n only as object of his activity and inworking? Can the cause become\n its own effect? The problem is solved, only by remembering that\n the divine and human, though distinct from each other, are not to\n be thought of as foreign to each other and mutually exclusive. The\n very thing that distinguishes them binds them together. Their\n essential distinction is that God has aseity, while man has simply\n dependence. \u2018_Deep calleth unto deep_\u2019 (_Ps. 42:7_)\u2014the deep of\n the divine riches, and the deep of human poverty, call to each\n other. \u2018From me a cry,\u2014from him reply.\u2019 God\u2019s infinite resources\n and man\u2019s infinite need, God\u2019s measureless supply and man\u2019s\n boundless receptivity, attract each other, until they unite in him\n in whom dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. The mutual\n attraction is of an ethical sort, but the divine love has \u2018_first\n loved_\u2019 (_1 John 4:19_).\n\n \u201cThe new second creation is therefore not merely, like the first\n creation, one that distinguishes from God,\u2014it is one that unites\n with God. Nature is distinct from God, yet God moves and works in\n nature. Much more does human nature find its only true reality, or\n realization, in union with God. God\u2019s uniting act does not violate\n or unmake it, but rather first causes it to be what, in God\u2019s\n idea, it was meant to be.\u201d Incarnation is therefore the very\n fulfilment of the idea of humanity. The supernatural assumption of\n humanity is the most natural of all things. Man is not a mere\n tangent to God, but an empty vessel to be filled from the infinite\n fountain. Natura humana in Christo capax divin\u00e6. See Talbot, in\n Bap. Quar., 1868:129; Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, 270.\n\n God could not have become an angel, or a tree, or a stone. But he\n could become man, because man was made in his image. God in man,\n as Phillips Brooks held, is the absolutely natural. Channing said\n that \u201call minds are of one family.\u201d E. B. Andrews: \u201cDivinity and\n humanity are not contradictory predicates. If this had been\n properly understood, there would have been no Unitarian movement.\n Man is in a true sense divine. This is also true of Christ. But he\n is infinitely further along in the divine nature than we are. If\n we say his divinity is a new kind, then the new kind arises out of\n the degree.\u201d \u201cWere not the eye itself a sun, No light for it could\n ever shine: By nothing godlike could the soul be won, Were not the\n soul itself divine.\u201d\n\n John Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 1:165\u2014\u201cA smaller circle\n may represent a larger in respect of its circularity; but a\n circle, small or large, cannot be the image of a square.\u201d ...\n 2:101\u2014\u201cGod would not be God without union with man, and man would\n not be man without union with God. Immanent in the spirits he has\n made, he shares their pains and sorrows.... Showing the infinite\n element in man, Christ attracts us toward his own moral\n excellence.\u201d Lyman Abbott, Theology of an Evolutionist,\n 190\u2014\u201cIncarnation is the indwelling of God in his children, of\n which the type and pattern is seen in him who is at once the\n manifestation of God to man, and the revelation to men of what\n humanity is to be when God\u2019s work in the world is done\u2014perfect God\n and perfect man, because God perfectly dwelling in a perfect man.\u201d\n\n We have quoted these latter utterances, not because we regard them\n as admitting the full truth with regard to the union of the divine\n and human in Christ; but because they recognize the essential\n likeness of the human to the divine, and so help our understanding\n of the union between the two. We go further than the writers\n quoted, in maintaining not merely an indwelling of God in Christ,\n but an organic and essential union. Christ moreover is not the\n God-man by virtue of his possessing a larger measure of the divine\n than we, but rather by being the original source of all life, both\n human and divine. We hold to his deity as well as to his divinity,\n as some of these authors apparently do not. See _Heb. 7:15,\n 16_\u2014\u201c_another priest, who hath been made ... after the power of an\n endless life_\u201d; _John 1:4_\u2014\u201c_In him was life; and the life was the\n light of men._\u201d\n\n\n(_e_) No double personality.\u2014This possession of two natures does not\ninvolve a double personality in the God-man, for the reason that the Logos\ntakes into union with himself, not an individual man with already\ndeveloped personality, but human nature which has had no separate\nexistence before its union with the divine. Christ\u2019s human nature is\nimpersonal, in the sense that it attains self-consciousness, and\nself-determination only in the personality of the God-man. Here it is\nimportant to mark the distinction between nature and person. Nature is\nsubstance possessed in common; the persons of the Trinity have one nature;\nthere is a common nature of mankind. Person is nature separately\nsubsisting, with powers of consciousness and will. Since the human nature\nof Christ has not and never had a separate subsistence, it is impersonal,\nand in the God-man the Logos furnishes the principle of personality. It is\nequally important to observe that self-consciousness and\nself-determination do not belong to nature as such, but only to\npersonality. For this reason, Christ has not two consciousnesses and two\nwills, but a single consciousness and a single will. This consciousness\nand will, moreover, is never simply human, but is always theanthropic\u2014an\nactivity of the one personality which unites in itself the human and the\ndivine (Mark 13:32; Luke 22:42).\n\n\n The human father and the human mother are distinct persons, and\n they each give something of their own peculiar nature to their\n child; yet the result is, not two persons in the child, but only\n one person, with one consciousness and one will. So the Fatherhood\n of God and the motherhood of Mary produced not a double\n personality in Christ, but a single personality. Dorner\n illustrates the union of human and divine in Jesus by the _Holy\n Spirit_ in the Christian,\u2014nothing foreign, nothing distinguishable\n from the human life into which it enters; and by the _moral\n sense_, which is the very presence and power of God in the human\n soul,\u2014yet conscience does not break up the unity of the life; see\n C. C. Everett, Essays, 32. These illustrations help us to\n understand the interpenetration of the human by the divine in\n Jesus; but they are defective in suggesting that his relation to\n God was different from ours not in kind but only in degree. Only\n Jesus could say: \u201c_Before Abraham was born, I am_\u201d (_John 8:58_);\n \u201c_I and the Father are one_\u201d (_John 10:30_).\n\n The theory of two consciousnesses and two wills, first elaborated\n by John of Damascus, was an unwarranted addition to the orthodox\n doctrine propounded at Chalcedon. Although the view of John of\n Damascus was sanctioned by the Council of Constantinople (681),\n \u201cthis Council has never been regarded by the Greek Church as\n \u0153cumenical, and its composition and spirit deprive its decisions\n of all value as indicating the true sense of Scripture\u201d; see\n Bruce, Humiliation of Christ, 90. _Nature_ has consciousness and\n will, only as it is manifested in _person_. The one person has a\n single consciousness and will, which embraces within its scope at\n all times a human nature, and sometimes a divine. Notice that we\n do not say Christ\u2019s human nature had no will, but only that it had\n none before its union with the divine nature, and none separately\n from the one will which was made up of the human and the divine\n united; _versus_ Current Discussions in Theology, 5:283.\n\n Sartorius uses the illustration of two concentric circles: the one\n ego of personality in Christ is at the same time the centre of\n both circles, the human nature and the divine. Or, still better,\n illustrate by a smaller vessel of air inverted and sunk, sometimes\n below its centre, sometimes above, in a far larger vessel of\n water. See _Mark 13:32_\u2014\u201c_of that day or that hour knoweth no one,\n not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son_\u201d; _Luke\n 22:42_\u2014\u201c_Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me:\n nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done._\u201d To say that,\n although in his capacity as man he was ignorant, yet at that same\n moment in his capacity as God he was omniscient, is to accuse\n Christ of unveracity. Whenever Christ spoke, it was not one of the\n natures that spoke, but the person in whom both natures were\n united.\n\n We subjoin various definitions of personality: Bo\u00ebthius, quoted in\n Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:415 (Syst. Doct., 3:313)\u2014\u201cPersona est\n anim\u00e6 rationalis individua substantia\u201d; F. W. Robertson, Lect. on\n Gen., p. 3\u2014\u201cPersonality = self-consciousness, will, character\u201d;\n Porter, Human Intellect, 626\u2014\u201cPersonality = distinct subsistence,\n either actually or latently self-conscious and self-determining\u201d;\n Harris, Philos. Basis of Theism, 408\u2014\u201cPerson = being, conscious of\n self, subsisting in individuality and identity, and endowed with\n intuitive reason, rational sensibility, and free-will.\u201d Dr. E. G.\n Robinson defines \u201cnature\u201d as \u201cthat substratum or condition of\n being which determines the kind and attributes of the person, but\n which is clearly distinguishable from the person itself.\u201d\n\n Lotze, Metaphysics, \u00a7 244\u2014\u201cThe identity of the subject of inward\n experience is all that we require. So far as, and so long as, the\n soul knows itself as this identical subject, it is and is named,\n simply for that reason, substance.\u201d Illingworth, Personality,\n Human and Divine, 32\u2014\u201cOur conception of substance is not derived\n from the physical, but from the mental, world. Substance is first\n of all that which underlies our mental affections and\n manifestations. Kant declared that the idea of freedom is the\n source of our idea of personality. Personality consists in the\n freedom of the whole soul from the mechanism of nature.\u201d On\n personality, see Windelband, Hist. Philos., 238. For the theory of\n two consciousnesses and two wills, see Philippi, Glaubenslehre,\n 4:129, 234; Kahnis, Dogmatik, 2:314; Ridgeley, Body of Divinity,\n 1:476; Hodge, Syst Theol., 2:378-391; Shedd, Dogm. Theol.,\n 2:289-308, esp. 328. _Per contra_, see Hovey, God with Us, 66;\n Schaff, Church Hist., 1:757, and 3:751; Calderwood, Moral\n Philosophy, 12-14; Wilberforce, Incarnation, 148-169; Van\n Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 512-518.\n\n\n(_f_) Effect upon the human.\u2014The union of the divine and the human natures\nmakes the latter possessed of the powers belonging to the former; in other\nwords, the attributes of the divine nature are imparted to the human\nwithout passing over into its essence,\u2014so that the human Christ even on\nearth had power to be, to know, and to do, as God. That this power was\nlatent, or was only rarely manifested, was the result of the self-chosen\nstate of humiliation upon which the God-man had entered. In this state of\nhumiliation, the communication of the contents of his divine nature to the\nhuman was mediated by the Holy Spirit. The God-man, in his servant-form,\nknew and taught and performed only what the Spirit permitted and directed\n(Mat. 3:16; John 3:34; Acts 1:2; 10:38; Heb. 9:14). But when thus\npermitted, he knew, taught, and performed, not, like the prophets, by\npower communicated from without, but by virtue of his own inner divine\nenergy (Mat. 17:2; Mark 5:41; Luke 5:20, 21; 6:19; John 2:11, 24, 25;\n3:13; 20:19).\n\n\n Kahnis, Dogmatik, 2d ed., 2:77\u2014\u201cHuman nature does not become\n divine, but (as Chemnitz has said) only the medium of the divine;\n as the moon has not a light of her own, but only shines in the\n light of the sun. So human nature may derivatively exercise divine\n attributes, because it is united to the divine in one person.\u201d\n Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 151\u2014\u201cOur souls spiritualize our\n bodies, and will one day give us the spiritual body, while yet the\n body does not become spirit. So the Godhead gives divine powers to\n the humanity in Christ, while yet the humanity does not cease to\n be humanity.\u201d\n\n Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 4:131\u2014\u201cThe union exalts the human, as\n light brightens the air, heat gives glow to the iron, spirit\n exalts the body, the Holy Spirit hallows the believer by union\n with his soul. Fire gives to iron its own properties of lighting\n and burning; yet the iron does not become fire. Soul gives to body\n its life-energy; yet the body does not become soul. The Holy\n Spirit sanctifies the believer, but the believer does not become\n divine; for the divine principle is the determining one. We do not\n speak of airy light, of iron heat, or of a bodily soul. So human\n nature possesses the divine only derivatively. In this sense it is\n _our_ destiny to become \u2018_partakers of the divine nature_\u2019 (_2\n Pet. 1:4_). Even in his earthly life, when he wished to be, or\n more correctly, when the Spirit permitted, he was omnipotent,\n omniscient, omnipresent, could walk the sea, or pass through\n closed doors. But, in his state of humiliation, he was subject to\n the Holy Spirit.\u201d\n\n In _Mat. 3:16_, the anointing of the Spirit at his baptism was not\n the descent of a material dove (\u201c_as a dove_\u201d). The dove-like\n appearance was only the outward sign of the coming forth of the\n Holy Spirit from the depths of his being and pouring itself like a\n flood into his divine-human consciousness. _John 3:34_\u2014\u201c_for he\n giveth not the Spirit by measure_\u201d; _Acts 1:2_\u2014\u201c_after that he had\n given commandment through the Holy Spirit unto the apostles_\u201d;\n _10:38_\u2014\u201c_Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him with the Holy\n Spirit and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all\n that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him_\u201d; _Heb,\n 9:14_\u2014\u201c_the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit\n offered himself without blemish onto God._\u201d\n\n When permitted by the Holy Spirit, he knew, taught, and wrought as\n God: _Mat. 17:2_\u2014\u201c_he was transfigured before them_\u201d; _Mark\n 5:41_\u2014\u201c_Damsel, I say unto thee, Arise_\u201d; _Luke 5:20, 21_\u2014\u201c_Man,\n thy sins are forgiven thee.... Who can forgive sins, but God\n alone?_\u201d\u2014_Luke 6:19_\u2014\u201c_power came forth from him, and healed them\n all_\u201d; _John 2:11_\u2014\u201c_This beginning of his signs did Jesus in Cana\n of Galilee, and manifested his glory_\u201d; _24, 25_\u2014\u201c_he knew all\n men.... he himself knew what was in man_\u201d; _3:13_\u2014\u201c_the Son of\n man, who is __ in heaven_\u201d [here, however, Westcott and Hort, with\n \u05d0 and B, omit \u1f41 \u1f62\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f40\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7,\u2014for advocacy of the common\n reading, see Broadus, in Hovey\u2019s Com., on _John 3:13_];\n _20:19_\u2014\u201c_when the doors were shut ... Jesus came and stood in the\n midst._\u201d\n\n Christ is the \u201c_servant of Jehovah_\u201d (_Is. 42:1-7; 49:1-12; 52:13;\n 53:11_) and the meaning of \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 (_Acts 3:13, 28; 4:27, 30_) is not\n \u201cchild\u201d or \u201cSon\u201d; it is \u201c_servant_,\u201d as in the Revised Version.\n But, in the state of exaltation, Christ is the \u201c_Lord of the\n Spirit_\u201d (_2 Cor. 3:18_\u2014Meyer), giving the Spirit (_John 16:7_\u2014\u201c_I\n will send him unto you_\u201d), present in the Spirit (_John 14:18_\u2014\u201c_I\n come unto you_\u201d; _Mat. 28:20_\u2014\u201c_I am with you always, even unto\n the the end of the world_\u201d), and working through the Spirit (_1\n Cor. 15:45_\u2014\u201c_The last Adam became a life-giving spirit_\u201d); _2\n Cor. 3:17_\u2014\u201c_Now the Lord is the Spirit_\u201d. On Christ\u2019s relation to\n the Holy Spirit, see John Owen, Works, 282-297; Robins, in Bib.\n Sac., Oct. 1874:615; Wilberforce, Incarnation, 208-241.\n\n Delitzsch: \u201cThe conception of the servant of Jehovah is, as it\n were, a pyramid, of which the base is the people of Israel as a\n whole; the central part, Israel according to the Spirit; and the\n summit, the Mediator of Salvation who rises out of Israel.\u201d Cheyne\n on Isaiah, 2:253, agrees with this view of Delitzsch, which is\n also the view of Oehler. The O. T. is the life of a nation; the N.\n T. is the life of a man. The chief end of the nation was to\n produce the man; the chief end of the man was to save the world.\n Sabatier, Philos. Religion, 59\u2014\u201cIf humanity were not potentially\n and in some degree an Immanuel, God with us, there would never\n have issued from its bosom he who bore and revealed this blessed\n name.\u201d We would enlarge and amend this illustration of the\n pyramid, by making the base to be the Logos, as Creator and\n Upholder of all (_Eph. 1:23_; _Col. 1:16_); the stratum which\n rests next upon the Logos is universal humanity (_Ps, 8:5, 6_);\n then comes Israel as a whole (_Mat. 2:15_); spiritual Israel rests\n upon Israel after the flesh (_Is. 42:1-7_); as the acme and cap\n stone of all, Christ appears, to crown the pyramid, the true\n servant of Jehovah and Son of man (_Is. 53:11_; _Mat. 20:28_). We\n may go even further and represent Christ as forming the basis of\n another inverted pyramid of redeemed humanity ever growing and\n rising to heaven (_Is. 9:6_\u2014\u201c_Everlasting Father_\u201d; _Is.\n 53:10_\u2014\u201c_he shall see his seed_\u201d; _Rev. 22:16_\u2014\u201c_root and\n offspring of David_\u201d; _Heb. 2:13_\u2014\u201c_I and the children whom God\n hath given me._\u201d)\n\n\n(_g_) Effect upon the divine.\u2014This communion of the natures was such that,\nalthough the divine nature in itself is incapable of ignorance, weakness,\ntemptation, suffering, or death, the one person Jesus Christ was capable\nof these by virtue of the union of the divine nature with a human nature\nin him. As the human Savior can exercise divine attributes, not in virtue\nof his humanity alone, but derivatively, by virtue of his possession of a\ndivine nature, so the divine Savior can suffer and be ignorant as man, not\nin his divine nature, but derivatively, by virtue of his possession of a\nhuman nature. We may illustrate this from the connection between body and\nsoul. The soul suffers pain from its union with the body, of which apart\nfrom the body it would be incapable. So the God-man, although in his\ndivine nature impassible, was capable, through his union with humanity, of\nabsolutely infinite suffering.\n\n\n Just as my soul could never suffer the pains of fire if it were\n only soul, but can suffer those pains in union with the body, so\n the otherwise impassible God can suffer mortal pangs through his\n union with humanity, which he never could suffer if he had not\n joined himself to my nature. The union between the humanity and\n the deity is so close, that deity itself is brought under the\n curse and penalty of the law. Because Christ was God, did he pass\n unscorched through the fires of Gethsemane and Calvary? Rather let\n us say, because Christ was God, he underwent a suffering that was\n absolutely infinite. Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 4:300 _sq._;\n Lawrence, in Bib. Sac., 24:41; Sch\u00f6berlein, in Jahrbuch f\u00fcr\n deutsche Theologie, 1871:459-501.\n\n A. J. F. Behrends, in The Examiner, April 21, 1898\u2014\u201cJesus Christ\n is God in the form of man; as completely God as if he were not\n man; as completely man as if he were not God. He is always divine\n and always human.... The infirmities and pains of his body pierced\n his divine nature.... The demand of the law was not laid upon\n Christ from without, but proceeded from within. It is the\n righteousness _in_ him which makes his death necessary.\u201d\n\n\n(_h_) Necessity of the union.\u2014The union of two natures in one person is\nnecessary to constitute Jesus Christ a proper mediator between man and\nGod. His two-fold nature gives him fellowship with both parties, since it\ninvolves an equal dignity with God, and at the same time a perfect\nsympathy with man (Heb. 2:17, 18; 4:15, 16). This two-fold nature,\nmoreover, enables him to present to both God and man proper terms of\nreconciliation: being man, he can make atonement for man; being God, his\natonement has infinite value; while both his divinity and his humanity\ncombine to move the hearts of offenders and constrain them to submission\nand love (1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 7:25).\n\n\n _Heb. 2:17,18_\u2014\u201c_Wherefore it behooved him in all things to be\n made like unto his brethren, that he might become a merciful and\n faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make\n propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself\n hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are\n tempted_\u201d; _4:15,16_\u2014\u201c_For we have not a high priest that cannot\n be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath\n been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us\n therefore draw near with boldness unto the throne of grace, that\n we may receive mercy, and may find grace to help us in time of\n need_\u201d; _1 Tim. 2:5_\u2014\u201c_one God, one mediator also between God and\n men, himself man, Christ Jesus_\u201d; _Heb. 7:25_\u2014\u201c_Wherefore also he\n is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God\n through him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for\n them._\u201d\n\n Because Christ is man, he can make atonement for man and can\n sympathize with man. Because Christ is God, his atonement has\n infinite value, and the union which he effects with God is\n complete. A merely human Savior could never reconcile or reunite\n us to God. But a divine-human Savior meets all our needs. See\n Wilberforce, Incarnation, 170-208. As the high priest of old bore\n on his mitre the name Jehovah, and on his breastplate the names of\n the tribes of Israel, so Christ Jesus is God with us, and at the\n same time our propitiatory representative before God. In Virgil\u2019s\n \u00c6neid, Dido says well: \u201cHaud ignara mal\u00ed, miseris succurrere\n disco\u201d\u2014\u201cMyself not ignorant of woe, Compassion I have learned to\n show.\u201d And Terence uttered almost a Christian word when he wrote:\n \u201cHomo sum, et humani nihil a me alienum puto\u201d\u2014\u201cI am a man, and I\n count nothing human as foreign to me.\u201d Christ\u2019s experience and\n divinity made these words far more true of him than of any merely\n human being.\n\n\n(_i_) The union eternal.\u2014The union of humanity with deity in the person of\nChrist is indissoluble and eternal. Unlike the avatars of the East, the\nincarnation was a permanent assumption of human nature by the second\nperson of the Trinity. In the ascension of Christ, glorified humanity has\nattained the throne of the universe. By his Spirit, this same divine-human\nSavior is omnipresent to secure the progress of his kingdom. The final\nsubjection of the Son to the Father, alluded to in 1 Cor. 15:28, cannot be\nother than the complete return of the Son to his original relation to the\nFather; since, according to John 17:5, Christ is again to possess the\nglory which he had with the Father before the world was (_cf._ Heb. 1:8;\n7:24, 25).\n\n\n _1 Cor. 15:28_\u2014\u201c_and when all things have been subjected unto him,\n then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did\n subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all_\u201d; _John\n 17:5_\u2014\u201c_Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory\n which I had with thee before the world was_\u201d; _Heb. 1:8_\u2014\u201c_of the\n Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever_\u201d;\n _7:24_\u2014\u201c_he, because he abideth forever, hath his priesthood\n unchangeable._\u201d Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:281-283 (Syst. Doct.\n 3:177-179), holds that there is a present and relative distinction\n between the Son\u2019s will, as Mediator, and that of the Father (_Mat.\n 26:39_\u2014\u201c_not as I will, but as thou wilt_\u201d)\u2014a distinction which\n shall cease when Christ becomes Judge (_John 16:26_\u2014\u201c_In that day\n ye shall ask in my name: and I say not onto you, that I will pray\n the Father for you_\u201d) If Christ\u2019s _reign_ ceased, he would be\n inferior to the saints, who are themselves to reign. But they are\n to reign only in and with Christ, their head.\n\n The best illustration of the possible meaning of Christ\u2019s giving\n up the kingdom is found in the Governor of the East India Company\n giving up his authority to the Queen and merging it in that of the\n home government, he himself, however, at the same time becoming\n Secretary of State for India. So Christ will give up his\n vicegerency, but not his mediatorship. Now he reigns by delegated\n authority; then he will reign in union with the Father. So\n Kendrick, in Bib. Sac., Jan. 1890:68-83. Wrightnour: \u201cWhen the\n great remedy has wrought its perfect cure, the physician will no\n longer be looked upon as the physician. When the work of\n redemption is completed, the mediatorial office of the Son will\n cease.\u201d We may add that other offices of friendship and\n instruction will then begin.\n\n Melanchthon: \u201cChrist will finish his work as Mediator, and then\n will reign as God, immediately revealing to us the Deity.\u201d\n Quenstedt, quoted in Schmid, Dogmatik, 293, thinks the giving up\n of the kingdom will be only an exchange of outward administration\n for inward,\u2014not a surrender of all power and authority, but only\n of one mode of exercising it. Hanna, on Resurrection, lect. 4\u2014\u201cIt\n is not a giving up of his mediatorial authority,\u2014that throne is to\n endure forever,\u2014but it is a simple public recognition of the fact\n that God is all in all, that Christ is God\u2019s medium of\n accomplishing all.\u201d An. Par. Bible, on _1 Cor. 15:28_\u2014\u201cNot his\n mediatorial relation to his own people shall be given up; much\n less his personal relation to the Godhead, as the divine Word; but\n only his mediatorial relation to the world at large.\u201d See also\n Edwards, Observations on the Trinity, 85 _sq._ Expositor\u2019s Greek\n Testament, on _1 Cor. 15:28_, \u201caffirms no other subjection than is\n involved in Sonship.... This implies no inferiority of nature, no\n extrusion from power, but the free submission of love ... which is\n the essence of the filial spirit which actuated Christ from first\n to last.... Whatsoever glory he gains is devoted to the glory and\n power of the Father, who glorifies him in turn.\u201d\n\n Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:402 (Syst. Doct., 3:297-299)\u2014\u201cWe are not\n to imagine incarnations of Christ in the angel-world, or in other\n spheres. This would make incarnation only the change of a garment,\n a passing theophany; and Christ\u2019s relation to humanity would be a\n merely external one.\u201d Bishop of Salisbury, quoted in Swayne, Our\n Lord\u2019s Knowledge as Man, XX\u2014\u201cAre we permitted to believe that\n there is something parallel to the progress of our Lord\u2019s humanity\n in the state of humiliation, still going on even now, in the state\n of exaltation? that it is, in fact, becoming more and more\n adequate to the divine nature? See _Col. 1:24_\u2014\u2018_fill up that\n which is lacking_\u2019; _Heb. 10:12, 13_\u2014\u2018_expecting till his\n enemies_\u2019; _1 Cor. 15:28_\u2014\u2018_when all things have been subjected\n unto him._\u2019 \u201d In our judgment such a conclusion is unwarranted, in\n view of the fact that the God-man in his exaltation has the glory\n of his pre\u00ebxistent state (_John 17:5_); that all the heavenly\n powers are already subject to him (_Eph. 1:21, 22_); and that he\n is now omnipresent (_Mat. 28:20_).\n\n\n(_j_) Infinite and finite in Christ.\u2014Our investigation of the Scripture\nteaching with regard to the Person of Christ leads us to three important\nconclusions: 1. that deity and humanity, the infinite and the finite, in\nhim are not mutually exclusive; 2. that the humanity in Christ differs\nfrom his deity not merely in degree but also in kind; and 3. that this\ndifference in kind is the difference between the infinite original and the\nfinite derivative, so that Christ is the source of life, both physical and\nspiritual, for all men.\n\n\n Our doctrine excludes the view that Christ is only quantitatively\n different from other men in whom God\u2019s Spirit dwells. He is\n qualitatively different, in that he is the source of life, and\n they the recipients. Not only is it true that the fulness of the\n Godhead is in him alone,\u2014it is also true that he is himself God,\n self-revealing and self-communicating, as men are not. Yet we\n cannot hold with E. H. Johnson, Outline of Syst. Theol., 176-178,\n that Christ\u2019s humanity was of one species with his deity, but not\n of one substance. We know of but one underlying substance and\n ground of being. This one substance is self-limiting, and so\n self-manifesting, in Jesus Christ. The determining element is not\n the human but the divine. The infinite Source has a finite\n manifestation; but in the finite we see the Infinite; _2 Cor.\n 5:19_\u2014\u201c_God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself_\u201d;\n _John 14:9_\u2014\u201c_he that hath seen me hath seen the Father._\u201d We can\n therefore agree with the following writers who regard all men as\n partakers of the life of God, while yet we deny that Christ is\n only a man, distinguished from his fellows by having a larger\n share in that life than they have.\n\n J. M. Whiton: \u201cHow is the divine spirit which is manifest in the\n life of the man Christ Jesus to be distinguished, _qua_ divine,\n from the same divine spirit as manifested in the life of humanity?\n I answer, that in him, the person Christ, dwelleth the _fulness_\n of the Godhead bodily. I emphasize _fulness_, and say: The\n God-head is alike in the race and in its spiritual head, but the\n _fulness_ is in the head alone\u2014a fulness of course not absolute,\n since circumscribed by a human organism, but a fulness to the\n limits of the organism. Essential deity cannot be ascribed to the\n human Christ, except as in common with the race created in the\n image of God. Life is one, and all life is divine.\u201d... Gloria\n Patri, 88, 23\u2014\u201cEvery incarnation of life is _pro tanto_ and in its\n measure an incarnation of God ... and God\u2019s way is a perpetually\n increasing incarnation of life whose climax and crown is the\n divine fulness of life in Christ.... The _Homoousios_ of the\n Nicene Creed was a great victory of the truth. But the Nicene\n Fathers builded better than they knew. The Unitarian Dr. Hedge\n praised them because they got at the truth, the logical conclusion\n of which was to come so long after, that God and man are of one\n substance.\u201d So Momerie, Inspiration, holds man\u2019s nature to be the\n same in kind with God\u2019s. See criticism of this view in Watts, New\n Apologetic, 133, 134. _Homoiousios_ he regards as involving\n _homoousios_; the divine nature capable of fission or\n segmentation, broken off in portions, and distributed among finite\n moral agents; the divine nature undergoing perpetual curtailment;\n every man therefore to some extent inspired, and evil as truly an\n inspiration of God as is good. Watts seems to us to lack the\n proper conception of the infinite as the ground of the finite, and\n so not excluding it.\n\n Lyman Abbott affirms that Christ is, \u201cnot God _and_ man, but God\n _in_ man.\u201d Christ differs from other men only as the flower\n differs from the bulb. As the true man, he is genuinely divine.\n Deity and humanity are not two distinct natures, but one nature.\n The ethico-spiritual nature which is finite in man is identical\n with the nature which is infinite in God. Christ\u2019s distinction\n from other men is therefore in the degree in which he shared this\n nature and possessed a unique fulness of life\u2014\u201c_anointed with the\n Holy Spirit and with power_\u201d (_Acts 10:38_). Phillips Brooks: \u201cTo\n this humanity of man as a part of God\u2014to this I cling; for I do\n love it, and I will know nothing else.... Man is, in virtue of his\n essential humanity, partaker of the life of the essential Word....\n Into every soul, just so far as it is possible for that soul to\n receive it, God beats his life and gives his help.\u201d Phillips\n Brooks believes in the redemptive indwelling of God in man, so\n that salvation is of man, for man, and by man. He does not scruple\n to say to every man: \u201cYou are a part of God.\u201d\n\n While we shrink from the expressions which seem to imply a\n partition of the divine nature, we are compelled to recognize a\n truth which these writers are laboring to express, the truth\n namely of the essential oneness of all life, and of God in Christ\n as the source and giver of it. \u201cJesus quotes approvingly the words\n of _Psalm 82:6_\u2014\u2018_I said, Ye are Gods._\u2019 Microscopic, indeed, but\n divine are we\u2014sparks from the flame of deity. God is the Creator,\n but it is through Christ as the mediating and as the final Cause.\n \u2018_And we through him_\u2019 (_1 Cor. 8:6_)\u2014we exist for him, for the\n realization of a divine humanity in solidarity with him. Christ is\n at once the end and the instrumental cause of the whole process.\u201d\n Samuel Harris, God the Creator and Lord of All, speaks of \u201cthe\n essentially human in God, and the essentially divine in man.\u201d The\n Son, or Word of God, \u201cwhen manifested in the forms of a finite\n personality, is the essential Christ, revealing that in God which\n is essentially and eternally human.\u201d\n\n Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 1:196\u2014\u201cThe whole of humanity is the\n object of the divine love; it is an Immanuel and son of God; its\n whole history is a continual incarnation of God; as indeed it is\n said in Scripture that we are a divine offspring, and that we live\n and move and have our being in God. But what lies potentially in\n the human consciousness of God is not on that account also\n manifestly revealed to it from the beginning.\u201d Hatch, Hibbert\n Lectures, 175-180, on Stoic monism and Platonic dualism, tells us\n that the Stoics believed in a personal \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 and an impersonal\n \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7, both of them modes of a single substance. Some regarded God\n as a mode of matter, _natura naturata_: \u201cJupiter est quodcunque\n vides, quodcunque moveris\u201d (Lucan, Phars., 9:579); others\n conceived of him as the _natura naturans_,\u2014this became the\n governing conception.... The products are all divine, but not\n equally divine.... Nearest of all to the pure essence of God is\n the human soul: it is an emanation or outflow from him, a sapling\n which is separate from and yet continues the life of the parent\n tree, a colony in which some members of the parent state have\n settled. Plato followed Anaxagoras in holding that mind is\n separate from matter and acts upon it. God is outside the world.\n He shapes it as a carpenter shapes wood. On the general subject of\n the union of deity and humanity in the person of Christ, see\n Herzog, Encyclop\u00e4die, art.: Christologie; Barrows, in Bib. Sac.,\n 10:765; 26:83; also, Bib. Sac., 17:535; John Owen, Person of\n Christ, in Works, 1:223; Hooker, Eccl. Polity, book v. chap.\n 51-56: Boyce, in Bap. Quar., 1870:385; Shedd, Hist. Doct., 1:403\n sq.; Hovey, God with Us, 61-88; Plumptre, Christ and Christendom,\n appendix; E. H. Johnson, The Idea of Law in Christology, in Bib.\n Sac., Oct. 1889:599-625.\n\n\n\nSection III.\u2014The Two States Of Christ.\n\n\nI. The State of Humiliation.\n\n\n1. The nature of this humiliation.\n\n\nWe may dismiss, as unworthy of serious notice, the views that it consisted\nessentially either in the union of the Logos with human nature,\u2014for this\nunion with human nature continues in the state of exaltation; or in the\noutward trials and privations of Christ\u2019s human life,\u2014for this view casts\nreproach upon poverty, and ignores the power of the soul to rise superior\nto its outward circumstances.\n\n\n E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 224\u2014\u201cThe error of supposing it\n too humiliating to obey law was derived from the Roman treasury of\n merit and works of supererogation. Better was Frederick the\n Great\u2019s sentiment when his sturdy subject and neighbor, the\n miller, whose windmill he had attempted to remove, having beaten\n him in a lawsuit, the thwarted monarch exclaimed: \u2018Thank God,\n there is law in Prussia!\u2019 \u201d Palmer, Theological Definition,\n 79\u2014\u201cGod reveals himself in the rock, vegetable, animal, man. Must\n not the process go on? Must there not appear in the fulness of\n time a man who will reveal God as perfectly as is possible in\n human conditions\u2014a man who is God under the limitations of\n humanity? Such incarnation is humiliation only in the eyes of men.\n To Christ it is lifting up, exaltation, glory; _John 12:32_\u2014\u2018_And\n I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto\n myself._\u2019 \u201d George Harris, Moral Evolution, 409\u2014\u201cThe divinity of\n Christ is not obscured, but is more clearly seen, shining through\n his humanity.\u201d\n\n\nWe may devote more attention to the\n\nA. Theory of Thomasius, Delitzsch, and Crosby, that the humiliation\nconsisted in the surrender of the relative divine attributes.\n\nThis theory holds that the Logos, although retaining his divine\nself-consciousness and his immanent attributes of holiness, love, and\ntruth, surrendered his relative attributes of omniscience, omnipotence,\nand omnipresence, in order to take to himself veritable human nature.\nAccording to this view, there are, indeed, two natures in Christ, but\nneither of these natures is infinite. Thomasius and Delitzsch are the\nchief advocates of this theory in Germany. Dr. Howard Crosby has\nmaintained a similar view in America.\n\n\n The theory of Thomasius, Delitzsch, and Crosby has been, though\n improperly, called the theory of the Kenosis (from\n \u1f10\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\u2014\u201c_emptied himself_\u201d\u2014in _Phil. 2:7_), and its advocates\n are often called Kenotic theologians. There is a Kenosis of the\n Logos, but it is of a different sort from that which this theory\n supposes. For statements of this theory, see Thomasius, Christi\n Person und Werk, 2:233-255, 542-550; Delitzsch, Biblische\n Psychologie, 323-333; Howard Crosby, in Bap. Quar., 1870:350-363\u2014a\n discourse subsequently published in a separate volume, with the\n title: The True Humanity of Christ, and reviewed by Shedd, in\n Presb. Rev., April, 1881:429-431. Crosby emphasizes the word\n \u201c_became_,\u201d in _John 1:14_\u2014\u201c_and the Word became flesh_\u201d\u2014and gives\n the Word \u201c_flesh_\u201d the sense of \u201cman,\u201d or \u201chuman.\u201d Crosby, then,\n should logically deny, though he does not deny, that Christ\u2019s body\n was derived from the Virgin.\n\n\nWe object to this view that:\n\n(_a_) It contradicts the Scriptures already referred to, in which Christ\nasserts his divine knowledge and power. Divinity, it is said, can give up\nits world-functions, for it existed without these before creation. But to\ngive up divine attributes is to give up the substance of Godhead. Nor is\nit a sufficient reply to say that only the relative attributes are given\nup, while the immanent attributes, which chiefly characterize the Godhead,\nare retained; for the immanent necessarily involve the relative, as the\ngreater involve the less.\n\n\n Liebner, Jahrbuch f. d. Theol., 3:349-356\u2014\u201cIs the Logos here? But\n wherein does he show his presence, that it may be known?\u201d Hase,\n Hutterus Redivivus, 11th ed., 217, note. John Caird, Fund. Ideas\n of Christianity, 2:125-146, criticises the theory of the Kenosis,\n but grants that, with all its self-contradictions, as he regards\n them, it is an attempt to render conceivable the profound truth of\n a sympathizing, self-sacrificing God.\n\n\n(_b_) Since the Logos, in uniting himself to a human soul, reduces himself\nto the condition and limitations of a human soul, the theory is virtually\na theory of the co\u00ebxistence of two human souls in Christ. But the union of\ntwo finite souls is more difficult to explain than the union of a finite\nand an infinite,\u2014since there can be in the former case no intelligent\nguidance and control of the human element by the divine.\n\n\n Dorner, Jahrbuch f. d. Theol., 1:397-408\u2014\u201cThe impossibility of\n making two finite souls into one finally drove Arianism to the\n denial of any human soul in Christ\u201d (Apollinarianism). This\n statement of Dorner, which we have already quoted in our account\n of Apollinarianism, illustrates the similar impossibility, upon\n the theory of Thomasius, of constructing out of two finite souls\n the person of Christ. See also Hovey, God with Us, 68.\n\n\n(_c_) This theory fails to secure its end, that of making comprehensible\nthe human development of Jesus,\u2014for even though divested of the relative\nattributes of Godhood, the Logos still retains his divine\nself-consciousness, together with his immanent attributes of holiness,\nlove, and truth. This is as difficult to reconcile with a purely natural\nhuman development as the possession of the relative divine attributes\nwould be. The theory logically leads to a further denial of the possession\nof any divine attributes, or of any divine consciousness at all, on the\npart of Christ, and merges itself in the view of Gess and Beecher, that\nthe Godhead of the Logos is actually transformed into a human soul.\n\n\n Kahnis, Dogmatik 3:343\u2014\u201cThe old theology conceived of Christ as in\n full and unbroken use of the divine self-consciousness, the divine\n attributes, and the divine world-functions, from the conception\n until death. Though Jesus, as f\u0153tus, child, boy, was not almighty\n and omnipresent according to his human nature, yet he was so, as\n to his divine nature, which constituted one _ego_ with his human.\n Thomasius, however, declared that the Logos gave up his relative\n attributes, during his sojourn in flesh. Dorner\u2019s objection to\n this, on the ground of the divine unchangeableness, overshoots the\n mark, because it makes any _becoming_ impossible.\n\n \u201cBut some things in Thomasius\u2019 doctrine are still difficult: 1st,\n divinity can certainly give up its world-functions, for it has\n existed without these before the world was. In the nature of an\n absolute personality, however, lies an absolute knowing, willing,\n feeling, which it cannot give up. Hence _Phil. 2:6-11_ speaks of a\n giving-up of divine glory, but not of a giving-up of divine\n attributes or nature. 2d, little is gained by such an assumption\n of the giving-up of _relative_ attributes, since the Logos, even\n while divested of a part of his attributes, still has full\n possession of his divine self-consciousness, which must make a\n purely human development no less difficult. 3d, the expressions of\n divine self-consciousness, the works of divine power, the words of\n divine wisdom, prove that Jesus was in possession of his divine\n self-consciousness and attributes.\n\n \u201cThe essential thing which the Kenotics aim at, however, stands\n fast; namely, that the divine personality of the Logos divested\n itself of its glory (_John 17:5_), riches (_2 Cor. 8:6_), divine\n form (_Phil. 2:6_). This divesting is the becoming man. The\n humiliation, then, was a giving up of the use, not of the\n possession, of the divine nature and attributes. That man can thus\n give up self-consciousness and powers, we see every day in sleep.\n But man does not, thereby, cease to be man. So we maintain that\n the Logos, when he became man, did not divest himself of his\n divine person and nature, which was impossible; but only divested\n himself of the use and exercise of these\u2014these being latent to\n him\u2014in order to unfold themselves to use in the measure to which\n his human nature developed itself\u2014a use which found its completion\n in the condition of exaltation.\u201d This statement of Kahnis,\n although approaching correctness, is still neither quite correct\n nor quite complete.\n\n\nB. Theory that the humiliation consisted in the surrender of the\nindependent exercise of the divine attributes.\n\nThis theory, which we regard as the most satisfactory of all, may be more\nfully set forth as follows. The humiliation, as the Scriptures seem to\nshow, consisted:\n\n(_a_) In that act of the pre\u00ebxistent Logos by which he gave up his divine\nglory with the Father, in order to take a servant-form. In this act, he\nresigned not the possession, nor yet entirely the use, but rather the\nindependent exercise, of the divine attributes.\n\n\n _John 17:5_\u2014\u201c_glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory\n which I had with thee before the world was_\u201d; _Phil. 2:6,\n 7_\u2014\u201c_who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an\n equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself,\n taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men_\u201d;\n _2 Cor. 8:9_\u2014\u201c_For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,\n that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that\n ye through his poverty might become rich._\u201d Pompilia, in Robert\n Browning\u2019s The Ring and the Book: \u201cNow I see how God is likest God\n in being born.\u201d\n\n Omniscience gives up all knowledge but that of the child, the\n infant, the embryo, the infinitesimal germ of humanity.\n Omnipotence gives up all power but that of the impregnated ovum in\n the womb of the Virgin. The Godhead narrows itself down to a point\n that is next to absolute extinction. Jesus washing his disciples\u2019\n feet, in _John 13:1-20_, is the symbol of his coming down from his\n throne of glory and taking the form of a servant, in order that he\n may purify us, by regeneration and sanctification, for the\n marriage-supper of the Lamb.\n\n\n(_b_) In the submission of the Logos to the control of the Holy Spirit and\nthe limitations of his Messianic mission, in his communication of the\ndivine fulness of the human nature which he had taken into union with\nhimself.\n\n\n _Acts 1:2_\u2014Jesus, \u201c_after that he had given commandment through\n the Holy Spirit unto the apostles whom he had chosen_\u201d;\n _10:38_\u2014\u201c_Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him with the Holy\n Spirit and with power_\u201d; _Heb. 9:14_\u2014\u201c_the blood of Christ, who\n through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto\n God._\u201d A minor may have a great estate left to him, yet may have\n only such use of it as his guardian permits. In Homer\u2019s Iliad,\n when Andromache brings her infant son to part with Hector, the boy\n is terrified by the warlike plumes of his father\u2019s helmet, and\n Hector puts them off to embrace him. So God lays aside \u201cThat\n glorious form, that light unsufferable, And that far-beaming blaze\n of majesty.\u201d Arthur H. Hallam, in John Brown\u2019s Rab and his\n Friends, 282, 283\u2014\u201cRevelation is the voluntary approximation of\n the infinite Being to the ways and thoughts of finite humanity.\u201d\n\n\n(_c_) In the continuous surrender, on the part of the God-man, so far as\nhis human nature was concerned, of the exercise of those divine powers\nwith which it was endowed by virtue of its union with the divine, and in\nthe voluntary acceptance, which followed upon this, of temptation,\nsuffering, and death.\n\n\n _Mat. 26:53_\u2014\u201c_thinkest thou that I cannot beseech my Father, and\n he shall even now send me more than twelve legions of angels?_\u201d\n _John 10:17, 18_\u2014\u201c_Therefore doth the Father love me, because I\n lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one taketh it away\n from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down,\n and I have power to take it again_\u201d; _Phil. 2:8_\u2014\u201c_and being found\n in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even\n unto death, yea, the death of the cross._\u201d _Cf._ Shakespeare,\n Merchant of Venice: \u201cSuch music is there in immortal souls, That\n while this muddy vesture of decay Doth close it in, we cannot see\n it.\u201d\n\n\nEach of these elements of the doctrine has its own Scriptural support. We\nmust therefore regard the humiliation of Christ, not as consisting in a\nsingle act, but as involving a continuous self-renunciation, which began\nwith the Kenosis of the Logos in becoming man, and which culminated in the\nself-subjection of the God-man to the death of the cross.\n\n\n Our doctrine of Christ\u2019s humiliation will be better understood if\n we put it midway between two pairs of erroneous views, making it\n the third of five. The list would be as follows: (1) Gess: The\n Logos gave up all divine attributes; (2) Thomasius: The Logos gave\n up relative attributes only; (3) True View: The Logos gave up the\n independent exercise of divine attributes; (4) Old Orthodoxy:\n Christ gave up the use of divine attributes; (5) Anselm: Christ\n acted as if he did not possess divine attributes. The full\n exposition of the classical passage with reference to the\n humiliation, namely, _Phil. 2:5-8_, we give below, under the next\n paragraph, pages 705, 706. Brentius illustrated Christ\u2019s\n humiliation by the king who travels incognito. But Mason, Faith of\n the Gospel, 158, says well that \u201cto part in appearance with only\n the fruition of the divine attributes would be to impose upon us\n with a pretence of self-sacrifice; but to part with it in reality\n was to manifest most perfectly the true nature of God.\u201d\n\n This same objection lies against the explanation given in the\n Church Quarterly Review, Oct. 1891:1-30, on Our Lord\u2019s Knowledge\n as Man: \u201cIf divine knowledge exists in a different form from\n human, and a translation into a different form is necessary before\n it can be available in the human sphere, our Lord might know the\n day of judgment as God, and yet be ignorant of it as man. This\n must have been the case if he did not choose to translate it into\n the human form. But it might also have been incapable of\n translation. The processes of divine knowledge may be far above\n our finite comprehension.\u201d This seems to us to be a virtual denial\n of the unity of Christ\u2019s person, and to make our Lord play fast\n and loose with the truth. He either knew, or he did not know; and\n his denial that he knew makes it impossible that he should have\n known in any sense.\n\n\n2. The stages of Christ\u2019s humiliation.\n\n\nWe may distinguish: (_a_) That act of the pre\u00efncarnate Logos by which, in\nbecoming man, he gave up the independent exercise of the divine\nattributes. (_b_) His submission to the common laws which regulate the\norigin of souls from a pre\u00ebxisting sinful stock, in taking his human\nnature from the Virgin,\u2014a human nature which only the miraculous\nconception rendered pure. (_c_) His subjection to the limitations involved\nin a human growth and development,\u2014reaching the consciousness of his\nsonship at his twelfth year, and working no miracles till after the\nbaptism. (_d_) The subordination of himself, in state, knowledge,\nteaching, and acts, to the control of the Holy Spirit,\u2014so living, not\nindependently, but as a servant. (_e_) His subjection, as connected with a\nsinful race, to temptation and suffering, and finally to the death which\nconstituted the penalty of the law.\n\n\n Peter Lombard asked whether God could know more than he was aware\n of? It is only another way of putting the question whether, during\n the earthly life of Christ, the Logos existed outside of the flesh\n of Jesus. We must answer in the affirmative. Otherwise the number\n of the persons in the Trinity would be variable, and the universe\n could do without him who is ever \u201c_upholding all things by the\n word of his power_\u201d (_Heb. 1:3_), and in whom \u201c_all things\n consist_\u201d (_Col. 1:17_). Let us recall the nature of God\u2019s\n omnipresence (see pages 279-282). Omnipresence is nothing less\n than the presence of the whole of God in every place. From this it\n follows, that the whole Christ can be present in every believer as\n fully as if that believer were the only one to receive of his\n fulness, and that the whole Logos can be united to and be present\n in the man Christ Jesus, while at the same time he fills and\n governs the universe. By virtue of this omnipresence, therefore,\n the whole Logos can suffer on earth, while yet the whole Logos\n reigns in heaven. The Logos outside of Christ has the perpetual\n consciousness of his Godhead, while yet the Logos, as united to\n humanity in Christ, is subject to ignorance, weakness, and death.\n Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 1:153\u2014\u201cJehovah, though present in the form of\n the burning bush, was at the same time omnipresent also\u201d;\n 2:265-284, esp. 282\u2014\u201cBecause the sun is shining in and through a\n cloud, it does not follow that it cannot at the same time be\n shining through the remainder of universal space, unobstructed by\n any vapor whatever.\u201d Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 21\u2014\u201cNot with\n God, as with finite man, does arrival in one place necessitate\n withdrawal from another.\u201d John Calvin: \u201cThe whole Christ was\n there; but not all that was in Christ was there.\u201d See Adamson, The\n Mind of Christ.\n\n How the independent exercise of the attributes of omnipotence,\n omniscience, and omnipresence can be surrendered, even for a time,\n would be inconceivable, if we were regarding the Logos as he is in\n himself, seated upon the throne of the universe. The matter is\n somewhat easier when we remember that it was not the Logos _per\n se_, but rather the God-man, Jesus Christ, in whom the Logos\n submitted to this humiliation. South, Sermons, 2:9\u2014\u201cBe the\n fountain never so full, yet if it communicate itself by a little\n pipe, the stream can be but small and inconsiderable, and equal to\n the measure of its conveyance.\u201d Sartorius, Person and Work of\n Christ, 39\u2014\u201cThe human eye, when open, sees heaven and earth; but\n when shut, it sees little or nothing. Yet its inherent capacity\n does not change. So divinity does not change its nature, when it\n drops the curtain of humanity before the eyes of the God-man.\u201d\n\n The divine in Christ, during most of his earthly life, is latent,\n or only now and then present to his consciousness or manifested to\n others. Illustrate from second childhood, where the mind itself\n exists, but is not capable of use; or from first childhood, where\n even a Newton or a Humboldt, if brought back to earth and made to\n occupy an infant body and brain, would develop as an infant, with\n infantile powers. There is more in memory than we can at this\n moment recall,\u2014memory is greater than recollection. There is more\n of us at all times than we know,\u2014only the sudden emergency reveals\n the largeness of our resources of mind and heart and will. The new\n nature, in the regenerate, is greater than it appears: \u201c_Beloved,\n now are we children of God, and it is not yet made manifest what\n we shall be. We, know that, if he shall be manifested, we shall be\n like him_\u201d (_1 John 3:2_). So in Christ there was an ocean-like\n fulness of resource, of which only now and then the Spirit\n permitted the consciousness and the exercise.\n\n Without denying (with Dorner) the completeness, even from the\n moment of the conception, of the union between the deity and the\n humanity, we may still say with Kahnis: \u201cThe human nature of\n Christ, according to the measure of its development, appropriates\n more and more to its conscious use the latent fulness of the\n divine nature.\u201d So we take the middle ground between two opposite\n extremes. On the one hand, the Kenosis was not the extinction of\n the Logos. Nor, on the other hand, did Christ hunger and sleep by\n miracle,\u2014this is Docetism. We must not minimize Christ\u2019s\n humiliation, for this was his glory. There was no limit to his\n descent, except that arising from his sinlessness. His humiliation\n was not merely the giving-up of the appearance of Godhead. Baird,\n Elohim Revealed, 585\u2014\u201cShould any one aim to celebrate the\n condescension of the emperor Charles the Fifth, by dwelling on the\n fact that he laid aside the robes of royalty and assumed the style\n of a subject, and altogether ignore the more important matter that\n he actually became a private person, it would be very weak and\n absurd.\u201d _Cf._ _2 Cor. 8:9_\u2014\u201c_though he was rich, yet for your\n sakes he became poor_\u201d = he beggared himself. _Mat. 27:46_\u2014\u201c_My\n God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?_\u201d = non-exercise of divine\n omniscience.\n\n Inasmuch, however, as the passage _Phil. 2:6-8_ is the chief basis\n and support of the doctrine of Christ\u2019s humiliation, we here\n subjoin a more detailed examination of it.\n\n EXPOSITION OF PHILIPPIANS, 2:6-8. The passage reads: \u201c_who,\n existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality\n with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the\n form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being\n found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient\n even unto death, yea, the death of the cross_.\u201d\n\n The subject of the sentence is at first (_verses 6, 7_) Christ\n Jesus, regarded as the pre\u00ebxistent Logos; subsequently (_verse\n 8_), this same Christ Jesus, regarded as incarnate. This change in\n the subject is indicated by the contrast between \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1fc7 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\n (_verse 6_) and \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 (_verse 7_), as well as by the\n participles \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03ce\u03bd and \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (_verse 7_) and \u03b5\u03cd\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2 (_verse\n 8_) It is asserted, then, that the pre\u00ebxisting Logos, \u201calthough\n subsisting in the form of God, did not regard his equality with\n God as a thing to be forcibly retained, but emptied himself by\n taking the form of a servant, (that is,) by being made in the\n likeness of men. And being found in outward condition as a man, he\n (the incarnate son of God, yet further) humbled himself, by\n becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross\u201d (_verse\n 8_).\n\n Here notice that what the Logos divested himself of, in becoming\n man, is not the substance of his Godhead, but the \u201c_form of God_\u201d\n in which this substance was manifested. This \u201c_form of God_\u201d can\n be only that independent exercise of the powers and prerogatives\n of Deity which constitutes his \u201c_equality with God_.\u201d This he\n surrenders, in the act of \u201c_taking the form of a servant_\u201d\u2014or\n becoming subordinate, as man. (Here other Scriptures complete the\n view, by their representations of the controlling influence of the\n Holy Spirit in the earthly life of Christ.) The phrases \u201cmade in\n the likeness of men\u201d and \u201cfound in fashion as a man\u201d are used to\n intimate, not that Jesus Christ was not really man, but that he\n was God as well as man, and therefore free from the sin which\n clings to man (_cf._ _Rom. 8:3_\u2014\u1f10\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2\n \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\u2014Meyer). Finally, this one person, now God and man united,\n submits himself, consciously and voluntarily, to the humiliation\n of an ignominious death.\n\n See Lightfoot, on _Phil. 2:8_\u2014\u201cChrist divested himself, not of his\n divine nature, for that was impossible, but of the glories and\n prerogatives of Deity. This he did by taking the form of a\n servant.\u201d Evans, in Presb. Rev., 1883:287\u2014\u201cTwo stages in Christ\u2019s\n humiliation, each represented by a finite verb defining the\n central act of the particular stage, accompanied by two modal\n participles. 1st stage indicated in _v. 7_. Its central act is:\n \u2018_he emptied himself_.\u2019 Its two modalities are: (1) \u2018_taking the\n form of servant_\u2019; (2) \u2018_being made in the likeness of men_.\u2019 Here\n we have the humiliation of the Kenosis,\u2014that by which Christ\n _became_ man. 2d stage, indicated in _v. 8_. Its central act is:\n \u2018_he humbled himself_.\u2019 Its two modalities are: (1) \u2018_being found\n in fashion as a man_\u2019; (2) \u2018_becoming obedient unto death, yea,\n the death of the cross_.\u2019 Here we have the humiliation of his\n obedience and death,\u2014that by which, _in_ humanity, he became a\n sacrifice for our sins.\u201d\n\n Meyer refers _Eph. 5:31_ exclusively to Christ and the church,\n making the completed union future, however, _i. e._, at the time\n of the Parousia. \u201c_For this cause shall a man leave his father and\n mother_\u201d = \u201cin the incarnation, Christ leaves father and mother\n (his seat at the right hand of God), and cleaves to his wife (the\n church), and then the two (the descended Christ and the church)\n become one flesh (one ethical person, as the married pair become\n one by physical union). The Fathers, however, (Jerome, Theodoret,\n Chrysostom), referred it to the incarnation.\u201d On the\n interpretation of _Phil 2:6-11_, see Comm. of Neander, Meyer,\n Lange, Ellicott.\n\n On the question whether Christ would have become man had there\n been no sin, theologians are divided. Dorner, Martensen, and\n Westcott answer in the affirmative; Robinson, Watts, and Denney in\n the negative. See Dorner, Hist. Doct. Person of Christ, 5:236;\n Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, 327-329; Westcott, Com. on\n Hebrews, page 8\u2014\u201cThe Incarnation is in its essence independent of\n the Fall, though conditioned by it as to its circumstances.\u201d _Per\n contra_, see Robinson, Christ. Theol., 219, note\u2014\u201cIt would be\n difficult to show that a like method of argument from _a priori_\n premisses will not equally avail to prove sin to have been a\n necessary part of the scheme of creation.\u201d Denney, Studies in\n Theology, 101, objects to the doctrine of necessary incarnation\n irrespective of sin, that it tends to obliterate the distinction\n between nature and grace, to blur the definite outlines of the\n redemption wrought by Christ, as the supreme revelation of God and\n his love. See also Watts, New Apologetic, 198-202; Julius M\u00fcller,\n Dogmat. Abhandlungen, 66-126; Van Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 512-526,\n 543-548; Forrest, The Authority of Christ, 340-345. On the general\n subject of the Kenosis of the Logos, see Bruce, Humiliation of\n Christ; Robins, in Bib. Sac., Oct. 1874:615; Philippi,\n Glaubenslehre, 4:138-150, 386-475; Pope, Person of Christ, 23;\n Bodemeyer, Lehre von der Kenosis; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:610-625.\n\n\nII. The State of Exaltation.\n\n\n1. The nature of this exaltation.\n\n\nIt consisted essentially in: (_a_) A resumption, on the part of the Logos,\nof his independent exercise of divine attributes. (_b_) The withdrawal, on\nthe part of the Logos, of all limitations in his communication of the\ndivine fulness to the human nature of Christ. (_c_) The corresponding\nexercise, on the part of the human nature, of those powers which belonged\nto it by virtue of its union with the divine.\n\n\n The eighth Psalm, with its account of the glory of human nature,\n is at present fulfilled only in Christ (see _Heb. 2:9_\u2014\u201c_but we\n behold ... Jesus_\u201d). _Heb. 2:7_\u2014\u1f20\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03cd \u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fbd\n \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\u2014may be translated, as in the margin of the Rev. Vers.:\n \u201c_Thou madest __ him for a little while lower than the angels._\u201d\n Christ\u2019s human body was not necessarily subject to death; only by\n outward compulsion or voluntary surrender could he die. Hence\n resurrection was a natural necessity (_Acts 2:24_\u2014\u201c_whom God\n raised up, having loosed the pangs of death: because it was not\n possible he should be holden of it_\u201d; _31_\u2014\u201c_neither was he left\n unto Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption_\u201d). This exaltation,\n which then affected humanity only in its head, is to be the\n experience also of the members. Our bodies also are to be\n delivered from the bondage of corruption, and we are to sit with\n Christ upon his throne.\n\n\n2. The stages of Christ\u2019s exaltation.\n\n\n(a) The quickening and resurrection.\n\nBoth Lutherans and Romanists distinguish between these two, making the\nformer precede, and the latter follow, Christ\u2019s \u201cpreaching to the spirits\nin prison.\u201d These views rest upon a misinterpretation of 1 Pet. 3:18-20.\nLutherans teach that Christ descended into hell, to proclaim his triumph\nto evil spirits. But this is to give \u1f10\u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03be\u03b5\u03bd the unusual sense of\nproclaiming his triumph, instead of his gospel. Romanists teach that\nChrist entered the underworld to preach to Old Testament saints, that they\nmight be saved. But the passage speaks only of the disobedient; it cannot\nbe pressed into the support of a sacramental theory of the salvation of\nOld Testament believers. The passage does not assert the descent of Christ\ninto the world of spirits, but only a work of the pre\u00efncarnate Logos in\noffering salvation, through Noah, to the world then about to perish.\n\n\n Augustine, Ad Euodiam, ep. 99\u2014\u201cThe spirits shut up in prison are\n the unbelievers who lived in the time of Noah, whose spirits or\n souls were shut up in the darkness of ignorance as in a prison;\n Christ preached to them, not in the flesh, for he was not yet\n incarnate, but in the spirit, that is, in his divine nature.\u201d\n Calvin taught that Christ descended into the underworld and\n suffered the pains of the lost. But not all Calvinists hold with\n him here; see Princeton Essays, 1:153. Meyer, on _Rom. 10:7_,\n regards the question\u2014\u201c_Who shall descend into the abyss?_ (_that\n is, to bring Christ up from the dead_)\u201d\u2014as an allusion to, and so\n indirectly a proof-text for, Christ\u2019s descent into the underworld.\n Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 211, favors a preaching to the dead:\n \u201cDuring that time [the three days] he did not return to heaven and\n his Father.\u201d But though _John 20:17_ is referred to for proof, is\n not this statement true only of his body? So far as the soul is\n concerned, Christ can say: \u201c_Father, into thy hands I commend my\n spirit_,\u201d and \u201c_To-day thou shalt be with me in Paradise_\u201d (_Luke\n 23:43, 46_).\n\n Zahn and Dorner best represent the Lutheran view. Zahn, in\n Expositor, March, 1898: 216-223\u2014\u201cIf Jesus was truly man, then his\n soul, after it left the body, entered into the fellowship of\n departed spirits.... If Jesus is he who lives forevermore and even\n his dying was his act, this carrying in the realm of the dead\n cannot be thought of as a purely passive condition, but must have\n been known to those who dwelt there..... If Jesus was the Redeemer\n of mankind, the generations of those who had passed away must have\n thus been brought into personal relation to him, his work and his\n kingdom, without waiting for the last day.\u201d\n\n Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:662 (Syst. Doct., 4:127), thinks\n \u201cChrist\u2019s descent into Hades marks a new era of his pneumatic\n life, in which he shows himself free from the limitations of time\n and space.\u201d He rejects \u201cLuther\u2019s notion of a merely triumphal\n progress and proclamation of Christ. Before Christ,\u201d he says,\n \u201cthere was no abode peopled by the damned. The descent was an\n application of the benefit of the atonement (implied in\n \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd). The work was prophetic, not high-priestly nor kingly.\n Going to the spirits in prison is spoken of as a spontaneous act,\n not one of physical necessity. No power of Hades led him over into\n Hades. Deliverance from the limitations of a mortal body is\n already an indication of a higher stage of existence. Christ\u2019s\n soul is bodiless for a time\u2014\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 only\u2014as the departed were.\n\n \u201cThe ceasing of this preaching is neither recorded, nor reasonably\n to be supposed,\u2014indeed the ancient church supposed it carried on\n through the apostles. It expresses the universal significance of\n Christ for former generations and for the entire kingdom of the\n dead. No physical power is a limit to him. The gates of hell, or\n Hades, shall not prevail over or against him. The intermediate\n state is one of blessedness for him, and he can admit the penitent\n thief into it. Even those who were not laid hold of by Christ\u2019s\n historic manifestation in this earthly life still must, and may,\n be brought into relation with him, in order to be able to accept\n or to reject him. And thus the universal relation of Christ to\n humanity and the absoluteness of the Christian religion are\n confirmed.\u201d So Dorner, for substance.\n\n All this _versus_ Strauss, who thought that the dying of vast\n masses of men, before and after Christ, who had not been brought\n into relation to Christ, proves that the Christian religion is not\n necessary to salvation, because not universal. For advocacy of\n Christ\u2019s preaching to the dead, see also Jahrbuch f\u00fcr d. Theol.,\n 23:177-228; W. W. Patton, in N. Eng., July, 1882:460-478; John\n Miller, Problems Suggested by the Bible, part 1:93-98; part 2:38;\n Plumptre, The Spirits in Prison; Kendrick, in Bap. Rev., Apl.\n 1888; Clemen, Niedergefahren zu den Toten.\n\n For the opposite view, see \u201cNo Preaching to the Dead,\u201d in\n Princeton Rev., March, 1875:197; 1878:451-491; Hovey, in Bap.\n Quar., 4:486 _sq._, and Bib. Eschatology, 97-107; Love, Christ\u2019s\n Preaching to the Spirits in Prison; Cowles, in Bib. Sac.,\n 1875:401; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:616-622; Salmond, in Popular\n Commentary; and Johnstone, Com., in loco. So Augustine, Thomas\n Aquinas, and Bishop Pearson. See also E. D. Morris, Is There\n Salvation after Death? and Wright, Relation of Death to Probation,\n 22:28\u2014\u201cIf Christ preached to spirits in Hades, it may have been to\n demonstrate the _hopelessness_ of adding in the other world to the\n privileges enjoyed in this. We do not read that it had any\n favorable effect upon the hearers. If men will not hear Moses and\n the Prophets, then they will not hear one risen from the dead.\n \u2018_Today thou shalt be with me in Paradise_\u2019 (_Luke 23:43_) was not\n comforting, if Christ was going that day to the realm of lost\n spirits. The antediluvians, however, were specially favored with\n Noah\u2019s preaching, and were specially wicked.\u201d\n\n For full statement of the view presented in the text, that the\n preaching referred to was the preaching of Christ as pre\u00ebxisting\n Logos to the spirits, now in prison, when once they were\n disobedient in the days of Noah, see Bartlett, in New Englander,\n Oct. 1872: 601 sq., and in Bib. Sac., Apr. 1883:333-373. Before\n giving the substance of Bartlett\u2019s exposition, we transcribe in\n full the passage in question, _1 Pet. 3:18-20_\u2014\u201c_Because Christ\n also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous,\n that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh,\n but made alive in the spirit; in which also he went and preached\n unto the spirits in prison, that aforetime were disobedient, when\n the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah._\u201d\n\n Bartlett expounds as follows: \u201c \u2018_In which_ [\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, divine\n nature] \u2018_he went and preached to the spirits in prison when once\n they disobeyed._\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd is circumstantial aorist, indicating\n the time of the preaching as a definite past: It is an anarthrous\n dative, as in _Luke 8:27_; _Mat. 8:23_; _Acts 15:25_; _22:17_. It\n is an appositive, or predicative, participle. [That the aorist\n participle does not necessarily describe an action preliminary to\n that of the principal verb appears from its use in _verse 18_\n (\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2), in _1 Thess. 1:6_ (\u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9), and in _Col. 2:11,\n 13_.] The connection of thought is: Peter exhorts his readers to\n endure suffering bravely, because Christ did so,\u2014in his lower\n nature being put to death, in his higher nature enduring the\n opposition of sinners before the flood. Sinners of that time only\n are mentioned, because this permits an introduction of the\n subsequent reference to baptism. _Cf._ _Gen. 6:3_; _1 Pet. 1:10,\n 11_; _2 Pet. 2:4, 5_.\u201d\n\n\n(_b_) The ascension and sitting at the right hand of God.\n\nAs the resurrection proclaimed Christ to men as the perfected and\nglorified man, the conqueror of sin and lord of death, the ascension\nproclaimed him to the universe as the reinstated God, the possessor of\nuniversal dominion, the omnipresent object of worship and hearer of\nprayer. _Dextra Dei ubique est._\n\n\n _Mat. 28:18, 20_\u2014\u201c_All authority hath been given unto me in heaven\n and on earth.... lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of\n the world_\u201d; _Mark 16:19_\u2014\u201c_So then the Lord Jesus, after he had\n spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the\n right hand of God_\u201d; _Acts 7:55_\u2014\u201c_But he, being full of the Holy\n Spirit, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of\n God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God_\u201d; _2 Cor.\n 13:4_\u2014\u201c_he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth through\n the power of God_\u201d; _Eph. 1:22, 23_\u2014\u201c_he put all things in\n subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things\n to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth\n all in all_\u201d; _4:10_\u2014\u201c_He that descended is the same also that\n ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all\n things._\u201d Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 4:184-189\u2014\u201cBefore the\n resurrection, Christ was the God-_man_; since the resurrection, he\n is the _God_-man.... He ate with his disciples, not to show the\n _quality_, but the _reality_, of his human body.\u201d Nicoll, Life of\n Christ: \u201cIt was hard for Elijah to ascend\u201d\u2014it required chariot and\n horses of fire\u2014\u201cbut it was easier for Christ to ascend than to\n descend,\u201d\u2014there was a gravitation upwards. Maclaren: \u201cHe has not\n left the world, though he has ascended to the Father, any more\n than he left the Father when he came into the world\u201d; _John\n 1:18_\u2014\u201c_the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the\n Father_\u201d; _3:13_\u2014\u201c_the Son of man, who is in heaven._\u201d\n\n We are compelled here to consider the problem of the relation of\n the humanity to the Logos in the state of exaltation. The\n Lutherans maintain the ubiquity of Christ\u2019s human body, and they\n make it the basis of their doctrine of the sacraments. Dorner,\n Glaubenslehre, 2:674-676 (Syst. Doct., 4:138-142), holds to \u201ca\n presence, not simply of the Logos, but of the whole God-man, with\n all his people, but not necessarily likewise a similar presence in\n the world; in other words, his presence is morally conditioned by\n men\u2019s receptivity.\u201d The old theologians said that Christ is not in\n heaven, quasi carcere. Calvin, Institutes, 2:15\u2014he is \u201cincarnate,\n but not incarcerated.\u201d He has gone into heaven, the place of\n spirits, and he manifests himself there; but he has also gone far\n above all heavens, that he may fill all things. He is with his\n people alway. All power is given into his hand. The church is the\n fulness of him that filleth all in all. So the Acts of the\n Apostles speak constantly of the Son of man, of the man Jesus as\n God, ever present, the object of worship, seated at the right hand\n of God, having all the powers and prerogatives of Deity. See\n Westcott, Bible Com., on _John 20:22_\u2014\u201c_he breathed on them, and\n saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit_\u201d\u2014\u201cThe characteristic\n effect of the Paschal gift was shown in the new faith by which the\n disciples were gathered into a living society; the characteristic\n effect of the Pentecostal gift was shown in the exercise of\n supremacy potentially universal.\u201d\n\n Who and what is this Christ who is present with his people when\n they pray? It is not enough to say, He is simply the Holy Spirit;\n for the Holy Spirit is the \u201c_Spirit of Christ_\u201d (_Rom. 8:9_), and\n in having the Holy Spirit we have Christ himself (_John 16:7_\u2014\u201c_I\n will send him_ [the Comforter] _unto you_\u201d; _14:18_\u2014\u201c_I come unto\n you_\u201d). The Christ, who is thus present with us when we pray, is\n not simply the Logos, or the divine nature of Christ,\u2014his humanity\n being separated from the divinity and being localized in heaven.\n This would be inconsistent with his promise, \u201c_Lo, I am with\n you_,\u201d in which the \u201cI\u201d that spoke was not simply Deity, but Deity\n and humanity inseparably united; and it would deny the real and\n indissoluble union of the two natures. The elder brother and\n sympathizing Savior who is with us when we pray is man, as well as\n God. This manhood is therefore ubiquitous by virtue of its union\n with the Godhead.\n\n But this is not to say that Christ\u2019s human _body_ is everywhere\n present. It would seem that body must exist in spatial relations,\n and be confined to place. We do not know that this is so with\n regard to soul. Heaven would seem to be a place, because Christ\u2019s\n body is there; and a spiritual body is not a body which is spirit,\n but a body which is suited to the uses of the spirit. But even\n though Christ may manifest himself, in a glorified human body,\n only in heaven, his human soul, by virtue of its union with the\n divine nature, can at the same moment be with all his scattered\n people over the whole earth. As, in the days of his flesh, his\n humanity was confined to place, while as to his Deity he could\n speak of the Son of man who is in heaven, so now, although his\n human body may be confined to place, his human soul is ubiquitous.\n Humanity can exist without body; for during the three days in the\n sepulchre, Christ\u2019s body was on earth, but his soul was in the\n other world; and in like manner there is, during the intermediate\n state, a separation of the soul and the body of believers. But\n humanity cannot exist without soul; and if the human Savior is\n with us, then his humanity, at least so far as respects its\n immaterial part, must be everywhere present. _Per contra_, see\n Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:326, 327. Since Christ\u2019s human nature has\n derivatively become possessed of divine attributes, there is no\n validity in the notion of a progressiveness in that nature, now\n that it has ascended to the right hand of God. See Philippi,\n Glaubenslehre, 4:131; Van Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 558, 576.\n\n Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:327\u2014\u201cSuppose the presence of the divine\n nature of Christ in the soul of a believer in London. This divine\n nature is at the same moment conjoined with, and present to, and\n modified by, the human nature of Christ, which is in heaven and\n not in London.\u201d So Hooker, Eccl. Pol., 54, 55, and E. G. Robinson:\n \u201cChrist is in heaven at the right hand of the Father, interceding\n for us, while he is present in the church by his Spirit. We pray\n to the theanthropic Jesus. Possession of a human body does not now\n constitute a limitation. We know little of the nature of the\n present body.\u201d We add to this last excellent remark the expression\n of our own conviction that the modern conception of the merely\n relative nature of space, and the idealistic view of matter as\n only the expression of mind and will, have relieved this subject\n of many of its former difficulties. If Christ is omnipresent and\n if his body is simply the manifestation of his soul, then every\n soul may feel the presence of his humanity even now and \u201c_every\n eye_\u201d may \u201c_see him_\u201d at his second coming, even though believers\n may be separated as far as is Boston from Pekin. The body from\n which his glory flashes forth may be visible in ten thousand\n places at the same time; (_Mat. 28:20_; _Rev. 1:7_).\n\n\n\nSection IV.\u2014The Offices Of Christ.\n\n\nThe Scriptures represent Christ\u2019s offices as three in number,\u2014prophetic,\npriestly, and kingly. Although these terms are derived from concrete human\nrelations, they express perfectly distinct ideas. The prophet, the priest,\nand the king, of the Old Testament, were detached but designed\nprefigurations of him who should combine all these various activities in\nhimself, and should furnish the ideal reality, of which they were the\nimperfect symbols.\n\n\n _1 Cor. 1:30_\u2014\u201c_of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who was made unto\n us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and\n redemption._\u201d Here \u201c_wisdom_\u201d seems to indicate the prophetic,\n \u201c_righteousness_\u201d (or \u201c_justification_\u201d) the priestly, and\n \u201c_sanctification and redemption_\u201d the kingly work of Christ.\n Denovan: \u201cThree offices are necessary. Christ must be a prophet,\n to save us from the ignorance of sin; a priest, to save us from\n its guilt; a king, to save us from its dominion in our flesh. Our\n faith cannot have firm basis in any one of these alone, any more\n than a stool can stand on less than three legs.\u201d See Van\n Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 583-586; Archer Butler, Sermons, 1:314.\n\n A. A. Hodge, Popular Lectures, 235\u2014\u201cFor \u2018office,\u2019 there are two\n words in Latin: _munus_ = position (of Mediator), and _officia_ =\n functions (of Prophet, Priest, and King). They are not separate\n offices, as are those of President, Chief-Justice, and Senator.\n They are not separate functions, capable of successive and\n isolated performance. They are rather like the several functions\n of the one living human body\u2014lungs, heart, brain\u2014functionally\n distinct, yet interdependent, and together constituting one life.\n So the functions of Prophet, Priest, and King mutually imply one\n another: Christ is always a prophetical Priest, and a priestly\n Prophet; and he is always a royal Priest, and a priestly King; and\n together they accomplish one redemption, to which all are equally\n essential. Christ is both \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 and \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\u201d\n\n\nI. The Prophetic Office of Christ.\n\n\n1. The nature of Christ\u2019s prophetic work.\n\n\n(_a_) Here we must avoid the narrow interpretation which would make the\nprophet a mere foreteller of future events. He was rather an inspired\ninterpreter or revealer of the divine will, a medium of communication\nbetween God and men (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 = not foreteller, but forteller, or\nforth-teller. _Cf._ Gen. 20:7,\u2014of Abraham; Ps. 105:15,\u2014of the patriarchs;\nMat. 11:9,\u2014of John the Baptist; 1 Cor. 12:28, Eph. 2:20, and 3:5,\u2014of N. T.\nexpounders of Scripture).\n\n\n _Gen. 20:7_\u2014\u201c_restore the man\u2019s wife; for he is a prophet_\u201d\u2014spoken\n of Abraham; _Ps. 105:15_\u2014\u201c_Touch not mine anointed ones, And do my\n prophets no harm_\u201d\u2014spoken of the patriarchs; _Mat. 11:9_\u2014\u201c_But\n wherefore went ye out? to see a prophet? Yea, I say into you, and\n much more than a prophet_\u201d\u2014spoken of John the Baptist, from whom\n we have no recorded predictions, and whose pointing to Jesus as\n the \u201c_Lamb of God_\u201d (_John 1:29_) was apparently but an echo of\n _Isaiah 53_. _1 Cor. 12:28_\u2014\u201c_first apostles, secondly prophets_\u201d;\n _Eph. 2:20_\u2014\u201c_built upon the foundation of the apostles and\n prophets_\u201d; _3:5_\u2014\u201c_revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets\n in the Spirit_\u201d\u2014all these latter texts speaking of New Testament\n expounders of Scripture.\n\n Any organ of divine revelation, or medium of divine communication,\n is a prophet. \u201cHence,\u201d says Philippi, \u201cthe books of Joshua,\n Judges, Samuel, and Kings are called \u2018_prophet\u00e6 priores_,\u2019 or \u2018the\n earlier prophets.\u2019 Bernard\u2019s _Respice, Aspice, Prospice_ describes\n the work of the prophet: for the prophet might see and might\n disclose things in the past, things in the present, or things in\n the future. Daniel was a prophet, in telling Nebuchadnezzar what\n his dream had been, as well as in telling its interpretation\n (_Dan. 2:28, 36_). The woman of Samaria rightly called Christ a\n prophet, when he told her all things that ever she did (_John\n 4:29_).\u201d On the work of the prophet, see Stanley, Jewish Church,\n 1:491.\n\n\n(_b_) The prophet commonly united three methods of fulfilling his\noffice,\u2014those of teaching, predicting, and miracle-working. In all these\nrespects, Jesus Christ did the work of a prophet (Deut 18:15; _cf._ Acts\n3:22; Mat. 13:57; Luke 13:33; John 6:14). He taught (Mat. 5-7), he uttered\npredictions (Mat. 24 and 25), he wrought miracles (Mat. 8 and 9), while in\nhis person, his life, his work, and his death, he revealed the Father\n(John 8:26; 14:9; 17:8).\n\n\n _Deut. 18:15_\u2014\u201c_Jehovah thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet,\n from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him\n shall ye hearken_\u201d; _cf._ _Acts 3:22_\u2014where this prophecy is said\n to be fulfilled in Christ. Jesus calls himself a prophet in _Mat.\n 13:57_\u2014\u201c_A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country,\n and in his own house_\u201d; _Luke 13:33_\u2014\u201c_Nevertheless I must go on\n my way to-day and to-morrow and the day following: for it cannot\n be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem._\u201d He was called a\n prophet: _John 6:14_\u2014\u201c_When therefore the people saw the sign\n which he did, they said, This is of a truth the prophet that\n cometh into the world._\u201d _John 8:26_\u2014\u201c_the things which I heard\n from him_ [the Father], _these speak I unto the world_\u201d;\n _14:9_\u2014\u201c_he that hath seen me hath seen the Father_\u201d; _17:8_\u2014\u201c_the\n words which thou gavest me I have given unto them._\u201d\n\n Denovan: \u201cChrist teaches us by his word, his Spirit, his example.\u201d\n Christ\u2019s miracles were mainly miracles of healing. \u201cOnly sickness\n is contagious with us. But Christ was an example of perfect\n health, and his health was contagious. By its overflow, he healed\n others. Only a \u2018_touch_\u2019 (_Mat. 9:21_) was necessary.\u201d\n\n Edwin P. Parker, on Horace Bushnell: \u201cThe two fundamental elements\n of prophecy are insight and expression. Christian prophecy implies\n insight or discernment of spiritual things by divine illumination,\n and expression of them, by inspiration, in terms of Christian\n truth or in the tones and cadences of Christian testimony. We may\n define it, then, as the publication, under the impulse of\n inspiration, and for edification, of truths perceived by divine\n illumination, apprehended by faith, and assimilated by\n experience.... It requires a natural basis and rational\n preparation in the human mind, a suitable stock of natural gifts\n on which to graft the spiritual gift for support and nourishment.\n These gifts have had devout culture. They have been crowned by\n illuminations and inspirations. Because insight gives foresight,\n the prophet will be a seer of things as they are unfolding and\n becoming; will discern far-signalings and intimations of\n Providence; will forerun men to prepare the way for them, and them\n for the way of God\u2019s coming kingdom.\u201d\n\n\n2. The stages of Christ\u2019s prophetic work.\n\n\nThese are four, namely:\n\n(_a_) The preparatory work of the Logos, in enlightening mankind before\nthe time of Christ\u2019s advent in the flesh.\u2014All preliminary religious\nknowledge, whether within or without the bounds of the chosen people, is\nfrom Christ, the revealer of God.\n\n\n Christ\u2019s prophetic work began before he came in the flesh. _John\n 1:9_\u2014\u201c_There was the true light, even the light which lighteth\n every man, coming into the world_\u201d\u2014all the natural light of\n conscience, science, philosophy, art, civilization, is the light\n of Christ. Tennyson: \u201cOur little systems have their day, They have\n their day and cease to be; They are but broken lights of thee, And\n thou, O Lord, art more than they.\u201d _Heb. 12:25, 26_\u2014\u201c_See that ye\n refuse not him that speaketh.... whose voice then_ [at Sinai]\n _shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more\n will I make to tremble not the earth only, but also the heaven_\u201d;\n _Luke 11:49_\u2014\u201c_Therefore said the wisdom of God, I will send unto\n them prophets and apostles_\u201d; _cf._ _Mat 23:34_\u2014\u201c_behold, I send\n unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall\n ye kill and crucify_\u201d\u2014which shows that Jesus was referring to his\n own teachings, as well as to those of the earlier prophets.\n\n\n(_b_) The earthly ministry of Christ incarnate.\u2014In his earthly ministry,\nChrist showed himself the prophet _par excellence_. While he submitted,\nlike the Old Testament prophets, to the direction of the Holy Spirit,\nunlike them, he found the sources of all knowledge and power within\nhimself. The word of God did not _come_ to him,\u2014he was _himself_ the Word.\n\n\n _Luke 6:19_\u2014\u201c_And all the multitude sought to touch him; for power\n came forth from him, and healed them all_\u201d; _John 2:11_\u2014\u201c_This\n beginning of his signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and\n manifested his glory_\u201d; _8:38, 58_\u2014\u201c_I speak the things which I\n have seen with my Father.... Before Abraham was born, I am_\u201d;\n _cf._ _Jer. 2:1_\u2014\u201c_the word of Jehovah came to me_\u201d; _John\n 1:1_\u2014\u201c_In the beginning was the Word._\u201d _Mat. 26:53_\u2014\u201c_twelve\n legions of angels_\u201d; _John 10:18_\u2014of his life: \u201c_I have power to\n lay it down, and I have power to take it again_\u201d; _34_\u2014\u201c_Is it not\n written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods,\n unto whom the word of God came ... say ye of him, whom the Father\n sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I\n said, I am the Son of God?_\u201d Martensen, Dogmatics, 295-301, says\n of Jesus\u2019 teaching that \u201cits source was not inspiration, but\n incarnation.\u201d Jesus was not inspired,\u2014he was the Inspirer.\n Therefore he is the true \u201cMaster of those who know.\u201d His disciples\n act in his name; he acts in his own name.\n\n\n(_c_) The guidance and teaching of his church on earth, since his\nascension.\u2014Christ\u2019s prophetic activity is continued through the preaching\nof his apostles and ministers, and by the enlightening influences of his\nHoly Spirit (John 16:12-14; Acts 1:1). The apostles unfolded the germs of\ndoctrine put into their hands by Christ. The church is, in a derivative\nsense, a prophetic institution, established to teach the world by its\npreaching and its ordinances. But Christians are prophets, only as being\nproclaimers of Christ\u2019s teaching (Num. 11:29; Joel 2:28).\n\n\n _John 16:12-14_\u2014\u201c_I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye\n cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is\n come, he shall guide you into all the truth.... He shall glorify\n me: for he shall take of mine and shall declare it unto you_\u201d;\n _Acts 1:1_\u2014\u201c_The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, concerning\n all that Jesus began both to do and to teach_\u201d\u2014Christ\u2019s prophetic\n work was only _begun_, during his earthly ministry; it is\n continued since his ascension. The inspiration of the apostles,\n the illumination of all preachers and Christians to understand and\n to unfold the meaning of the word they wrote, the conviction of\n sinners, and the sanctification of believers,\u2014all these are parts\n of Christ\u2019s prophetic work, performed through the Holy Spirit.\n\n By virtue of their union with Christ and participation in Christ\u2019s\n Spirit, all Christians are made in a secondary sense prophets, as\n well as priests and kings. _Num. 11:29_\u2014\u201c_Would that all Jehovah\u2019s\n people were prophets, that Jehovah would put his Spirit upon\n them_\u201d; _Joel 2:28_\u2014\u201c_I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh;\n and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy._\u201d All modern\n prophecy that is true, however, is but the republication of\n Christ\u2019s message\u2014the proclamation and expounding of truth already\n revealed in Scripture. \u201cAll so-called new prophecy, from Montanus\n to Swedenborg, proves its own falsity by its lack of attesting\n miracles.\u201d\n\n A. A. Hodge, Popular Lectures, 242\u2014\u201cEvery human prophet\n presupposes an infinite eternal divine Prophet from whom his\n knowledge is received, just as every stream presupposes a fountain\n from which it flows.... As the telescope of highest power takes\n into its field the narrowest segment of the sky, so Christ the\n prophet sometimes gives the intensest insight into the glowing\n centre of the heavenly world to those whom this world regards as\n unlearned and foolish, and the church recognizes as only babes in\n Christ.\u201d\n\n\n(_d_) Christ\u2019s final revelation of the Father to his saints in glory (John\n16:25; 17:24, 26; _cf._ Is. 64:4; 1 Cor. 13:12).\u2014Thus Christ\u2019s prophetic\nwork will be an endless one, as the Father whom he reveals is infinite.\n\n\n _John 16:25_\u2014\u201c_the hour cometh, when I shall no more speak unto\n you in dark sayings, but shall tell you plainly of the Father_\u201d;\n _17:24_\u2014\u201c_I desire that where I am, they also may be with me; that\n they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me_\u201d; _26_\u2014\u201c_I\n made known unto them thy name, and will make it known._\u201d The\n revelation of his own glory will be the revelation of the Father,\n in the Son. _Is. 64:4_\u2014\u201c_For from of old men have not heard, nor\n perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen a God besides\n thee, who worketh for him that waiteth for him_\u201d; _1 Cor.\n 13:12_\u2014\u201c_now we see in a mirror, darkly; but then face to face:\n now I know in part; but then shall I know fully even as also I was\n fully known._\u201d _Rev. 21:23_\u2014\u201c_And the city hath no need of the\n sun, neither of the moon, to shine upon it: for the glory of God\n did lighten it, and the lamp thereof is the Lamb_\u201d\u2014not light, but\n lamp. Light is something generally diffused; one sees _by_ it, but\n one cannot see _it_. Lamp is the narrowing down, the\n concentrating, the focusing of light, so that the light becomes\n definite and visible. So in heaven Christ will be the visible God.\n We shall never see the Father separate from Christ. No man or\n angel has at any time seen God, \u201c_whom no man hath seen, nor can\n see._\u201d \u201c_The only begotten Son ... he hath declared him,_\u201d and he\n will forever declare him (_John 1:18_; _1 Tim. 6:16_).\n\n The ministers of the gospel in modern times, so far as they are\n joined to Christ and possessed by his spirit, have a right to call\n themselves prophets. The prophet is one\u20141. sent by God and\n conscious of his mission; 2. with a message from God which he is\n under compulsion to deliver; 3. a message grounded in the truth of\n the past, setting it in new lights for the present, and making new\n applications of it for the future. The word of the Lord must come\n to him; it must be his gospel; there must be things new as well as\n old. All mathematics are in the simplest axiom; but it needs\n divine illumination to discover them. All truth was in Jesus\u2019\n words, nay, in the first prophecy uttered after the Fall, but only\n the apostles brought it out. The prophet\u2019s message must be 4. a\n message for the place and time\u2014primarily for contemporaries and\n present needs; 5. a message of eternal significance and worldwide\n influence. As the prophet\u2019s word was for the whole world, so our\n word may be for other worlds, that _\u201c__unto the principalities and\n the powers in the heavenly places might be made known through the\n church the manifold wisdom of God__\u201d__ (Eph. 3:10)_. It must be\n also 6. a message of the kingdom and triumph of Christ, which puts\n over against the distractions and calamities of the present time\n the glowing ideal and the perfect consummation to which God is\n leading his people: \u201c_Blessed be the glory of Jehovah from his\n place_\u201d; \u201c_Jehovah is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep\n silence before him_\u201d (_Ez. 3:12; Hab. 2:20_). On the whole subject\n of Christ\u2019s prophetic office, see Philippi, Glaubenslehre, IV,\n 2:24-27; Bruce, Humiliation of Christ, 320-330; Shedd, Dogm.\n Theol., 2:366-370.\n\n\nII. The Priestly Office of Christ.\n\n\nThe priest was a person divinely appointed to transact with God on man\u2019s\nbehalf. He fulfilled his office, first by offering sacrifice, and secondly\nby making intercession. In both these respects Christ is priest.\n\n\n _Hebrews 7:24-28_\u2014\u201c_he, because he abideth forever, hath his\n priesthood unchangeable. Wherefore also he is able to save to the\n uttermost them that draw near unto God through him, seeing he ever\n liveth to make intercession for them. For such a high priest\n became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and\n made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, like these\n high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and\n then for the sins of the people: for this he did once for all,\n when he offered up himself. For the law appointeth men high\n priests, having infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was\n after the law, appointeth a Son, perfected for evermore._\u201d The\n whole race was shut out from God by its sin. But God chose the\n Israelites as a priestly nation, Levi as a priestly tribe, Aaron\n as a priestly family, the high priest out of this family as type\n of the great high priest, Jesus Christ. J. S. Candlish, in Bib.\n World, Feb. 1897:87-97, cites the following facts with regard to\n our Lord\u2019s sufferings as proofs of the doctrine of atonement: 1.\n Christ gave up his life by a perfectly free act; 2. out of regard\n to God his Father and obedience to his will; 3. the bitterest\n element of his suffering was that he endured it at the hand of\n God; 4. this divine appointment and infliction of suffering is\n inexplicable, except as Christ endured the divine judgment against\n the sin of the race.\n\n\n1. Christ\u2019s Sacrificial Work, or the Doctrine of the Atonement.\n\n\nThe Scriptures teach that Christ obeyed and suffered in our stead, to\nsatisfy an immanent demand of the divine holiness, and thus remove an\nobstacle in the divine mind to the pardon and restoration of the guilty.\nThis statement may be expanded and explained in a preliminary way as\nfollows:\u2014\n\n(_a_) The fundamental attribute of God is holiness, and holiness is not\nself-communicating love, but self-affirming righteousness. Holiness limits\nand conditions love, for love can will happiness only as happiness results\nfrom or consists with righteousness, that is, with conformity to God.\n\n\n We have shown in our discussion of the divine attributes (vol. 1,\n pages 268-275) that holiness is neither self-love nor love, but\n self-affirming purity and right. Those who maintain that love is\n self-affirming as well as self-communicating, and therefore that\n holiness is God\u2019s love for himself, must still admit that this\n self-affirming love which is holiness conditions and furnishes the\n standard for the self-communicating love which is benevolence. But\n we hold that holiness is not identical with, nor a manifestation\n of, love. Since self-maintenance must precede self-impartation;\n and since benevolence finds its object, motive, standard, and\n limit in righteousness, holiness, the self-affirming attribute,\n can in no way be resolved into love, the self-communicating. God\n must first maintain his own being before he can give to another;\n and this self-maintenance must have its reason and motive in the\n worth of that which is maintained. Holiness cannot be love,\n because love is irrational and capricious except as it has a\n standard by which it is regulated, and this standard cannot be\n itself love, but must be holiness. To make holiness a form of love\n is really to deny its existence, and with this to deny that any\n atonement is necessary for man\u2019s salvation.\n\n\n(_b_) The universe is a reflection of God, and Christ the Logos is its\nlife. God has constituted the universe, and humanity as a part of it, so\nas to express his holiness, positively by connecting happiness with\nrighteousness, negatively by attaching unhappiness or suffering to sin.\n\n\n We have seen, in vol. I, pages 109, 309-311, 335-338, that since\n Christ is the Logos, the immanent God, God revealed in nature, in\n humanity, and in redemption, the universe must be recognized as\n created, upheld and governed by the same Being who in the course\n of history was manifest in human form and who made atonement for\n human sin by his death on Calvary. As all God\u2019s creative activity\n has been exercised through Christ (vol. I, page 310), so it is\n Christ in whom all things consist or are held together (vol. I,\n page 311). Providence, as well as preservation, is his work. He\n makes the universe to reflect God, and especially God\u2019s ethical\n nature. That pain or loss universally and inevitably follow sin is\n the proof that God is unalterably opposed to moral evil; and the\n demands and reproaches of conscience witness that holiness is the\n fundamental attribute of God\u2019s being.\n\n\n(_c_) Christ the Logos, as the Revealer of God in the universe and in\nhumanity, must condemn sin by visiting upon it the suffering which is its\npenalty; while at the same time, as the Life of humanity, he must endure\nthe reaction of God\u2019s holiness against sin which constitutes that penalty.\n\n\n Here is a double work of Christ which Paul distinctly declares in\n _Rom. 8:3_\u2014\u201c_For what the law could not do, in that it was weak\n through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of\n sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh._\u201d The\n meaning is that God did through Christ what the law could not do,\n namely, accomplish deliverance for humanity; and did this by\n sending his son in a nature which in us is identified with sin. In\n connection with sin (\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2), and as an offering for sin,\n God condemned sin, by condemning Christ. Expositor\u2019s Greek\n Testament, _in loco_: \u201cWhen the question is asked, In what sense\n did God send his Son \u2018in connection with sin\u2019, there is only one\n answer possible. He sent him to expiate sin by his sacrificial\n death. This is the centre and foundation of Paul\u2019s gospel; see\n _Rom. 3:25_ _sq._\u201d But whatever God did in condemning sin he did\n through Christ; \u201c_God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto\n himself_\u201d (_2 Cor. 5:19_); Christ was the condemner, as well as\n the condemned; conscience in us, which unites the accuser and the\n accused, shows us how Christ could be both the Judge and the\n Sin-bearer.\n\n\n(_d_) Our personality is not self-contained. We live, move, and have our\nbeing naturally in Christ the Logos. Our reason, affection, conscience,\nand will are complete only in him. He is generic humanity, of which we are\nthe offshoots. When his righteousness condemns sin, and his love\nvoluntarily endures the suffering which is sin\u2019s penalty, humanity\nratifies the judgment of God, makes full propitiation for sin, and\nsatisfies the demands of holiness.\n\n\n My personal existence is grounded in God. I cannot perceive the\n world outside of me nor recognize the existence of my fellow men,\n except as he bridges the gulf between me and the universe.\n Complete self-consciousness would be impossible if we did not\n partake of the universal Reason. The smallest child makes\n assumptions and uses processes of logic which are all instinctive,\n but which indicate the working in him of an absolute and infinite\n Intelligence. True love is possible only as God\u2019s love flows into\n us and takes possession of us; so that the poet can truly say:\n \u201cOur loves in higher love endure.\u201d No human will is truly free,\n unless God emancipates it; only he whom the Son of God makes free\n is free indeed; \u201c_work out your own salvation with fear and\n trembling; for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to\n work_\u201d (_Phil. 2:12, 13_). Our moral nature, even more than our\n intellectual nature, witnesses that we are not sufficient to\n ourselves, but are complete only in him in whom we live and move\n and have our being (_Col. 2:10_; _Acts 17:28_). No man can make a\n conscience for himself. There is a common conscience, over and\n above the finite and individual conscience. That common conscience\n is one in all moral beings. John Watson: \u201cThere is no\n consciousness of self apart from the consciousness of other selves\n and things, and no consciousness of the world apart from the\n consciousness of the single Reality presupposed in both.\u201d This\n single Reality is Jesus Christ, the manifested God, the Light that\n lighteth every man, and the Life of all that lives (_John 1:4,\n 9_). He can represent humanity before God, because his immanent\n Deity constitutes the very essence of humanity.\n\n\n(_e_) While Christ\u2019s love explains his willingness to endure suffering for\nus, only his holiness furnishes the reason for that constitution of the\nuniverse and of human nature which makes this suffering necessary. As\nrespects us, his sufferings are substitutionary, since his divinity and\nhis sinlessness enable him to do for us what we could never do for\nourselves. Yet this substitution is also a sharing\u2014not the work of one\nexternal to us, but of one who is the life of humanity, the soul of our\nsoul and the life of our life, and so responsible with us for the sins of\nthe race.\n\n\n Most of the recent treatises on the Atonement have been\n descriptions of the effects of the Atonement upon life and\n character, but have thrown no light upon the Atonement itself, if\n indeed they have not denied its existence. We must not emphasize\n the effects by ignoring the cause. Scripture declares the ultimate\n aim of the Atonement to be that God \u201c_might himself be just_\u201d\n (_Rom. 3:26_); and no theory of the atonement will meet the\n demands of reason or conscience that does not ground its necessity\n in God\u2019s righteousness, rather than in his love. We acknowledge\n that our conceptions of atonement have suffered some change. To\n our fathers the atonement was a mere historical fact, a sacrifice\n offered in a few brief hours upon the Cross. It was a literal\n substitution of Christ\u2019s suffering for ours, the payment of our\n debt by another, and upon the ground of that payment we are\n permitted to go free. Those sufferings were soon over, and the\n hymn, \u201cLove\u2019s Redeeming Work is Done,\u201d expressed the believer\u2019s\n joy in a finished redemption. And all this is true. But it is only\n a part of the truth. The atonement, like every other doctrine of\n Christianity, is a fact of life; and such facts of life cannot be\n crowded into our definitions, because they are greater than any\n definitions that we can frame. We must add to the idea of\n _substitution_ the idea of _sharing_. Christ\u2019s doing and suffering\n is not that of one external and foreign to us. He is bone of our\n bone, and flesh of our flesh; the bearer of our humanity; yes, the\n very life of the race.\n\n\n(_f_) The historical work of the incarnate Christ is not itself the\natonement,\u2014it is rather the revelation of the atonement. The suffering of\nthe incarnate Christ is the manifestation in space and time of the eternal\nsuffering of God on account of human sin. Yet without the historical work\nwhich was finished on Calvary, the age-long suffering of God could never\nhave been made comprehensible to men.\n\n\n The life that Christ lived in Palestine and the death that he\n endured on Calvary were the revelation of a union with mankind\n which antedated the Fall. Being thus joined to us from the\n beginning, he has suffered in all human sin; \u201c_in all our\n affliction he has been afflicted_\u201d (_Is. 63:9_); so that the\n Psalmist can say: \u201c_Blessed be the Lord, who daily beareth our\n burden, even the God who is our salvation_\u201d (_Ps. 68:19_). The\n historical sacrifice was a burning-glass which focused the\n diffused rays of the Sun of righteousness and made them effective\n in the melting of human hearts. The sufferings of Christ take\n deepest hold upon us only when we see in them the two contrasted\n but complementary truths: that holiness must make penalty to\n follow sin, and that love must share that penalty with the\n transgressor. The Cross was the concrete exhibition of the\n holiness that required, and of the love that provided, man\u2019s\n redemption. Those six hours of pain could never have procured our\n salvation if they had not been a revelation of eternal facts in\n the being of God. The heart of God and the meaning of all previous\n history were then unveiled. The whole evolution of humanity was\n there depicted in its essential elements, on the one hand the sin\n and condemnation of the race, on the other hand the grace and\n suffering of him who was its life and salvation. As he who hung\n upon the cross was God, manifest in the flesh, so the suffering of\n the cross was God\u2019s suffering for sin, manifest in the flesh. The\n imputation of our sins to him is the result of his natural union\n with us. He has been our substitute from the beginning. We cannot\n quarrel with the doctrine of substitution when we see that this\n substitution is but the sharing of our griefs and sorrows by him\n whose very life pulsates in our veins. See A. H. Strong, Christ in\n Creation, 78-80, 177-180.\n\n\n(_g_) The historical sacrifice of our Lord is not only the final\nrevelation of the heart of God, but also the manifestation of the law of\nuniversal life\u2014the law that sin brings suffering to all connected with it,\nand that we can overcome sin in ourselves and in the world only by\nentering into the fellowship of Christ\u2019s sufferings and Christ\u2019s victory,\nor, in other words, only by union with him through faith.\n\n\n We too are subject to the same law of life. We who enter into\n fellowship with our Lord \u201c_fill up ... that which is lacking of\n the afflictions of Christ ... for his body\u2019s sake, which is the\n church_\u201d (_Col. 1:24_). The Christian Church can reign with Christ\n only as it partakes in his suffering. The atonement becomes a\n model and stimulus to self-sacrifice, and a test of Christian\n character. But it is easy to see how the subjective effect of\n Christ\u2019s sacrifice may absorb the attention, to the exclusion of\n its ground and cause. The moral influence of the atonement has\n taken deep hold upon our minds, and we are in danger of forgetting\n that it is the holiness of God, and not the salvation of men, that\n primarily requires it. When sharing excludes substitution; when\n reconciliation of man to God excludes reconciliation of God to\n man; when the only peace secured is peace in the sinner\u2019s heart\n and no thought is given to that peace with God which it is the\n first object of the atonement to secure; then the whole\n evangelical system is weakened, God\u2019s righteousness is ignored,\n and man is practically put in place of God. We must not go back to\n the old mechanical and arbitrary conceptions of the atonement,\u2014we\n must go forward to a more vital apprehension of the relation of\n the race to Christ. A larger knowledge of Christ, the life of\n humanity, will enable us to hold fast the objective nature of the\n atonement, and its necessity as grounded in the holiness of God;\n while at the same time we appropriate all that is good in the\n modern view of the atonement, as the final demonstration of God\u2019s\n constraining love which moves men to repentance and submission.\n See A. H. Strong, Cleveland Address, 1904:16-18; Dinsmore, The\n Atonement in Literature and in Life, 213-250.\n\n\nA. Scripture Methods of Representing the Atonement.\n\n\nWe may classify the Scripture representations according as they conform to\nmoral, commercial, legal or sacrificial analogies.\n\n(_a_) MORAL.\u2014The atonement is described as\n\nA _provision originating in God\u2019s love_, and manifesting this love to the\nuniverse; but also as an _example of disinterested love_, to secure our\ndeliverance from selfishness.\u2014In these latter passages, Christ\u2019s death is\nreferred to as a source of moral stimulus to men.\n\n\n _A provision_: _John 3:16_\u2014\u201c_For God so loved the world, that he\n gave his only begotten Son_\u201d; _Rom. 5:8_\u2014\u201c_God commendeth his own\n love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died\n for us_\u201d; _1 John 4:9_\u2014\u201c_Herein was the love of God manifested in\n us, that God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world that\n we might live through him_\u201d; _Heb. 2:9_\u2014\u201c_Jesus, because of the\n suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace\n of God he should taste of death for every man_\u201d\u2014redemption\n originated in the love of the Father, as well as in that of the\n Son.\u2014_An example_: _Luke 9:22-24_\u2014\u201c_The Son of man must suffer ...\n and be killed.... If any man would come after me, let him ... take\n up his cross daily, and follow me ... whosoever shall lose his\n life for my sake, the same shall save it_\u201d; _2 Cor. 5:15_\u2014\u201c_he\n died for all, that they that live should no longer live unto\n themselves_\u201d; _Gal. 1:4_\u2014\u201c_gave himself for our sins, that he\n might deliver us out of this present __ evil world_\u201d; _Eph.\n 5:25-27_\u2014\u201c_Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for\n it; that he might sanctify it_\u201d; _Col. 1:22_\u2014\u201c_reconciled in the\n body of his flesh through death, to present you holy_\u201d; _Titus\n 2:14_\u2014\u201c_gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all\n iniquity, and purify_\u201d; _1 Pet. 2:21-24_\u2014\u201c_Christ also suffered\n for you, leaving you an example, that ye should follow his steps:\n who did no sin ... who his own self bare our sins in his body upon\n the tree, that we, having died unto sins, might live unto\n righteousness._\u201d Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 181\u2014\u201cA pious\n cottager, on hearing the text, \u2018_God so loved the world_,\u2019\n exclaimed: \u2018Ah, that _was_ love! I could have given myself, but I\n could never have given my son.\u2019 \u201d There was a wounding of the\n Father through the heart of the Son: \u201c_they shall look unto me\n whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him, as one\n mourneth for his only son_\u201d (_Zech. 12:10_).\n\n\n(b) COMMERCIAL.\u2014The atonement is described as\n\nA _ransom_, paid to free us from the bondage of sin (note in these\npassages the use of \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af, the preposition of price, bargain, exchange).\u2014In\nthese passages, Christ\u2019s death is represented as the price of our\ndeliverance from sin and death.\n\n\n _Mat. 20:28, and Mark 10:45_\u2014\u201c_to give his life a ransom for\n many_\u201d\u2014\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd. _1 Tim. 2:6_\u2014\u201c_who gave himself a\n ransom for all_\u201d\u2014\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03af (\u201c_for_,\u201d in the sense of\n \u201cinstead of\u201d) is never confounded with \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1 (\u201c_for_,\u201d in the sense\n of \u201cin behalf of,\u201d \u201cfor the benefit of\u201d). \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03af is the preposition\n of price, bargain, exchange; and this signification is traceable\n in every passage where it occurs in the N. T. See _Mat.\n 2:22_\u2014\u201c_Archelaus was reigning over Judea in the room of_ [\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af]\n _his father Herod_\u201d; _Luke 11:11_\u2014\u201c_shall his son ask ... a fish,\n and he for_ [\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af] _a fish give him a serpent?_\u201d _Heb.\n 12:2_\u2014\u201c_Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith, who for_\n [\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af = as the price of] _the joy that was set before him endured\n the cross_\u201d; _16_\u2014\u201c_Esau, who for_ [\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af = in exchange for] _one\n mess of meat sold his own birthright._\u201d See also _Mat.\n 16:26_\u2014\u201c_what shall a man give in exchange for_ (\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1) _his\n life_\u201d = how shall he buy it back, when once he has lost it?\n \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd = substitutionary ransom. The connection in _1 Tim.\n 2:6_ requires that \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1 should mean \u201cinstead of.\u201d We should\n interpret this \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1 by the \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af in _Mat. 20:28_. \u201cSomething befell\n Christ, and by reason of that, the same thing need not befall\n sinners\u201d (E. Y. Mullins).\n\n Meyer, on _Mat. 20:28_\u2014\u201c_to give his life a ransom for many_\u201d\u2014\u201cThe\n \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae is conceived of as \u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, a ransom, for, through the\n shedding of the blood, it becomes the \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae (price) of redemption.\u201d\n See also _1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23_\u2014\u201c_ye were bought with a price_\u201d; and\n _2 Pet. 2:1_\u2014\u201c_denying even the Master that bought them._\u201d The\n word \u201credemption,\u201d indeed, means simply \u201crepurchase,\u201d or \u201cthe\n state of being repurchased\u201d\u2014_i. e._, delivered by the payment of a\n price. _Rev. 5:9_\u2014\u201c_thou wast slain, and didst purchase unto God\n with thy blood men of every tribe._\u201d Winer, N. T. Grammar, 258\u2014\u201cIn\n Greek, \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af is the preposition of price.\u201d Buttmann, N. T. Grammar,\n 321\u2014\u201cIn the signification of the preposition \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af (instead of,\n for), no deviation occurs from ordinary usage.\u201d See Grimm\u2019s Wilke,\n Lexicon Gr\u00e6co-Lat.: \u201c\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af, _in vicem_, _anstatt_\u201d; Thayer, Lexicon\n N. T.\u2014\u201c\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af, of that for which anything is given, received,\n endured; ... of the price of sale (or purchase) _Mat. 20:28_\u201d;\n also Cremer, N. T. Lex., on \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1.\n\n Pfleiderer, in New World, Sept. 1899, doubts whether Jesus ever\n really uttered the words \u201c_give his life a ransom for many_\u201d\n (_Mat. 20:28_). He regards them as essentially Pauline, and the\n result of later dogmatic reflection on the death of Jesus as a\n means of redemption. So Paine, Evolution of Trinitarianism,\n 377-381. But these words occur not in Luke, the Pauline gospel,\n but in Matthew, which is much earlier. They represent at any rate\n the apostolic conception of Jesus\u2019 teaching, a conception which\n Jesus himself promised should be formed under the guidance of the\n Holy Spirit, who should bring all things to the remembrance of his\n apostles and should guide them into all the truth (_John 14:26_;\n _16:13_). As will be seen below, Pfleiderer declares the Pauline\n doctrine to be that of substitutionary suffering.\n\n\n(_c_) LEGAL.\u2014The atonement is described as\n\nAn act of _obedience_ to the law which sinners had violated; a _penalty_,\nborne in order to rescue the guilty; and an _exhibition_ of God\u2019s\nrighteousness, necessary to the vindication of his procedure in the pardon\nand restoration of sinners.\u2014In these passages the death of Christ is\nrepresented as demanded by God\u2019s law and government.\n\n\n _Obedience_: _Gal. 4:4, 5_\u2014\u201c_born of a woman, born under the law,\n that he might redeem them that were under the law_\u201d; _Mat.\n 3:15_\u2014\u201c_thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness_\u201d\u2014Christ\u2019s\n baptism prefigured his death, and was a consecration to death;\n _cf._ _Mark 10:38_\u2014\u201c_Are ye able to drink the cup that I drink? or\n to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?_\u201d _Luke\n 12:50_\u2014\u201c_I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I\n straitened till it be accomplished!_\u201d _Mat. 26:39_\u2014\u201c_My Father, if\n it be possible, let this cup pass away from me: nevertheless, not\n as I will, but as thou wilt_\u201d; _5:17_\u2014\u201c_Think not that I came to\n destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to\n fulfil_\u201d; _Phil. 2:8_\u2014\u201c_becoming obedient even unto death_\u201d; _Rom.\n 5:19_\u2014\u201c_through the obedience of the one shall the many be made\n righteous_\u201d; _10:4_\u2014\u201c_Christ is the end of the law unto\n righteousness to every one that believeth._\u201d\u2014_Penalty_: _Rom.\n 4:25_\u2014\u201c_who was delivered up for our trespasses, and was raised\n for our justification_\u201d; _8:3_\u2014\u201c_God, sending his own Son in the\n likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the\n flesh_\u201d; _2 Cor. 5:21_\u2014\u201c_Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on\n our behalf_\u201d\u2014here \u201c_sin_\u201d\u2014a sinner, an accursed one (Meyer); _Gal.\n 1:4_\u2014\u201c_gave himself for our sins_\u201d; _3:13_\u2014\u201c_Christ redeemed us\n from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is\n written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree_\u201d; _cf._ _Deut\n 21:23_\u2014\u201c_he that is hanged is accursed of God._\u201d _Heb.\n 9:28_\u2014\u201c_Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of\n many_\u201d; _cf._ _Lev. 5:17_\u2014\u201c_if any one sin ... yet is he guilty,\n and shall bear his iniquity_\u201d; _Num. 14:34_\u2014\u201c_for every day a\n year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years_\u201d; _Lam.\n 5:7_\u2014\u201c_Our fathers sinned and are not; And we have borne their\n iniquities._\u201d\u2014_Exhibition_: _Rom. 3:25, 26_\u2014\u201c_whom God set forth\n to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his\n righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done\n aforetime, in the forbearance of God_\u201d; _cf._ _Heb. 9:15_\u2014\u201c_a\n death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions\n that were under the first covenant._\u201d\n\n On these passages, see an excellent section in Pfleiderer, Die\n Ritschl\u2019sche Theologie, 38-53. Pfleiderer severely criticizes\n Ritschl\u2019s evasion of their natural force and declares Paul\u2019s\n teaching to be that Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the\n law by suffering as a substitute the death threatened by the law\n against sinners. So Orelli Cone, Paul, 261. On the other hand, L.\n L. Paine, Evolution of Trinitarianism, 288-307, chapter on the New\n Christian Atonement, holds that Christ taught only reconciliation\n on condition of repentance. Paul added the idea of mediation drawn\n from the Platonic dualism of Philo. The Epistle to the Hebrews\n made Christ a sacrificial victim to propitiate God, so that the\n reconciliation became Godward instead of manward. But Professor\n Paine\u2019s view that Paul taught an Arian Mediatorship is incorrect.\n \u201c_God was in Christ_\u201d (_2 Cor. 5:19_) and God \u201c_manifested in the\n flesh_\u201d (_1 Tim. 3:16_) are the keynote of Paul\u2019s teaching, and\n this is identical with John\u2019s doctrine of the Logos: \u201c_the Word\n was God_,\u201d and \u201c_the Word became flesh_\u201d (_John 1:1, 14_)\n\n The Outlook, December 15, 1900, in criticizing Prof. Paine, states\n three postulates of the New Trinitarianism as: 1. The essential\n kinship of God and man,\u2014in man there is an essential divineness,\n in God there is an essential humanness. 2. The divine\n immanence,\u2014this universal presence gives nature its physical\n unity, and humanity its moral unity. This is not pantheism, any\n more than the presence of man\u2019s spirit in all he thinks and does\n proves that man\u2019s spirit is only the sum of his experiences. 3.\n God transcends all phenomena,\u2014though in all, he is greater than\n all. He entered perfectly into one man, and through this\n indwelling in one man he is gradually entering into all men and\n filling all men with his fulness, so that Christ will be the\n first-born among many brethren. The defects of this view, which\n contains many elements of truth, are: 1. That it regards Christ as\n the product instead of the Producer, the divinely formed man\n instead of the humanly acting God, the head man among men instead\n of the Creator and Life of humanity; 2. That it therefore renders\n impossible any divine bearing of the sins of all men by Jesus\n Christ, and substitutes for it such a histrionic exhibition of\n God\u2019s feeling and such a beauty of example as are possible within\n the limits of human nature,\u2014in other words, there is no real Deity\n of Christ and no objective atonement.\n\n\n(d) SACRIFICIAL.\u2014The atonement is described as\n\nA work of _priestly mediation_, which reconciles God to men,\u2014notice here\nthat the term \u201creconciliation\u201d has its usual sense of removing enmity, not\nfrom the offending, but from the offended party;\u2014a _sin-offering_,\npresented on behalf of transgressors;\u2014a _propitiation_, which satisfies\nthe demands of violated holiness;\u2014and a _substitution_, of Christ\u2019s\nobedience and sufferings for ours.\u2014These passages, taken together, show\nthat Christ\u2019s death is demanded by God\u2019s attribute of justice, or\nholiness, if sinners are to be saved.\n\n\n _Priestly mediation_: _Heb. 9:11, 12_\u2014\u201c_Christ having come a high\n priest, ... nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but\n through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy\n place, having obtained eternal redemption_\u201d; _Rom. 5:10_\u2014\u201c_while\n we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of\n his Son_\u201d; _2 Cor. 5:18, 19_\u2014\u201c_all things are of God, who\n reconciled us to himself through Christ.... God was in Christ\n reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their\n trespasses_\u201d; _Eph. 2:16_\u2014\u201c_might reconcile them both in one body\n unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby_\u201d;\n _cf._ _12, 13, 19_\u2014\u201c_strangers from the covenants of the\n promise.... far off.... no more strangers and sojourners, but ye\n are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of\n God_\u201d; _Col. 1:20_\u2014\u201c_through him to reconcile all things unto\n himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross._\u201d\n\n On all these passages, see Meyer, who shows the meaning of the\n apostle to be, that \u201cwe were \u2018_enemies_,\u2019 not actively, as hostile\n to God, but passively, as those with whom God was angry.\u201d The\n epistle to the Romans begins with the revelation of wrath against\n Gentile and Jew alike (_Rom. 1:18_). \u201c_While we were enemies_\u201d\n (_Rom. 5:10_)\u2014\u201cwhen God was hostile to us.\u201d \u201cReconciliation\u201d is\n therefore the removal of God\u2019s wrath toward man. Meyer, on this\n last passage, says that Christ\u2019s death does not remove man\u2019s wrath\n toward God [this is not the work of Christ, but of the Holy\n Spirit]. The offender reconciles the person offended, not himself.\n See Denney, Com. on _Rom. 5:9-11_, in Expositor\u2019s Gk. Test.\n\n _Cf._ _Num. 25:13_, where Phinehas, by slaying Zimri, is said to\n have \u201c_made atonement for the children of Israel_.\u201d Surely, the\n \u201c_atonement_\u201d here cannot be a reconciliation of _Israel_. The\n action terminates, not on the subject, but on the object\u2014God. So,\n _1 Sam. 29:4_\u2014\u201c_wherewith should this fellow reconcile himself\n unto his lord? should it not be with the heads of these men?_\u201d\n _Mat. 5:23, 24_\u2014\u201c_If therefore thou art offering thy gift at the\n altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against\n thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first\n be reconciled to thy brother_ [_i. e._, remove his enmity, not\n thine own], _and then come and offer thy gift._\u201d See Shedd, Dogm.\n Theol., 2:387-398.\n\n Pfleiderer, Die Ritschl\u2019sche Theologie, 42\u2014\u201c\u1f18\u03c7\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (_Rom.\n 5:10_) = not the active disposition of enmity to God on our part,\n but our passive condition under the enmity or wrath of God.\u201d Paul\n was not the author of this doctrine,\u2014he claims that he received it\n from Christ himself (_Gal. 1:12_). Simon, Reconciliation, 167\u2014\u201cThe\n idea that only man needs to be reconciled arises from a false\n conception of the unchangeableness of God. But God would be\n unjust, if his relation to man were the same after his sin as it\n was before.\u201d The old hymn expressed the truth: \u201cMy God is\n reconciled; His pardoning voice I hear; He owns me for his child;\n I can no longer fear; With filial trust I now draw nigh, And\n \u2018Father, Abba, Father\u2019 cry.\u201d\n\n _A sin-offering_: _John 1:29_\u2014\u201c_Behold, the Lamb of God, that\n taketh away the sin of the world_\u201d\u2014here \u03b1\u1f34\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd means to take away\n by taking or bearing; to take, and so take away. It is an allusion\n to the sin-offering of _Isaiah 53:6-12_\u2014\u201c_when thou shalt make his\n soul an offering for sin ... as a lamb that is led to the\n slaughter ... Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all._\u201d\n _Mat. 26:28_\u2014\u201c_this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured\n out for many unto remission of sins_\u201d; _cf._ _Ps. 50:5_\u2014\u201c_made a\n covenant with me by sacrifice._\u201d _1 John 1:7_\u2014\u201c_the blood of Jesus\n his Son cleanseth us from all sin_\u201d\u2014not sanctification, but\n justification; _1 Cor. 5:7_\u2014\u201c_our passover also hath been\n sacrificed, even Christ_\u201d; _cf._ _Deut. 16:2-6_\u2014\u201c_thou shalt\n sacrifice the passover unto Jehovah thy God._\u201d _Eph. 5:2_\u2014\u201c_gave\n himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for an odor\n of a sweet smell_\u201d (see Com. of Salmond, in Expositor\u2019s Greek\n Testament); _Heb. 9:14_\u2014\u201c_the blood of Christ, who through the\n eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God_\u201d; _22,\n 26_\u2014\u201c_apart from shedding of blood there is no remission.... now\n once in the end of the ages hath he been manifested to put away\n sin by the sacrifice of himself_\u201d; _1 Pet. 1:18, 19_\u2014\u201c_redeemed\n ... with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without\n spot, even the blood of Christ._\u201d See Expos. Gk. Test., on _Eph.\n 1:7_.\n\n Lowrie, Doctrine of St. John, 35, points out that _John\n 6:52-59_\u2014\u201c_eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood_\u201d\u2014is Christ\u2019s\n reference to his death in terms of _sacrifice_. So, as we shall\n see below, it is a _propitiation_ (_1 John 2:2_). We therefore\n strongly object to the statement of Wilson, Gospel of Atonement,\n 64\u2014\u201cChrist\u2019s death is a sacrifice, if sacrifice means the crowning\n instance of that suffering of the innocent for the guilty which\n springs from the solidarity of mankind; but there is no thought of\n substitution or expiation.\u201d Wilson forgets that this necessity of\n suffering arises from God\u2019s righteousness; that without this\n suffering man cannot be saved; that Christ endures what we, on\n account of the insensibility of sin, cannot feel or endure; that\n this suffering takes the place of ours, so that we are saved\n thereby. Wilson holds that the Incarnation _constituted_ the\n Atonement, and that all thought of expiation may be eliminated.\n Henry B. Smith far better summed up the gospel in the words:\n \u201cIncarnation in order to Atonement.\u201d We regard as still better the\n words: \u201cIncarnation in order to reveal the Atonement.\u201d\n\n _A propitiation_: _Rom. 3:25, 26_\u2014\u201c_whom God set forth to be a\n propitiation, ... in his blood ... that he might himself be just,\n and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus._\u201d A full and\n critical exposition of this passage will be found under the\n Ethical Theory of the Atonement, pages 750-760. Here it is\n sufficient to say that it shows: (1) that Christ\u2019s death is a\n propitiatory sacrifice; (2) that its first and main effect is upon\n God; (3) that the particular attribute in God which demands the\n atonement is his justice, or holiness; (4) that the satisfaction\n of this holiness is the necessary condition of God\u2019s justifying\n the believer.\n\n Compare _Luke 18:13_, marg.\u2014\u201c_God, be thou merciful unto me the\n sinner_\u201d; lit.: \u201c_God be propitiated toward me the sinner_\u201d\u2014by the\n sacrifice, whose smoke was ascending before the publican, even\n while he prayed. _Heb. 2:17_\u2014\u201c_a merciful and faithful high priest\n in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of\n the people_\u201d; _1 John 2:2_\u2014\u201c_and he is the propitiation for our\n sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world_\u201d;\n _4:10_\u2014\u201c_Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved\n us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins_\u201d; _cf._\n _Gen. 32:20_, LXX.\u2014\u201c_I will appease_ [\u1f10\u03be\u03b9\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, \u201cpropitiate\u201d]\n _him with the present that goeth before me_\u201d; _Prov. 16:14_,\n LXX.\u2014\u201c_The wrath of a king is as messengers of death; but a wise\n man will pacify it_\u201d [\u1f10\u03be\u03b9\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u201cpropitiate it\u201d].\n\n On propitiation, see Foster, Christian Life and Theology,\n 216\u2014\u201cSomething was thereby done which rendered God inclined to\n pardon the sinner. God is made inclined to forgive sinners by the\n sacrifice, because his righteousness was exhibited by the\n infliction of the penalty of sin; but not because he needed to be\n inclined in heart to love the sinner or to exercise his mercy. In\n fact, it was he himself who \u2018_set forth_\u2019 Jesus as \u2018_a\n propitiation_\u2019 (_Rom. 3:25, 26_).\u201d Paul never merges the objective\n atonement in its subjective effects, although no writer of the New\n Testament has more fully recognized these subjective effects. With\n him Christ for us upon the Cross is the necessary preparation for\n Christ _in_ us by his Spirit. Gould, Bib. Theol. N. T., 74, 75,\n 89, 172, unwarrantably contrasts Paul\u2019s representation of Christ\n as priest with what he calls the representation of Christ as\n prophet in the Epistle to the Hebrews: \u201cThe priest says: Man\u2019s\n return to God is not enough,\u2014there must be an expiation of man\u2019s\n sin. This is Paul\u2019s doctrine. The prophet says: There never was a\n divine provision for sacrifice. Man\u2019s return to God is the thing\n wanted. But this return must be completed. Jesus is the perfect\n prophet who gives us an example of restored obedience, and who\n comes in to perfect man\u2019s imperfect work. This is the doctrine of\n the Epistle to the Hebrews.\u201d This recognition of expiation in\n Paul\u2019s teaching, together with denial of its validity and\n interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews as prophetic rather\n than priestly, is a curiosity of modern exegesis.\n\n Lyman Abbott, Theology of an Evolutionist, 107-127, goes still\n further and affirms: \u201cIn the N. T. God is never said to be\n propitiated, nor is it ever said that Jesus Christ propitiates God\n or satisfies God\u2019s wrath.\u201d Yet Dr. Abbott adds that in the N. T.\n God is represented as self-propitiated: \u201cChristianity is\n distinguished from paganism by representing God as appeasing his\n own wrath and satisfying his own justice by the forth-putting of\n his own love.\u201d This self-propitiation however must not be thought\n of as a bearing of penalty: \u201cNowhere in the O. T. is the idea of a\n sacrifice coupled with the idea of penalty,\u2014it is always coupled\n with purification\u2014\u2018_with his stripes we are healed_\u2019 (_Is. 53:5_).\n And in the N. T., \u2018_the Lamb of God ... taketh away the sin of the\n world_\u2019 (_John 1:29_); \u2018_the blood of Jesus ... cleanseth_\u2019 (_1\n John 1:7_).... What humanity needs is not the removal of the\n penalty, but removal of the sin.\u201d This seems to us a distinct\n contradiction of both Paul and John, with whom propitiation is an\n essential of Christian doctrine (see _Rom. 3:25_; _1 John 2:2_),\n while we grant that the propitiation is made, not by sinful man,\n but by God himself in the person of his Son. See George B. Gow, on\n The Place of Expiation in Human Redemption, Am. Jour. Theol.,\n 1900:734-756.\n\n _A substitution_: _Luke 22:37_\u2014\u201c_he was reckoned with\n transgressors_\u201d; _cf._ _Lev. 16:21, 22_\u2014\u201c_and Aaron shall lay both\n his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all\n the iniquities of the children of Israel ... he shall put them\n upon the head of the goat ... and the goat shall bear upon him all\n their iniquities unto a solitary land_\u201d; _Is. 53:5, 6_\u2014\u201c_he was\n wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities;\n the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes\n we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned\n every one to his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on him the\n iniquity of us all._\u201d _John 10:11_\u2014\u201c_the good shepherd layeth down\n his life for the sheep_\u201d; _Rom. 5:6-8_\u2014\u201c_while we were yet weak,\n in due season Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a\n righteous man will one die: for peradventure for the good man some\n one would even dare to die. But God commendeth his own love toward\n us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us_\u201d; _1\n Pet. 3:18_\u2014\u201c_Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for\n the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God._\u201d\n\n To these texts we must add all those mentioned under (_b_) above,\n in which Christ\u2019s death is described as a ransom. Besides Meyer\u2019s\n comment, there quoted, on _Mat. 20:28_\u2014\u201c_to give his life a ransom\n for many,_\u201d \u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd\u2014Meyer also says: \u201c\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af denotes\n substitution. That which is given as a ransom takes the place of,\n is given instead of, those who are to be set free in consideration\n thereof. \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03af can only be understood in the sense of substitution\n in the act of which the ransom is presented as an equivalent, to\n secure the deliverance of those on whose behalf the ransom is\n paid,\u2014a view which is only confirmed by the fact that, in other\n parts of the N. T., this ransom is usually spoken of as an\n expiatory sacrifice. That which they [those for whom the ransom is\n paid] are redeemed from, is the eternal \u1f00\u03c0\u03ce\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 in which, as\n having the wrath of God abiding upon them, they would remain\n imprisoned, as in a state of hopeless bondage, unless the guilt of\n their sins were expiated.\u201d\n\n Cremer, N. T. Lex., says that \u201cin both the N. T. texts, _Mat.\n 16:26_ and _Mark 8:37_, the word \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1, like \u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, is akin\n to the conception of atonement: _cf._ _Is. 43:3, 4_; _51:11_;\n _Amos 5:12_. This is a confirmation of the fact that satisfaction\n and substitution essentially belong to the idea of atonement.\u201d\n Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:515 (Syst. Doct., 3:414)\u2014\u201c_Mat. 20:28_\n contains the thought of a substitution. While the whole world is\n not of equal worth with the soul, and could not purchase it,\n Christ\u2019s death and work are so valuable, that they can serve as a\n ransom.\u201d\n\n The sufferings of the righteous were recognized in Rabbinical\n Judaism as having a substitutionary significance for the sins of\n others; see Weber, Altsynagog. Palestin. Theologie, 314; Sch\u00fcrer,\n Geschichte des j\u00fcdischen Volkes, 2:466 (translation, div. II, vol.\n 2:186). But Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 2:225-262, says this idea of\n vicarious satisfaction was an addition of Paul to the teaching of\n Jesus. Wendt grants that both Paul and John taught substitution,\n but he denies that Jesus did. He claims that \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af in _Mat. 20:28_\n means simply that Jesus gave his life as a means whereby he\n obtains the deliverance of many. But this interpretation is a\n non-natural one, and violates linguistic usage. It holds that Paul\n and John misunderstood or misrepresented the words of our Lord. We\n prefer the frank acknowledgment by Pfleiderer that Jesus, as well\n as Paul and John, taught substitution, but that neither one of\n them was correct. Colestock, on Substitution as a Stage in\n Theological Thought, similarly holds that the idea of substitution\n must be abandoned. We grant that the idea of substitution needs to\n be supplemented by the idea of sharing, and so relieved of its\n external and mechanical implications, but that to abandon the\n conception itself is to abandon faith in the evangelists and in\n Jesus himself.\n\n Dr. W. N. Clarke, in his Christian Theology, rejects the doctrine\n of retribution for sin, and denies the possibility of penal\n suffering for another. A proper view of penalty, and of Christ\u2019s\n vital connection with humanity, would make these rejected ideas\n not only credible but inevitable. Dr. Alvah Hovey reviews Dr.\n Clarke\u2019s Theology, Am. Jour. Theology, Jan. 1899:205\u2014\u201cIf we do not\n import into the endurance of penalty some degree of sinful feeling\n or volition, there is no ground for denying that a holy being may\n bear it in place of a sinner. For nothing but wrong-doing, or\n approval of wrong-doing, is impossible to a holy being. Indeed,\n for one to bear for another the just penalty of his sin, provided\n that other may thereby be saved from it and made a friend of God,\n is perhaps the highest conceivable function of love or good-will.\u201d\n Denney, Studies, 126, 127, shows that \u201csubstitution means simply\n that man is dependent for his acceptance with God upon something\n which Christ has done for him, and which he could never have done\n and never needs to do for himself.... The forfeiting of his free\n life has freed our forfeited lives. This substitution can be\n preached, and it binds men to Christ by making them forever\n dependent on him. The condemnation of our sins in Christ upon his\n cross is the barb on the hook,\u2014without it your bait will be taken,\n but you will not catch men; you will not annihilate pride, and\n make Christ the Alpha and Omega in man\u2019s redemption.\u201d On the\n Scripture proofs, see Crawford, Atonement, 1:1-193; Dale,\n Atonement, 65-256; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, iv. 2:243-342;\n Smeaton, Our Lord\u2019s and the Apostles\u2019 Doctrine of Atonement.\n\n\nAn examination of the passages referred to shows that, while the forms in\nwhich the atoning work of Christ is described are in part derived from\nmoral, commercial, and legal relations, the prevailing language is that of\nsacrifice. A correct view of the atonement must therefore be grounded upon\na proper interpretation of the institution of sacrifice, especially as\nfound in the Mosaic system.\n\n\n The question is sometimes asked: Why is there so little in Jesus\u2019\n own words about atonement? Dr. R. W. Dale replies: Because Christ\n did not come to preach the gospel,\u2014he came that there might be a\n gospel to preach. The Cross had to be endured, before it could be\n explained. Jesus came to be the sacrifice, not to _speak_ about\n it. But his reticence is just what he told us we should find in\n his words. He proclaimed their incompleteness, and referred us to\n a subsequent Teacher\u2014the Holy Spirit. The testimony of the Holy\n Spirit we have in the words of the apostles. We must remember that\n the gospels were supplementary to the epistles, not the epistles\n to the gospels. The gospels merely fill out our knowledge of\n Christ. It is not for the Redeemer to magnify the cost of\n salvation, but for the redeemed. \u201cNone of the ransomed ever knew.\u201d\n The doer of a great deed has the least to say about it.\n\n Harnack: \u201cThere is an inner law which compels the sinner to look\n upon God as a wrathful Judge.... Yet no other feeling is\n possible.\u201d We regard this confession as a demonstration of the\n psychological correctness of Paul\u2019s doctrine of a vicarious\n atonement. Human nature has been so constituted by God that it\n reflects the demand of his holiness. That conscience needs to be\n appeased is proof that God needs to be appeased. When Whiton\n declares that propitiation is offered only to our conscience,\n which is the wrath of that which is of God within us, and that\n Christ bore our sins, not in substitution for us, but in\n fellowship with us, to rouse our consciences to hatred of them, he\n forgets that God is not only immanent in the conscience but also\n transcendent, and that the verdicts of conscience are only\n indications of the higher verdicts of God: _1 John 3:20_\u2014\u201c_if our\n heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all\n things._\u201d Lyman Abbott, Theology of an Evolutionist, 57\u2014\u201cA people\n half emancipated from the paganism that imagines that God must be\n placated by sacrifice before he can forgive sins gave to the\n sacrificial system that Israel had borrowed from paganism the same\n divine authority which they gave to those revolutionary elements\n in the system which were destined eventually to sweep it entirely\n out of existence.\u201d So Bowne, Atonement, 74\u2014\u201cThe essential moral\n fact is that, if God is to forgive unrighteous men, some way must\n be found of making them righteous. The difficulty is not forensic,\n but moral.\u201d Both Abbott and Bowne regard righteousness as a mere\n form of benevolence, and the atonement as only a means to a\n utilitarian end, namely, the restoration and happiness of the\n creature. A more correct view of God\u2019s righteousness as the\n fundamental attribute of his being, as inwrought into the\n constitution of the universe, and as infallibly connecting\n suffering with sin, would have led these writers to see a divine\n wisdom and inspiration in the institution of sacrifice, and a\n divine necessity that God should suffer if man is to go free.\n\n\nB. The Institution of Sacrifice, more especially as found in the Mosaic\nsystem.\n\n\n(_a_) We may dismiss as untenable, on the one hand, the theory that\nsacrifice is essentially the presentation of a gift (Hofmann,\nBaring-Gould) or a feast (Spencer) to the Deity; and on the other hand the\ntheory that sacrifice is a symbol of renewed fellowship (Keil), or of the\ngrateful offering to God of the whole life and being of the worshiper\n(B\u00e4hr). Neither of these theories can explain the fact that the sacrifice\nis a bloody offering, involving the suffering and death of the victim, and\nbrought, not by the simply grateful, but by the conscience-stricken soul.\n\n\n For the views of sacrifice here mentioned, see Hofmann,\n Schriftbeweis, II, 1:214-294; Baring-Gould, Origin and Devel. of\n Relig. Belief, 368-390; Spencer, De Legibus Hebr\u00e6orum; Keil, Bib.\n Arch\u00e4ologie, sec. 43, 47; B\u00e4hr, Symbolik des Mosaischen Cultus,\n 2:196, 269; also synopsis of B\u00e4hr\u2019s view, in Bib. Sac., Oct.\n 1870:593; Jan. 1871:171. _Per contra_, see Crawford, Atonement,\n 228-240; Lange, Introd. to Com. on Exodus, 38\u2014\u201cThe heathen change\n God\u2019s symbols into myths (rationalism), as the Jews change God\u2019s\n sacrifices into meritorious service (ritualism).\u201d Westcott,\n Hebrews, 281-294, seems to hold with Spencer that sacrifice is\n essentially a feast made as an offering to God. So Philo: \u201cGod\n receives the faithful offerer to his own table, giving him back\n part of the sacrifice.\u201d Compare with this the ghosts in Homer\u2019s\n Odyssey, who receive strength from drinking the blood of the\n sacrifices. B\u00e4hr\u2019s view is only half of the truth. Reunion\n presupposes Expiation. Lyttleton, in Lux Mundi, 281\u2014\u201cThe sinner\n must first expiate his sin by suffering,\u2014then only can he give to\n God the life thus purified by an expiatory death.\u201d Jahn, Bib.\n Arch\u00e6ology, sec. 373, 378\u2014\u201cIt is of the very idea of the sacrifice\n that the victim shall be presented directly to God, and in the\n presentation shall be destroyed.\u201d Bowne, Philos. of Theism, 253,\n speaks of the delicate feeling of the Biblical critic who, with\n his mouth full of beef or mutton, professes to be shocked at the\n cruelty to animals involved in the temple sacrifices. Lord Bacon:\n \u201cHieroglyphics came before letters, and parables before\n arguments.\u201d \u201cThe old dispensation was God\u2019s great parable to man.\n The Theocracy was graven all over with divine hieroglyphics. Does\n there exist the Rosetta stone by which we can read these\n hieroglyphics? The shadows, that have been shortening up into\n definiteness of outline, pass away and vanish utterly under the\n full meridian splendor of the Sun of Righteousness.\u201d On _Eph.\n 1:7_\u2014\u201c_the blood of Christ,_\u201d as an expiatory sacrifice which\n secures our justification, see Salmond, in Expositor\u2019s Greek\n Testament.\n\n\n(_b_) The true import of the sacrifice, as is abundantly evident from both\nheathen and Jewish sources, embraced three elements,\u2014first, that of\nsatisfaction to offended Deity, or propitiation offered to violated\nholiness; secondly, that of substitution of suffering and death on the\npart of the innocent, for the deserved punishment of the guilty; and,\nthirdly, community of life between the offerer and the victim. Combining\nthese three ideas, we have as the total import of the sacrifice:\nSatisfaction by substitution, and substitution by incorporation. The\nbloody sacrifice among the heathen expressed the consciousness that sin\ninvolves guilt; that guilt exposes man to the righteous wrath of God; that\nwithout expiation of that guilt there is no forgiveness; and that through\nthe suffering of another who shares his life the sinner may expiate his\nsin.\n\n\n Luthardt, Compendium der Dogmatik, 170, quotes from N\u00e4gelsbach,\n Nachhomerische Theologie, 338 _sq._\u2014\u201cThe essence of punishment is\n retribution (Vergeltung), and retribution is a fundamental law of\n the world-order. In retribution lies the atoning power of\n punishment. This consciousness that the nature of sin demands\n retribution, in other words, this certainty that there is in Deity\n a righteousness that punishes sin, taken in connection with the\n consciousness of personal transgression, awakens the longing for\n atonement,\u201d\u2014which is expressed in the sacrifice of a slaughtered\n beast. The Greeks recognized representative expiation, not only in\n the sacrifice of beasts, but in human sacrifices. See examples in\n Tyler, Theol. Gk. Poets, 196, 197, 245-253; see also Virgil,\n \u00c6neid, 5:815\u2014\u201cUnum pro multis dabitur caput\u201d; Ovid, Fasti, vi\u2014\u201cCor\n pro corde, precor; pro fibris sumite fibras. Hanc animam vobis pro\n meliore damus.\u201d\n\n Stahl, Christliche Philosophie, 146\u2014\u201cEvery unperverted conscience\n declares the eternal law of righteousness that punishment shall\n follow inevitably on sin. In the moral realm, there is another way\n of satisfying righteousness\u2014that of atonement. This differs from\n punishment in its effect, that is, reconciliation,\u2014the moral\n authority asserting itself, not by the destruction of the\n offender, but by taking him up into itself and uniting itself to\n him. But the offender cannot offer his own sacrifice,\u2014that must be\n done by the priest.\u201d In the Prometheus Bound, of \u00c6schylus, Hermes\n says to Prometheus: \u201cHope not for an end to such oppression, until\n a god appears as thy substitute in torment, ready to descend for\n thee into the unillumined realm of Hades and the dark abyss of\n Tartarus.\u201d And this is done by Chiron, the wisest and most just of\n the Centaurs, the son of Chronos, sacrificing himself for\n Prometheus, while Hercules kills the eagle at his breast and so\n delivers him from torment. This legend of \u00c6schylus is almost a\n prediction of the true Redeemer. See article on Sacrifice, by\n Paterson, in Hastings, Bible Dictionary.\n\n Westcott, Hebrews, 282, maintains that the idea of expiatory\n offerings, answering to the consciousness of sin, does not belong\n to the early religion of Greece. We reply that Homer\u2019s Iliad, in\n its first book, describes just such an expiatory offering made to\n Ph\u0153bus Apollo, so turning away his wrath and causing the plague\n that wastes the Greeks to cease. E. G. Robinson held that there is\n \u201cno evidence that the Jews had any idea of the efficacy of\n sacrifice for the expiation of moral guilt.\u201d But in approaching\n either the tabernacle or the temple the altar always presented\n itself before the laver. H. Clay Trumbull, S. S. Times, Nov. 30,\n 1901:801\u2014\u201cThe Passover was not a passing by of the houses of\n Israelites, but a passing over or crossing over by Jehovah to\n enter the homes of those who would welcome him and who had entered\n into covenant with him by sacrifice. The Oriental sovereign was\n accompanied by his executioner, who entered to smite the\n first-born of the house only when there was no covenanting at the\n door.\u201d We regard this explanation as substituting an incidental\n result and effect of sacrifice for the sacrifice itself. This\n always had in it the idea of reparation for wrong-doing by\n substitutionary suffering.\n\n Curtis, Primitive Semitic Religion of To-day, on the Significance\n of Sacrifice, 218-237, tells us that he went to Palestine\n prepossessed by Robertson Smith\u2019s explanation that sacrifice was a\n feast symbolizing friendly communion between man and his God. He\n came to the conclusion that the sacrificial meal was not the\n primary element, but that there was a substitutionary value in the\n offering. Gift and feast are not excluded; but these are sequences\n and incidentals. Misfortune is evidence of sin; sin needs to be\n expiated; the anger of God needs to be removed. The sacrifice\n consisted principally in the shedding of the blood of the victim.\n The \u201cbursting forth of the blood\u201d satisfied and bought off the\n Deity. George Adam Smith on _Isaiah 53_ (2:364)\u2014\u201cInnocent as he\n is, he gives his life as a satisfaction to the divine law for the\n guilt of his people. His death was no mere martyrdom or\n miscarriage of human justice: in God\u2019s intent and purpose, but\n also by its own voluntary offering, it was an expiatory sacrifice.\n There is no exegete but agrees to this. 353\u2014The substitution of\n the servant of Jehovah for the guilty people and the redemptive\n force of that substitution are no arbitrary doctrine.\u201d\n\n _Satisfaction_ means simply that there is a principle in God\u2019s\n being which not simply refuses sin passively, but also opposes it\n actively. The judge, if he be upright, must repel a bribe with\n indignation, and the pure woman must flame out in anger against an\n infamous proposal. R. W. Emerson: \u201cYour goodness must have some\n edge to it,\u2014else it is none.\u201d But the judge and the woman do not\n enjoy this repelling,\u2014they suffer rather. So God\u2019s satisfaction is\n no gloating over the pain or loss which he is compelled to\n inflict. God has a wrath which is calm, judicial, inevitable\u2014the\n natural reaction of holiness against unholiness. Christ suffers\n both as one with the inflicter and as one with those on whom\n punishment is inflicted: \u201c_For Christ also pleased not himself;\n but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee\n fell on me_\u201d (_Rom. 15:3_; _cf._ _Ps. 69:9_).\n\n\n(_c_) In considering the exact purport and efficacy of the Mosaic\nsacrifices, we must distinguish between their theocratical, and their\nspiritual, offices. They were, on the one hand, the appointed means\nwhereby the offender could be restored to the outward place and\nprivileges, as member of the theocracy, which he had forfeited by neglect\nor transgression; and they accomplished this purpose irrespectively of the\ntemper and spirit with which they were offered. On the other hand, they\nwere symbolic of the vicarious sufferings and death of Christ, and\nobtained forgiveness and acceptance with God only as they were offered in\ntrue penitence, and with faith in God\u2019s method of salvation.\n\n\n _Heb. 9:13, 14_\u2014\u201c_For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the\n ashes of a heifer sprinkling them that have been defiled, sanctify\n unto the cleanness of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of\n Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without\n blemish unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve\n the living God?_\u201d _10:3, 4_\u2014\u201c_But in those sacrifices there is a\n remembrance made of sins year by year. For it is impossible that\n the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins._\u201d Christ\u2019s\n death also, like the O. T. sacrifices, works temporal benefit even\n to those who have no faith; see pages 771, 772.\n\n Robertson, Early Religion of Israel, 441, 448, answers the\n contention of the higher critics that, in the days of Isaiah,\n Micah, Hosea, Jeremiah, no Levitical code existed; that these\n prophets expressed disapproval of the whole sacrificial system, as\n a thing of mere human device and destitute of divine sanction. But\n the Book of the Covenant surely existed in their day, with its\n command: \u201c_An altar of earth shalt thou make unto me, and shalt\n sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings_\u201d (_Ex. 20:24_). Or, if it\n is maintained that Isaiah condemned even that early piece of\n legislation, it proves too much, for it would make the prophet\n also condemn the Sabbath as a piece of will-worship, and even\n reject prayer as displeasing to God, since in the same connection\n he says: \u201c_new moon and Sabbath ... I cannot away with ... when ye\n spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you_\u201d (_Is.\n 1:13-15_). Isaiah was condemning simply _heartless_ sacrifice;\n else we make him condemn all that went on at the temple. _Micah\n 6:8_\u2014\u201c_what doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do justly?_\u201d This\n does not exclude the offering of sacrifice, for Micah anticipates\n the time when \u201c_the mountain of Jehovah\u2019s house shall be\n established on the top of the mountains, ... And many nations\n shall go and say, Come ye and let us go up to the mountain of\n Jehovah_\u201d (_Micah 4:1, 2_). _Hos. 6:6_\u2014\u201c_I desire goodness, and\n not sacrifice,_\u201d is interpreted by what follows, \u201c_and the\n knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings_.\u201d Compare _Prov. 8:10;\n 17:12_; and Samuel\u2019s words: \u201c_to obey is better than sacrifice_\u201d\n (_1 Sam. 15:22_). What was the altar from which Isaiah drew his\n description of God\u2019s theophany and from which was taken the live\n coal that touched his lips and prepared him to be a prophet? (_Is.\n 6:1-8). Jer. 7:22_\u2014\u201c_I spake not ... concerning burnt-offerings or\n sacrifices ... but this thing ... Hearken unto my voice._\u201d\n Jeremiah insists only on the worthlessness of sacrifice where\n there is no heart.\n\n\n(_d_) Thus the Old Testament sacrifices, when rightly offered, involved a\nconsciousness of sin on the part of the worshiper, the bringing of a\nvictim to atone for the sin, the laying of the hand of the offerer upon\nthe victim\u2019s head, the confession of sin by the offerer, the slaying of\nthe beast, the sprinkling or pouring-out of the blood upon the altar, and\nthe consequent forgiveness of the sin and acceptance of the worshiper. The\nsin-offering and the scape-goat of the great day of atonement symbolized\nyet more distinctly the two elementary ideas of sacrifice, namely,\nsatisfaction and substitution, together with the consequent removal of\nguilt from those on whose behalf the sacrifice was offered.\n\n\n _Lev. 1:4_\u2014\u201c_And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the\n burnt-offering; and it shall be accepted for him, to make\n atonement for him_\u201d; _4:20_\u2014\u201c_Thus shall he do with the bullock;\n as he did with the bullock of the sin-offering, so shall he do\n with this; and the priest shall make atonement for them, and they\n shall be forgiven_\u201d; so _31_ and _35_\u2014\u201c_and the priest shall make\n atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned, and he\n shall be forgiven_\u201d; so _5:10, 16_; _6:7_. _Lev. 17:11_\u2014\u201c_For the\n life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon\n the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood\n that maketh atonement by reason of the life._\u201d\n\n The patriarchal sacrifices were sin-offerings, as the sacrifice of\n Job for his friends witnesses: _Job 42:7-9_\u2014\u201c_My wrath is kindled\n against thee_ [Eliphaz] _... therefore, take unto you seven\n bullocks ... and offer up for yourselves a burnt-offering_\u201d; _cf._\n _33:24_\u2014\u201c_Then God is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him\n from going down to the pit, I have found a ransom_\u201d; _1:5_\u2014Job\n offered burnt-offerings for his sons, for he said, \u201c_It may be\n that my sons have sinned, and renounced God in their hearts_\u201d;\n _Gen. 8:20_\u2014Noah \u201c_offered burnt-offerings on the altar_\u201d;\n _21_\u2014\u201c_and Jehovah smelled the sweet savor; and Jehovah said in\n his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man\u2019s\n sake._\u201d\n\n That vicarious suffering is intended in all these sacrifices, is\n plain from _Lev. 16:1-34_\u2014the account of the sin-offering and the\n scape-goat of the great day of atonement, the full meaning of\n which we give below; also from _Gen. 22:13_\u2014\u201c_Abraham went and\n took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt-offering in the stead\n of his son_\u201d; _Ex. 32:30-32_\u2014where Moses says: \u201c_Ye have sinned a\n great sin: and now I will go up unto Jehovah; peradventure I shall\n make atonement for your sin. And Moses returned unto Jehovah, and\n said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them\n gods of gold. Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin\u2014; and if\n not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast\n written._\u201d See also _Deut. 21:1-9_\u2014the expiation of an uncertain\n murder, by the sacrifice of a heifer,\u2014where Oehler, O. T.\n Theology, 1:389, says: \u201cEvidently the punishment of death incurred\n by the manslayer is executed symbolically upon the heifer.\u201d In\n _Is. 53:1-12_\u2014\u201c_All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned\n every one to his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on him the\n iniquity of us all ... stripes ... offering for sin_\u201d\u2014the ideas of\n both satisfaction and substitution are still more plain.\n\n Wallace, Representative Responsibility: \u201cThe animals offered in\n sacrifice must be animals brought into direct relation to man,\n subject to him, his property. They could not be spoils of the\n chase. They must bear the mark and impress of humanity. Upon the\n sacrifice human hands must be laid\u2014the hands of the offerer and\n the hands of the priest. The offering is the substitute of the\n offerer. The priest is the substitute of the offerer. The priest\n and the sacrifice were _one symbol_. [Hence, in the new\n dispensation, the priest and the sacrifice are one\u2014both are found\n in Christ.] The high priest must enter the holy of holies with his\n own finger dipped in blood: the blood must be in contact with his\n own person,\u2014another indication of the identification of the two.\n Life is nourished and sustained by life. All life lower than man\n may be sacrificed for the good of man. The blood must be spilled\n on the ground. \u2018_In the blood is the life._\u2019 The life is reserved\n by God. It is given _for_ man, but not _to_ him. Life for life is\n the law of the creation. So the life of Christ, also, for _our_\n life.\u2014Adam was originally priest of the family and of the race.\n But he lost his representative character by the one act of\n disobedience, and his redemption was that of the individual, not\n that of the race. The race ceased to have a representative. The\n subjects of the divine government were henceforth to be, not the\n natural offspring of Adam as such, but the redeemed. That the body\n and the blood are both required, indicates the demand that the\n death should be by a violence that sheds blood. The sacrifices\n showed forth, not Christ himself [his character, his life], but\n Christ\u2019s death.\u201d\n\n This following is a tentative scheme of the JEWISH SACRIFICES. The\n general reason for sacrifice is expressed in _Lev. 17:11_ (quoted\n above). I. _For the individual_: 1. The sin-offering = sacrifice\n to expiate sins of ignorance (thoughtlessness and plausible\n temptation): _Lev. 4:14, 20, 31_. 2. The trespass-offering =\n sacrifice to expiate sins of omission: _Lev. 5:5, 6_. 3. The\n burnt-offering = sacrifice to expiate general sinfulness: _Lev.\n 1:3_ (the offering of Mary, _Luke 2:24_). II. _For the family_:\n The Passover: _Ex. 12:27_. III. _For the people_: 1. The daily\n morning and evening sacrifice: _Ex. 29:38-46_. 2. The offering of\n the great day of atonement: _Lev. 16:6-10_. In this last, two\n victims were employed, one to represent the means\u2014death, and the\n other to represent the result\u2014forgiveness. One victim could not\n represent both the atonement\u2014by shedding of blood, and the\n justification\u2014by putting away sin.\n\n Jesus died for our sins at the Passover feast and at the hour of\n daily sacrifice. McLaren, in S. S. Times, Nov. 30,\n 1901:801\u2014\u201cShedding of blood and consequent safety were only a part\n of the teaching of the Passover. There is a double identification\n of the person offering with his sacrifice: first, in that he\n offers it as his representative, laying his hand on its head, or\n otherwise transferring his personality, as it were, to it; and\n secondly, in that, receiving it back again from God to whom he\n gave it, he feeds on it, so making it part of his life and\n nourishing himself thereby: \u2018_My flesh ... which I will give ...\n for the life of the world ... he that eateth me, he also shall\n live because of me_\u2019 (_John 6:51, 57_).\u201d\n\n Chambers, in Presb. and Ref. Rev., Jan. 1892:22-34\u2014On the great\n day of atonement \u201cthe double offering\u2014one for Jehovah and the\n other for Azazel\u2014typified not only the removing of the guilt of\n the people, but its transfer to the odious and detestable being\n who was the first cause of its existence,\u201d _i. e._, Satan.\n Lidgett, Spir. Principle of the Atonement, 112, 113\u2014\u201cIt was not\n the punishment which the goat bore away into the wilderness, for\n the idea of punishment is not directly associated with the\n scapegoat. It bears the sin\u2014the whole unfaithfulness of the\n community which had defiled the holy places\u2014out from them, so that\n henceforth they may be pure.... The sin-offering\u2014representing the\n sinner by receiving the burden of his sin\u2014makes expiation by\n yielding up and yielding back its life to God, under conditions\n which represent at once the wrath and the placability of God.\u201d\n\n On the Jewish sacrifices, see Fairbairn, Typology, 1:209-223;\n W\u00fcnsche, Die Leiden des Messias; Jukes, O. T. Sacrifices; Smeaton,\n Apostle\u2019s Doctrine of Atonement, 25-53; Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship\n of O. T., 120; Bible Com., 1:502-508, and Introd. to Leviticus;\n Candlish on Atonement, 123-142; Weber, Vom Zorne Gottes, 161-180.\n On passages in Leviticus, see Com. of Knobel, in Exeg. Handb. d.\n Alt. Test.\n\n\n(_e_) It is not essential to this view to maintain that a formal divine\ninstitution of the rite of sacrifice, at man\u2019s expulsion from Eden, can be\nproved from Scripture. Like the family and the state, sacrifice may,\nwithout such formal inculcation, possess divine sanction, and be ordained\nof God. The well-nigh universal prevalence of sacrifice, however, together\nwith the fact that its nature, as a bloody offering, seems to preclude\nman\u2019s own invention of it, combines with certain Scripture intimations to\nfavor the view that it was a primitive divine appointment. From the time\nof Moses, there can be no question as to its divine authority.\n\n\n Compare the origin of prayer and worship, for which we find no\n formal divine injunctions at the beginnings of history. _Heb.\n 11:4_\u2014\u201c_By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice\n than Cain, through which he had witness borne to him that he was\n righteous, God bearing witness in respect of his gifts_\u201d\u2014here it\n may be argued that since Abel\u2019s faith was not presumption, it must\n have had some injunction and promise of God to base itself upon.\n _Gen. 4:3, 4_\u2014\u201c_Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an\n offering unto Jehovah. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings\n of his flock and of the fat thereof. And Jehovah had respect unto\n Abel and to his offering: but unto Cain and to his offering he had\n not respect._\u201d\n\n It has been urged, in corroboration of this view, that the\n previous existence of sacrifice is intimated in _Gen. 3:21_\u2014\u201c_And\n Jehovah God made for Adam and for his wife coats of skins, and\n clothed them._\u201d Since the killing of animals for food was not\n permitted until long afterwards (_Gen. 9:3_\u2014to Noah: \u201c_Every\n moving thing that liveth shall be food for you_\u201d), the inference\n has been drawn, that the skins with which God clothed our first\n parents were the skins of animals slain for sacrifice,\u2014this\n clothing furnishing a type of the righteousness of Christ which\n secures our restoration to God\u2019s favor, as the death of the\n victims furnished a type of the suffering of Christ which secures\n for us remission of punishment. We must regard this, however, as a\n pleasing and possibly correct hypothesis, rather than as a\n demonstrated truth of Scripture. Since the unperverted instincts\n of human nature are an expression of God\u2019s will, Abel\u2019s faith may\n have consisted in trusting these, rather than the promptings of\n selfishness and self-righteousness. The death of animals in\n sacrifice, like the death of Christ which it signified, was only\n the hastening of what belonged to them because of their connection\n with human sin. Faith recognized this connection. On the divine\n appointment of sacrifice, see Park, in Bib. Sac., Jan.\n 1876:102-132. Westcott, Hebrews, 281\u2014\u201cThere is no reason to think\n that sacrifice was instituted in obedience to a direct\n revelation.... It is mentioned in Scripture at first as natural\n and known. It was practically universal in prechristian times....\n In due time the popular practice of sacrifice was regulated by\n revelation as disciplinary, and also used as a vehicle for typical\n teaching.\u201d We prefer to say that sacrifice probably originated in\n a fundamental instinct of humanity, and was therefore a divine\n ordinance as much as were marriage and government.\n\n On _Gen. 4:3, 4_, see C. H. M.\u2014\u201cThe entire difference between Cain\n and Abel lay, not in their natures, but in their sacrifices. Cain\n brought to God the sin-stained fruit of a cursed earth. Here was\n no recognition of the fact that he was a sinner, condemned to\n death. All his toil could not satisfy God\u2019s holiness, or remove\n the penalty. But Abel recognized his sin, condemnation,\n helplessness, death, and brought the bloody sacrifice\u2014the\n sacrifice of another\u2014the sacrifice provided by God, to meet the\n claims of God. He found a substitute, and he presented it in\n faith\u2014the faith that looks away from self to Christ, or God\u2019s\n appointed way of salvation. The difference was not in their\n persons, but in their gifts. Of Abel it is said, that God \u2018_bore\n witness in respect of his gifts_\u2019 (_Heb. 11:4_). To Cain it is\n said, \u2018_if thou doest well_ (LXX.: \u1f40\u03c1\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03bd\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2\u2014_if thou\n offerest correctly_) _shalt thou not be accepted?_\u2019 But Cain\n desired to get away from God and from God\u2019s way, and to lose\n himself in the world. This is \u2018_the way of Cain_\u2019 (_Jude 11_).\u201d\n _Per contra_, see Crawford, Atonement, 259\u2014\u201cBoth in Levitical and\n patriarchal times, we have no formal institution of sacrifice, but\n the regulation of sacrifice already existing. But Abel\u2019s faith may\n have had respect, not to a revelation with regard to sacrificial\n worship, but with regard to the promised Redeemer; and his\n sacrifice may have expressed that faith. If so, God\u2019s acceptance\n of it gave a divine warrant to future sacrifices. It was not\n will-worship, because it was not substituted for some other\n worship which God had previously instituted. It is not necessary\n to suppose that God gave an expressed command. Abel may have been\n moved by some inward divine monition. Thus Adam said to Eve,\n \u2018_This is now bone of my bones...._\u2019 (_Gen. 2:23_), before any\n divine command of marriage. No fruits were presented during the\n patriarchal dispensation. Heathen sacrifices were corruptions of\n primitive sacrifice.\u201d Von Lasaulx, Die S\u00fchnopfer der Griechen und\n R\u00f6mer, und ihr Verh\u00e4ltniss zu dem einen auf Golgotha, 1\u2014\u201cThe first\n word of the _original_ man was probably a prayer, the first action\n of _fallen_ man a sacrifice\u201d; see translation in Bib. Sac., 1:\n 368-408. Bishop Butler: \u201cBy the general prevalence of propitiatory\n sacrifices over the heathen world, the notion of repentance alone\n being sufficient to expiate guilt appears to be contrary to the\n general sense of mankind.\u201d\n\n\n(_f_) The New Testament assumes and presupposes the Old Testament doctrine\nof sacrifice. The sacrificial language in which its descriptions of\nChrist\u2019s work are clothed cannot be explained as an accommodation to\nJewish methods of thought, since this terminology was in large part in\ncommon use among the heathen, and Paul used it more than any other of the\napostles in dealing with the Gentiles. To deny to it its Old Testament\nmeaning, when used by New Testament writers to describe the work of\nChrist, is to deny any proper inspiration both in the Mosaic appointment\nof sacrifices and in the apostolic interpretations of them. We must\ntherefore maintain, as the result of a simple induction of Scripture\nfacts, that the death of Christ is a vicarious offering, provided by God\u2019s\nlove for the purpose of satisfying an internal demand of the divine\nholiness, and of removing an obstacle in the divine mind to the renewal\nand pardon of sinners.\n\n\n \u201cThe epistle of James makes no allusion to sacrifice. But he would\n not have failed to allude to it, if he had held the moral view of\n the atonement; for it would then have been an obvious help to his\n argument against merely formal service. Christ protested against\n washing hands and keeping Sabbath days. If sacrifice had been a\n piece of human formality, how indignantly would he have inveighed\n against it! But instead of this he received from John the Baptist,\n without rebuke, the words: \u2018_Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh\n away the sin of the world_\u2019 (_John 1:29_).\u201d\n\n A. A. Hodge, Popular Lectures, 247\u2014\u201cThe sacrifices of bulls and\n goats were like token-money, as our paper-promises to pay,\n accepted at their face-value till the day of settlement. But the\n sacrifice of Christ was the gold which absolutely extinguished all\n debt by its intrinsic value. Hence, when Christ died, the veil\n that separated man from God was rent from the top to the bottom by\n supernatural hands. When the real expiation was finished, the\n whole symbolical system representing it became _functum officio_,\n and was abolished. Soon after this, the temple was razed to the\n ground, and the ritual was rendered forever impossible.\u201d\n\n For denial that Christ\u2019s death is to be interpreted by heathen or\n Jewish sacrifices, see Maurice on Sac., 154\u2014\u201cThe heathen\n signification of words, when applied to a Christian use, must be\n not merely modified, but inverted\u201d; Jowett, Epistles of St. Paul,\n 2:479\u2014\u201cThe heathen and Jewish sacrifices rather show us what the\n sacrifice of Christ was not, than what it was.\u201d Bushnell and Young\n do not doubt the expiatory nature of heathen sacrifices. But the\n main terms which the N. T. uses to describe Christ\u2019s sacrifice are\n borrowed from the Greek sacrificial ritual, _e. g._, \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1,\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac, \u1f30\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f01\u03b3\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03c9, \u1f30\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9. To deny that these\n terms, when applied to Christ, imply expiation and substitution,\n is to deny the inspiration of those who used them. See Cave,\n Scripture Doctrine of Sacrifice; art. on Sacrifice, in Smith\u2019s\n Bible Dictionary.\n\n With all these indications of our dissent from the modern denial\n of expiatory sacrifice, we deem it desirable by way of contrast to\n present the clearest possible statement of the view from which we\n dissent. This may be found in Pfleiderer, Philosophy of Religion,\n 1:238, 260, 261\u2014\u201cThe gradual distinction of the moral from the\n ceremonial, the repression and ultimate replacement of ceremonial\n expiation by the moral purification of the sense and life, and\n consequently the transformation of the mystical conception of\n redemption into the corresponding ethical conception of education,\n may be designated as the kernel and the teleological principle of\n the development of the history of religion.... But to Paul the\n question in what sense the death of the Cross could be the means\n of the Messianic redemption found its answer simply from the\n presuppositions of the Pharisaic theology, which beheld in the\n innocent suffering, and especially in the martyr-death, of the\n righteous, an expiatory means compensating for the sins of the\n whole people. What would be more natural than that Paul should\n contemplate the death on the Cross in the same way, as an\n expiatory means of salvation for the redemption of the sinful\n world?\n\n \u201cWe are thus led to see in this theory the symbolical presentment\n of the truth that the new man suffers, as it were, vicariously,\n for the old man; for he takes upon himself the daily pain of\n self-subjugation, and bears guiltlessly in patience the evils\n which the old man could not but necessarily impute to himself as\n punishment. Therefore as Christ is the exemplification of the\n moral idea of man, so his death is the symbol of that moral\n process of painful self-subjugation in obedience and patience, in\n which the true inner redemption of man consists.... In like manner\n Fichte said that the only proper means of salvation is the death\n of selfhood, death _with_ Jesus, regeneration.\n\n \u201cThe defect in the Kant-Fichtean doctrine of redemption consisted\n in this, that it limited the process of ethical transformation to\n the individual, and endeavored to explain it from his subjective\n reason and freedom alone. How could the individual deliver himself\n from his powerlessness and become free? This question was\n unsolved. The Christian doctrine of redemption is that the moral\n liberation of the individual is not the effect of his own natural\n power, but the effect of the divine Spirit, who, from the\n beginning of human history, put forth his activity as the power\n educating to the good, and especially has created for himself in\n the Christian community a permanent organ for the education of the\n people and of individuals. It was the moral individualism of Kant\n which prevented him from finding in the historically realized\n common spirit of the good the real force available for the\n individual becoming good.\u201d\n\n\nC. Theories of the Atonement.\n\n\n1st. The Socinian, or Example Theory of the Atonement.\n\n\nThis theory holds that subjective sinfulness is the sole barrier between\nman and God. Not God, but only man, needs to be reconciled. The only\nmethod of reconciliation is to better man\u2019s moral condition. This can be\neffected by man\u2019s own will, through repentance and reformation. The death\nof Christ is but the death of a noble martyr. He redeems us, only as his\nhuman example of faithfulness to truth and duty has a powerful influence\nupon our moral improvement. This fact the apostles, either consciously or\nunconsciously, clothed in the language of the Greek and Jewish sacrifices.\nThis theory was fully elaborated by L\u00e6lius Socinus and Faustus Socinus of\nPoland, in the 16th century. Its modern advocates are found in the\nUnitarian body.\n\n\n The Socinian theory may be found stated, and advocated, in\n Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, 1:566-600; Martineau, Studies of\n Christianity, 83-176; J. F. Clarke, Orthodoxy, Its Truths and\n Errors, 235-265; Ellis, Unitarianism and Orthodoxy; Sheldon, Sin\n and Redemption, 146-210. The text which at first sight most seems\n to favor this view is _1 Pet 2:21_\u2014\u201c_Christ also suffered for you,\n leaving you an example, that ye should follow his steps._\u201d But see\n under (_e_) below. When Correggio saw Raphael\u2019s picture of St.\n Cecilia, he exclaimed: \u201cI too am a painter.\u201d So Socinus held that\n Christ\u2019s example roused our humanity to imitation. He regarded\n expiation as heathenish and impossible; every one must receive\n according to his deeds; God is ready to grant forgiveness on\n simple repentance.\n\n E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 277\u2014\u201cThe theory first insists\n on the inviolability of moral sequences in the conduct of every\n moral agent; and then insists that, on a given condition, the\n consequences of transgression may be arrested by almighty fiat....\n Unitarianism errs in giving a transforming power to that which\n works beneficently only after the transformation has been\n wrought.\u201d In ascribing to human nature a power of\n self-reformation, it ignores man\u2019s need of regeneration by the\n Holy Spirit. But even this renewing work of the Holy Spirit\n presupposes the atoning work of Christ. \u201c_Ye must be born anew_\u201d\n (_John 3:7_) necessitates \u201c_Even so must the Son of man be lifted\n up_\u201d (_John 3:14_). It is only the Cross that satisfies man\u2019s\n instinct of reparation. Harnack, Das Wesen des Christenthums,\n 99\u2014\u201cThose who regarded Christ\u2019s death soon ceased to bring any\n other bloody offering to God. This is true both in Judaism and in\n heathenism. Christ\u2019s death put an end to all bloody offerings in\n religious history. The impulse to sacrifice found its satisfaction\n in the Cross of Christ.\u201d We regard this as proof that the Cross is\n essentially a satisfaction to the divine justice, and not a mere\n example of faithfulness to duty. The Socinian theory is the first\n of six theories of the Atonement, which roughly correspond with\n our six previously treated theories of sin, and this first theory\n includes most of the false doctrine which appears in mitigated\n forms in several of the theories following.\n\n\nTo this theory we make the following objections:\n\n(_a_) It is based upon false philosophical principles,\u2014as, for example,\nthat will is merely the faculty of volitions; that the foundation of\nvirtue is in utility; that law is an expression of arbitrary will; that\npenalty is a means of reforming the offender; that righteousness, in\neither God or man, is only a manifestation of benevolence.\n\n\n If the will is simply the faculty of volitions, and not also the\n fundamental determination of the being to an ultimate end, then\n man can, by a single volition, effect his own reformation and\n reconciliation to God. If the foundation of virtue is in utility,\n then there is nothing in the divine being that prevents pardon,\n the good of the creature, and not the demands of God\u2019s holiness,\n being the reason for Christ\u2019s suffering. If law is an expression\n of arbitrary will, instead of being a transcript of the divine\n nature, it may at any time be dispensed with, and the sinner may\n be pardoned on mere repentance. If penalty is merely a means of\n reforming the offender, then sin does not involve objective guilt,\n or obligation to suffer, and sin may be forgiven, at any moment,\n to all who forsake it,\u2014indeed, _must_ be forgiven, since\n punishment is out of place when the sinner is reformed. If\n righteousness is only a form or manifestation of benevolence, then\n God can show his benevolence as easily through pardon as through\n penalty, and Christ\u2019s death is only intended to attract us toward\n the good by the force of a noble example.\n\n Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 2:218-264, is essentially Socinian in\n his view of Jesus\u2019 death. Yet he ascribes to Jesus the idea that\n suffering is _necessary_, even for one who stands in perfect love\n and blessed fellowship with God, since earthly blessedness is not\n the true blessedness, and since a true piety is impossible without\n renunciation and stooping to minister to others. The earthly\n life-sacrifice of the Messiah was his necessary and greatest act,\n and was the culminating point of his teaching. Suffering made him\n a perfect example, and so ensured the success of his work. But why\n God should have made it necessary that the holiest must suffer,\n Wendt does not explain. This constitution of things we can\n understand only as a revelation of the holiness of God, and of his\n punitive relation to human sin. Simon, Reconciliation, 357, shows\n well that example might have sufficed for a race that merely\n needed leadership. But what the race needed most was energizing,\n the fulfilment of the conditions of restoration to God on their\n behalf by one of themselves, by one whose very essence they\n shared, who created them, in whom they consisted, and whose work\n was therefore their work. Christ condemned with the divine\n condemnation the thoughts and impulses arising from his\n subconscious life. Before the sin, which for the moment seemed to\n be his, could become his, he condemned it. He sympathized with,\n nay, he revealed, the very justice and sorrow of God. _Hebrews\n 2:16-18_\u2014\u201c_For verily not to angels doth he give help, but he\n giveth help to the seed of Abraham. Wherefore it behooved him in\n all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might become\n a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God,\n to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that he\n himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them\n that are tempted._\u201d\n\n\n(_b_) It is a natural outgrowth from the Pelagian view of sin, and\nlogically necessitates a curtailment or surrender of every other\ncharacteristic doctrine of Christianity\u2014inspiration, sin, the deity of\nChrist, justification, regeneration, and eternal retribution.\n\n\n The Socinian theory requires a surrender of the doctrine of\n inspiration; for the idea of vicarious and expiatory sacrifice is\n woven into the very warp and woof of the Old and New Testaments.\n It requires an abandonment of the Scripture doctrine of sin; for\n in it all idea of sin as perversion of nature rendering the sinner\n unable to save himself, and as objective guilt demanding\n satisfaction to the divine holiness, is denied. It requires us to\n give up the deity of Christ; for if sin is a slight evil, and man\n can save himself from its penalty and power, then there is no\n longer need of either an infinite suffering or an infinite Savior,\n and a human Christ is as good as a divine. It requires us to give\n up the Scripture doctrine of justification, as God\u2019s act of\n declaring the sinner just in the eye of the law, solely on account\n of the righteousness and death of Christ to whom he is united by\n faith; for the Socinian theory cannot permit the counting to a man\n of any other righteousness than his own. It requires a denial of\n the doctrine of regeneration; for this is no longer the work of\n God, but the work of the sinner; it is no longer a change of the\n affections below consciousness, but a self-reforming volition of\n the sinner himself. It requires a denial of eternal retribution;\n for this is no longer appropriate to finite transgression of\n arbitrary law, and to superficial sinning that does not involve\n nature.\n\n\n(_c_) It contradicts the Scripture teachings, that sin involves objective\nguilt as well as subjective defilement; that the holiness of God must\npunish sin; that the atonement was a bearing of the punishment of sin for\nmen; and that this vicarious bearing of punishment was necessary, on the\npart of God, to make possible the showing of favor to the guilty.\n\n\n The Scriptures do not make the main object of the atonement to be\n man\u2019s subjective moral improvement. It is to God that the\n sacrifice is offered, and the object of it is to satisfy the\n divine holiness, and to remove from the divine mind an obstacle to\n the showing of favor to the guilty. It was something external to\n man and his happiness or virtue, that required that Christ should\n suffer. What Emerson has said of the martyr is yet more true of\n Christ: \u201cThough love repine, and reason chafe, There comes a voice\n without reply, \u2019Tis man\u2019s perdition to be safe, When for the truth\n he ought to die.\u201d The truth for which Christ died was truth\n internal to the nature of God; not simply truth externalized and\n published among men. What the truth of God required, that Christ\n rendered\u2014full satisfaction to violated justice. \u201cJesus paid it\n all\u201d; and no obedience or righteousness of ours can be added to\n his work, as a ground of our salvation.\n\n E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 276\u2014\u201cThis theory fails of a\n due recognition of that deep-seated, universal and innate sense of\n ill-desert, which in all times and everywhere has prompted men to\n aim at some expiation of their guilt. For this sense of guilt and\n its requirements the moral influence theory makes no adequate\n provision, either in Christ or in those whom Christ saves.\n Supposing Christ\u2019s redemptive work to consist merely in winning\n men to the practice of righteousness, it takes no account of\n penalty, either as the sanction of the law, as the reaction of the\n divine holiness against sin, or as the upbraiding of the\n individual conscience.... The Socinian theory overlooks the fact\n that there must be some objective manifestation of God\u2019s wrath and\n displeasure against sin.\u201d\n\n\n(_d_) It furnishes no proper explanation of the sufferings and death of\nChrist. The unmartyrlike anguish cannot be accounted for, and the\nforsaking by the Father cannot be justified, upon the hypothesis that\nChrist died as a mere witness to truth. If Christ\u2019s sufferings were not\npropitiatory, they neither furnish us with a perfect example, nor\nconstitute a manifestation of the love of God.\n\n\n Compare Jesus\u2019 feeling, in view of death, with that of Paul:\n \u201c_having the desire to depart_\u201d (_Phil 1:23_). Jesus was filled\n with anguish: \u201c_Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say?\n Father, save me from this hour_\u201d (_John 12:27_). If Christ was\n simply a martyr, then he is not a perfect example; for many a\n martyr has shown greater courage in prospect of death, and in the\n final agony has been able to say that the fire that consumed him\n was \u201ca bed of roses.\u201d Gethsemane, with its mental anguish, is\n apparently recorded in order to indicate that Christ\u2019s sufferings\n even on the cross were not mainly physical sufferings. The Roman\n Catholic Church unduly emphasizes the physical side of our Lord\u2019s\n passion, but loses sight of its spiritual element. The Christ of\n Rome indeed is either a babe or dead, and the crucifix presents to\n us not a risen and living Redeemer, but a mangled and lifeless\n body.\n\n Stroud, in his Physical Cause of our Lord\u2019s Death, has made it\n probable that Jesus died of a broken heart, and that this alone\n explains _John 19:34_\u2014\u201c_one of the soldiers with a spear pierced\n his side, and straightway there came out blood and water_\u201d\u2014_i.\n e._, the heart had already been ruptured by grief. That grief was\n grief at the forsaking of the Father (_Mat. 27:46_\u2014\u201c_My God, my\n God, why hast thou forsaken me?_\u201d), and the resulting death shows\n that that forsaking was no imaginary one. Did God make the holiest\n man of all to be the greatest sufferer of all the ages? This heart\n broken by the forsaking of the Father means more than martyrdom.\n If Christ\u2019s death is not propitiatory, it fills me with terror and\n despair; for it presents me not only with a very imperfect example\n in Christ, but with a proof of measureless injustice on the part\n of God. _Luke 23:28_\u2014\u201c_weep not for me, but weep for\n yourselves_\u201d\u2014Jesus rejects all pity that forgets his suffering for\n others.\n\n To the above view of Stroud, Westcott objects that blood does not\n readily flow from an ordinary corpse. The separation of the red\n corpuscles of the blood from the serum, or water, would be the\n beginning of decomposition, and would be inconsistent with the\n statement in _Acts 2:31_\u2014\u201c_neither did his flesh see corruption._\u201d\n But Dr. W. W. Keen of Philadelphia, in his article on The Bloody\n Sweat of our Lord (Bib. Sac., July, 1897:469-484) endorses\n Stroud\u2019s view as to the physical cause of our Lord\u2019s death.\n Christ\u2019s being forsaken by the Father was only the culmination of\n that relative withdrawal which constituted the source of Christ\u2019s\n loneliness through life. Through life he was a servant of the\n Spirit. On the cross the Spirit left him to the weakness of\n unassisted humanity, destitute of conscious divine resources.\n Compare the curious reading of _Heb. 2:9_\u2014\u201c_that he apart from\n God_ (\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6) _should taste death for every man._\u201d\n\n If Christ merely supposed himself to be deserted by God, \u201cnot only\n does Christ become an erring man, and, so far as the predicate\n deity is applicable to him, an erring God; but, if he cherished\n unfounded distrust of God, how can it be possible still to\n maintain that his will was in abiding, perfect agreement and\n identity with the will of God?\u201d See Kant, Lotze, and Ritschl, by\n St\u00e4hlin, 219. Charles C. Everett, Gospel of Paul, says Jesus was\n not crucified because he was accursed, but he was accursed because\n he was crucified, so that, in wreaking vengeance upon him, Jewish\n law abrogated itself. This interpretation however contradicts _2\n Cor. 5:21_\u2014\u201c_Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our\n behalf_\u201d\u2014where the divine identification of Christ with the race\n of sinners antedates and explains his sufferings. _John\n 1:29_\u2014\u201c_the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the\n world_\u201d\u2014does not refer to Jesus as a lamb for gentleness, but as a\n lamb for sacrifice. Maclaren: \u201cHow does Christ\u2019s death prove God\u2019s\n love? Only on one supposition, namely, that Christ is the\n incarnate Son of God, sent by the Father\u2019s love and being his\n express image\u201d; and, we may add, suffering vicariously for us and\n removing the obstacle in God\u2019s mind to our pardon.\n\n\n(_e_) The influence of Christ\u2019s example is neither declared in Scripture,\nnor found in Christian experience, to be the chief result secured by his\ndeath. Mere example is but a new preaching of the law, which repels and\ncondemns. The cross has power to lead men to holiness, only as it first\nshows a satisfaction made for their sins. Accordingly, most of the\npassages which represent Christ as an example also contain references to\nhis propitiatory work.\n\n\n There is no virtue in simply setting an example. Christ did\n nothing, simply for the sake of example. Even his baptism was the\n symbol of his propitiatory death; see pages 761, 762. The\n apostle\u2019s exhortation is not \u201cabstain from all _appearance_ of\n evil\u201d (_1 Thess. 5:22_, A. Vers.), but \u201c_abstain from every form\n of evil_\u201d (Rev. Vers.). Christ\u2019s death is the payment of a real\n debt due to God; and the convicted sinner needs first to see the\n debt which he owes to the divine justice paid by Christ, before he\n can think hopefully of reforming his life. The hymns of the\n church: \u201cI lay my sins on Jesus,\u201d and \u201cNot all the blood of\n beasts,\u201d represent the view of Christ\u2019s sufferings which\n Christians have derived from the Scriptures. When the sinner sees\n that the mortgage is cancelled, that the penalty has been borne,\n he can devote himself freely to the service of his Redeemer. _Rev.\n 12:11_\u2014\u201c_they overcame him_ [Satan] _because of the blood of the\n Lamb_\u201d\u2014as Christ overcame Satan by his propitiatory sacrifice, so\n we overcome by appropriating to ourselves Christ\u2019s atonement and\n his Spirit; _cf._ _1 John 5:4_\u2014\u201c_this is the victory that hath\n overcome the world, even our faith._\u201d The very text upon which\n Socinians most rely, when it is taken in connection with the\n context, proves their theory to be a misrepresentation of\n Scripture, _1 Pet. 2:21_\u2014\u201c_Christ also suffered for you, leaving\n you an example, that ye should follow his steps_\u201d\u2014is succeeded by\n _verse 24_\u2014\u201c_who his own self bare our sins in his body upon the\n tree, that we, having died unto sins, might live unto\n righteousness; by whose stripes ye were healed_\u201d\u2014the latter words\n being a direct quotation from Isaiah\u2019s description of the\n substitutionary sufferings of the Messiah (_Is. 53:5_).\n\n When a deeply convicted sinner was told that God could cleanse his\n heart and make him over anew, he replied with righteous\n impatience: \u201cThat is not what I want,\u2014I have a debt to pay first!\u201d\n A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 28, 89\u2014\u201cNowhere in\n tabernacle or temple shall we ever find the laver placed before\n the altar. The altar is Calvary, and the laver is Pentecost,\u2014one\n stands for the sacrificial blood, the other for the sanctifying\n Spirit.... So the oil which symbolised the sanctifying Spirit was\n always put \u2018_upon the blood of the trespass-offering_\u2019 (_Lev.\n 14:17_).\u201d The extremity of Christ\u2019s suffering on the Cross was\n coincident with the extremest manifestation of the guilt of the\n race. The greatness of this he theoretically knew from the\n beginning of his ministry. His baptism was not intended merely to\n set an example. It was a recognition that sin deserved death; that\n he was numbered with the transgressors; that he was sent to die\n for the sin of the world. He was not so much a teacher, as he was\n the subject of all teaching. In him the great suffering of the\n holy God on account of sin is exhibited to the universe. The pain\n of a few brief hours saves a world, only because it sets forth an\n eternal fact in God\u2019s being and opens to us God\u2019s very heart.\n\n Shakespeare, Henry V, 4:1\u2014\u201cThere is some soul of goodness in\n things evil. Would men observingly distil it out.\u201d It is well to\n preach on Christ as an example. Lyman Abbott says that Jesus\u2019\n blood purchases our pardon and redeems us to God, just as a\n patriot\u2019s blood redeems his country from servitude and purchases\n its liberty. But even Ritschl, Just. and Recon., 2, goes beyond\n this, when he says: \u201cThose who advocate the example theory should\n remember that Jesus withdraws himself from imitation when he sets\n himself over against his disciples as the Author of forgiveness.\n And they perceive that pardon must first be appropriated, before\n it is possible for them to imitate his piety and moral\n achievement.\u201d This is a partial recognition of the truth that the\n removal of objective guilt by Christ\u2019s atonement must precede the\n removal of subjective defilement by Christ\u2019s regenerating and\n sanctifying Spirit. Lidgett, Spir. Princ. of Atonement, 265-280,\n shows that there is a fatherly demand for satisfaction, which must\n be met by the filial response of the child. Thomas Chalmers at the\n beginning of his ministry urged on his people the reformation of\n their lives. But he confesses: \u201cI never heard of any such\n reformations being effected amongst them.\u201d Only when he preached\n the alienation of men from God, and forgiveness through the blood\n of Christ, did he hear of their betterment.\n\n Gordon, Christ of To-day, 129\u2014\u201cThe consciousness of sin is largely\n the creation of Christ.\u201d Men like Paul, Luther, and Edwards show\n this impressively. Foster, Christian life and Theology,\n 198-201\u2014\u201cThere is of course a sense in which the Christian must\n imitate Christ\u2019s death, for he is to \u2018_take up his cross daily_\u2019\n (_Luke 9:23_) and follow his Master; but in its highest meaning\n and fullest scope the death of Christ is no more an object set for\n our imitation than is the creation of the world.... Christ does\n for man in his sacrifice what man could not do for himself. We see\n in the Cross: 1. the magnitude of the guilt of sin; 2. our own\n self-condemnation; 3. the adequate remedy,\u2014for the object of law\n is gained in the display of righteousness; 4. the objective ground\n of forgiveness.\u201d Maclaren: \u201cChristianity without a dying Christ is\n a dying Christianity.\u201d\n\n\n(_f_) This theory contradicts the whole tenor of the New Testament, in\nmaking the life, and not the death, of Christ the most significant and\nimportant feature of his work. The constant allusions to the death of\nChrist as the source of our salvation, as well as the symbolism of the\nordinances, cannot be explained upon a theory which regards Christ as a\nmere example, and considers his sufferings as incidents, rather than\nessentials, of his work.\n\n\n Dr. H. B. Hackett frequently called attention to the fact that the\n recording in the gospels of only three years of Jesus\u2019 life, and\n the prominence given in the record to the closing scenes of that\n life, are evidence that not his life, but his death, was the great\n work of our Lord. Christ\u2019s death, and not his life, is the central\n truth of Christianity. The cross is _par excellence_ the Christian\n symbol. In both the ordinances\u2014in Baptism as well as in the Lord\u2019s\n Supper\u2014it is the death of Christ that is primarily set forth.\n Neither Christ\u2019s example, nor his teaching, reveals God as does\n his death. It is the death of Christ that links together all\n Christian doctrines. The mark of Christ\u2019s blood is upon them all,\n as the scarlet thread running through every cord and rope of the\n British navy gives sign that it is the property of the crown.\n\n Did Jesus\u2019 death have no other relation to our salvation than\n Paul\u2019s death had? Paul was a martyr, but his death is not even\n recorded. Gould, Bib. Theol. N. T., 92\u2014\u201cPaul does not dwell in any\n way upon the life or work of our Lord, except as they are involved\n in his death and resurrection.\u201d What did Jesus\u2019 words: \u201c_It is\n finished_\u201d (_John 19:30_) mean? What was finished on the Socinian\n theory? The Socinian salvation had not yet begun. Why did not\n Jesus make the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord\u2019s Supper to be\n memorials of his birth, rather than of his death? Why was not the\n veil of the temple rent at his baptism, or at the Sermon on the\n Mount? It was because only his death opened the way to God. In\n talking with Nicodemus, Jesus brushed aside the complimentary:\n \u201c_we know that thou art a teacher come from God_\u201d (_John 3:2_).\n Recognizing Jesus as teacher is not enough. There must be a\n renewal by the Spirit of God, so that one recognizes also the\n lifting up of the Son of man as atoning Savior (_John 3:14, 15_).\n And to Peter, Jesus said: \u201c_If I wash thee not, thou hast no part\n with me_\u201d (_John 13:8_). One cannot have part with Christ as\n Teacher, while one rejects him as Redeemer from sin. On the\n Socinian doctrine of the Atonement, see Crawford, Atonement,\n 279-296; Shedd, History of Doctrine, 2:376-386; Doctrines of the\n Early Socinians, in Princeton Essays, 1:194-211; Philippi,\n Glaubenslehre, IV, 2:156-180; Fock, Socinianismus.\n\n\n2nd. The Bushnellian, or Moral Influence Theory of the Atonement.\n\n\nThis holds, like the Socinian, that there is no principle of the divine\nnature which is propitiated by Christ\u2019s death; but that this death is a\nmanifestation of the love of God, suffering in and with the sins of his\ncreatures. Christ\u2019s atonement, therefore, is the merely natural\nconsequence of his taking human nature upon him; and is a suffering, not\nof penalty in man\u2019s stead, but of the combined woes and griefs which the\nliving of a human life involves. This atonement has effect, not to satisfy\ndivine justice, but so to reveal divine love as to soften human hearts and\nto lead them to repentance; in other words, Christ\u2019s sufferings were\nnecessary, not in order to remove an obstacle to the pardon of sinners\nwhich exists in the mind of God, but in order to convince sinners that\nthere exists no such obstacle. This theory, for substance, has been\nadvocated by Bushnell, in America; by Robertson, Maurice, Campbell, and\nYoung, in Great Britain; by Schleiermacher and Ritschl, in Germany.\n\n\n Origen and Abelard are earlier representatives of this view. It\n may be found stated in Bushnell\u2019s Vicarious Sacrifice. Bushnell\u2019s\n later work, Forgiveness and Law, contains a modification of his\n earlier doctrine, to which he was driven by the criticisms upon\n his Vicarious Sacrifice. In the later work, he acknowledges what\n he had so strenuously denied in the earlier, namely, that Christ\u2019s\n death has effect upon God as well as upon man, and that God cannot\n forgive without thus \u201cmaking cost to himself.\u201d He makes open\n confession of the impotence of his former teaching to convert\n sinners, and, as the only efficient homiletic, he recommends the\n preaching of the very doctrine of propitiatory sacrifice which he\n had written his book to supersede. Even in Forgiveness and Law,\n however, there is no recognition of the true principle and ground\n of the Atonement in God\u2019s punitive holiness. Since the original\n form of Bushnell\u2019s doctrine is the only one which has met with\n wide acceptance, we direct our objections mainly to this.\n\n F. W. Robertson, Sermons, 1:163-178, holds that Christ\u2019s\n sufferings were the necessary result of the position in which he\n had placed himself of conflict or collision with the evil that is\n in the world. He came in contact with the whirling wheel, and was\n crushed by it; he planted his heel upon the cockatrice\u2019s den, and\n was pierced by its fang. Maurice, on Sacrifice, 209, and Theol.\n Essays, 141, 228, regards Christ\u2019s sufferings as an illustration,\n given by the ideal man, of the self-sacrifice due to God from the\n humanity of which he is the root and head, all men being redeemed\n in him, irrespective of their faith, and needing only to have\n brought to them the news of this redemption. Young, Life and Light\n of Men, holds a view essentially the same with Robertson\u2019s.\n Christ\u2019s death is the necessary result of his collision with evil,\n and his sufferings extirpate sin, simply by manifesting God\u2019s\n self-sacrificing love,\n\n Campbell, Atonement, 129-191, quotes from Edwards, to show that\n infinite justice might be satisfied in either one of two ways: (1)\n by an infinite punishment; (2) by an adequate repentance. This\n last, which Edwards passed by as impracticable, Campbell declares\n to have been the real atonement offered by Christ, who stands as\n the great Penitent, confessing the sin of the world. Mason, Faith\n of the Gospel, 160-210, takes substantially the view of Campbell,\n denying substitution, and emphasizing Christ\u2019s oneness with the\n race and his confession of human sin. He grants indeed that our\n Lord bore penalty, but only in the sense that he realized how\n great was the condemnation and penalty of the race.\n\n Schleiermacher denies any satisfaction to God by substitution. He\n puts in its place an influence of Christ\u2019s personality on men, so\n that they feel themselves reconciled and redeemed. The atonement\n is purely subjective. Yet it is the work of Christ, in that only\n _Christ\u2019s_ oneness with God has taught men that _they_ can be one\n with God. Christ\u2019s consciousness of his being in God and knowing\n God, and his power to impart this consciousness to others, make\n him a Mediator and Savior. The idea of reparation, compensation,\n satisfaction, substitution, is wholly Jewish. He regarded it as\n possible only to a narrow-minded people. He tells us that he hates\n in religion that kind of historic relation. He had no such sense\n of the holiness of God, or of the guilt of man, as would make\n necessary any suffering of punishment or offering to God for human\n sin. He desires to replace external and historical Christianity by\n a Christianity that is internal and subjective. See\n Schleiermacher, Der Christliche Glaube, 2:94-161.\n\n Ritschl however is the most recent and influential representative\n of the Moral Influence theory in Germany. His view is to be found\n in his Rechtfertigung und Vers\u00f6hnung, or in English translation,\n Justification and Reconciliation. Ritschl is anti-Hegelian and\n libertarian, but like Schleiermacher he does not treat sin with\n seriousness; he regards the sense of guilt as an illusion which it\n is the part of Christ to dispel; there is an inadequate conception\n of Christ\u2019s person, a practical denial of his pre-existence and\n work of objective atonement; indeed, the work of Christ is hardly\n put into any precise relation to sin at all; see Denney, Studies\n in Theology, 136-151. E. H. Johnson: \u201cMany Ritschlians deny both\n the miraculous conception and the bodily resurrection of Jesus.\n Sin does not particularly concern God; Christ is Savior only as\n Buddha was, achieving lordship over the world by indifference to\n it; he is the Word of God, only as he reveals this divine\n indifference to things. All this does not agree with the N. T.\n teaching that Christ is the only begotten Son of God, that he was\n with the Father before the world was, that he made expiation of\n sins to God, and that sin is that abominable thing that God\n hates.\u201d For a general survey of the Ritschlian theology, see Orr,\n Ritschlian Theology, 231-271; Presb. and Ref. Rev., July,\n 1891:443-458 (art. by Zahn), and Jan. 1892:1-21 (art. by C. M.\n Mead); Andover Review, July, 1893:440-461; Am. Jour. Theology,\n Jan. 1899:22-44 (art. by H. R. Mackintosh); Lidgett, Spir. Prin.\n of Atonement, 190-207; Foster, Christ. Life and Theology; and the\n work of Garvie on Ritschl. For statement and criticism of other\n forms of the Moral Influence theory, see Crawford, Atonement,\n 297-366; Watts, New Apologetic, 210-247.\n\n\nTo this theory we object as follows:\n\n(_a_) While it embraces a valuable element of truth, namely, the moral\ninfluence upon men _of_ the sufferings of the God-man, it is false by\ndefect, in that it substitutes a subordinate effect of the atonement for\nits chief aim, and yet unfairly appropriates the name \u201cvicarious,\u201d which\nbelongs only to the latter. Suffering _with_ the sinner is by no means\nsuffering _in his stead_.\n\n\n Dale, Atonement, 137, illustrates Bushnell\u2019s view by the loyal\n wife, who suffers exile or imprisonment with her husband; by the\n philanthropist, who suffers the privations and hardships of a\n savage people, whom he can civilize only by enduring the miseries\n from which he would rescue them; by the Moravian missionary, who\n enters for life the lepers\u2019 enclosure, that he may convert its\n inmates. So Potwin says that suffering and death are the cost of\n the atonement, not the atonement _itself_.\n\n But we reply that such sufferings as these do not make Christ\u2019s\n sacrifice _vicarious_. The word \u201cvicarious\u201d (from _vicis_) implies\n substitution, which this theory denies. The vicar of a parish is\n not necessarily one who performs service with, and in sympathy\n with, the rector,\u2014he is rather one who stands in the rector\u2019s\n place. A vice-president is one who acts in place of the president;\n \u201cA. B., appointed consul, _vice_ C. D., resigned,\u201d implies that A.\n B. is now to serve in the stead of C. D. If Christ is a \u201cvicarious\n sacrifice,\u201d then he makes atonement to God _in the place and\n stead_ of sinners. Christ\u2019s suffering _in and with sinners_,\n though it is a most important and affecting fact, is not the\n suffering in their stead in which the atonement consists. Though\n suffering in and with sinners may be in part the _medium_ through\n which Christ was enabled to endure God\u2019s wrath against sin, it is\n not to be confounded with the _reason_ why God lays this suffering\n upon him; nor should it blind us to the fact that this reason is\n his standing in the sinner\u2019s place to answer for sin to the\n retributive holiness of God.\n\n\n(_b_) It rests upon false philosophical principles,\u2014as, that righteousness\nis identical with benevolence, instead of conditioning it; that God is\nsubject to an eternal law of love, instead of being himself the source of\nall law; that the aim of penalty is the reformation of the offender.\n\n\n Hovey, God with Us, 181-271, has given one of the best replies to\n Bushnell. He shows that if God is subject to an eternal law of\n love, then God is necessarily a Savior; that he must have created\n man as soon as he could; that he makes men holy as fast as\n possible; that he does all the good he can; that he is no better\n than he should be. But this is to deny the transcendence of God,\n and reduce omnipotence to a mere nature-power. The conception of\n God as subject to law imperils God\u2019s self-sufficiency and freedom.\n For Bushnell\u2019s statements with regard to the identity of\n righteousness and love, and for criticisms upon them, see our\n treatment of the attribute of Holiness, vol. I, pages 268-275.\n\n Watts, New Apologetic, 277-280, points out that, upon Bushnell\u2019s\n principles, there must be an atonement for fallen angels. God was\n bound to assume the angelic nature and to do for angels all that\n he has done for us. There is also no reason for restricting either\n the atonement or the offer of salvation to the present life. B. B.\n Warfield, in Princeton Review, 1903:81-92, shows well that all the\n forms of the Moral Influence theory rest upon the assumption that,\n God is only love, and that all that is required as ground of the\n sinner\u2019s forgiveness is penitence, either Christ\u2019s, or his own, or\n both together.\n\n Ignoring the divine holiness and minimizing the guilt of sin, many\n modern writers make atonement to be a mere incident of Christ\u2019s\n incarnation. Phillips Brooks, Life, 2:350, 351\u2014\u201cAtonement by\n suffering is the result of the Incarnation; atonement being the\n necessary, and suffering the incidental element of that result.\n But sacrifice is an essential element, for sacrifice truly\n signifies here the consecration of human nature to its highest use\n and utterance, and does not necessarily involve the thought of\n pain. It is not the destruction but the fulfilment of human life.\n Inasmuch as the human life thus consecrated and fulfilled is the\n same in us as in Jesus, and inasmuch as his consecration and\n fulfilment makes morally possible for us the same consecration and\n fulfilment of it which he achieved, therefore his atonement and\n his sacrifice, and incidentally his suffering, become vicarious.\n It is not that they make unnecessary, but that they make possible\n and successful in us, the same processes which were perfect in\n him.\u201d\n\n\n(_c_) The theory furnishes no proper reason for Christ\u2019s suffering. While\nit shows that the Savior necessarily suffers from his contact with human\nsin and sorrow, it gives no explanation of that constitution of the\nuniverse which makes suffering the consequence of sin, not only to the\nsinner, but also to the innocent being who comes into connection with sin.\nThe holiness of God, which is manifested in this constitution of things\nand which requires this atonement, is entirely ignored.\n\n\n B. W. Lockhart, in a recent statement of the doctrine of the\n atonement, shows this defect of apprehension: \u201cGod in Christ\n reconciled the world to himself; Christ did not reconcile God to\n man, but man to God. Christ did not enable God to save men; God\n enabled Christ to save men. The sufferings of Christ were\n vicarious as the highest illustration of that spiritual law by\n which the good soul is impelled to suffer that others may not\n suffer, to die that others may not die. The vicarious sufferings\n of Jesus were also the great revelation to man of the vicarious\n nature of God; a revelation of the cross as eternal in his nature;\n that it is in the heart of God to bear the sin and sorrow of his\n creatures in his eternal love and pity; a revelation moreover that\n the law which saves the lost through the vicarious labors of\n godlike souls prevails wherever the godlike and the lost soul can\n influence each other.\u201d\n\n While there is much in the above statement with which we agree, we\n charge it with misapprehending the reason for Christ\u2019s suffering.\n That reason is to be found only in that holiness of God which\n expresses itself in the very constitution of the universe. Not\n love but holiness has made suffering invariably to follow sin, so\n that penalty falls not only upon the transgressor but upon him who\n is the life and sponsor of the transgressor. God\u2019s holiness brings\n suffering to God, and to Christ who manifests God. Love bears the\n suffering, but it is holiness that necessitates it. The statement\n of Lockhart above gives account of the effect\u2014reconciliation; but\n it fails to recognize the cause\u2014propitiation. The words of E. G.\n Robinson furnish the needed complement: \u201cThe work of Christ has\n two sides, propitiatory and reconciling. Christ felt the pang of\n association with a guilty race. The divine displeasure rested on\n him as possessing the guilty nature. In his own person he redeems\n this nature by bearing its penalty. Propitiation must precede\n reconciliation. The Moral Influence theory recognizes the\n necessity of a subjective change in man, but makes no provision of\n an objective agency to secure it.\u201d\n\n\n(_d_) It contradicts the plain teachings of Scripture, that the atonement\nis necessary, not simply to reveal God\u2019s love, but to satisfy his justice;\nthat Christ\u2019s sufferings are propitiatory and penal; and that the human\nconscience needs to be propitiated by Christ\u2019s sacrifice, before it can\nfeel the moral influence of his sufferings.\n\n\n That the atonement is primarily an offering to God, and not to the\n sinner, appears from _Eph. 5:2_\u2014\u201c_gave himself up for us, an\n offering and a sacrifice to God_\u201d; _Heb. 9:14,_\u2014\u201c_offered himself\n without blemish unto God._\u201d Conscience, the reflection of God\u2019s\n holiness, can be propitiated only by propitiating holiness itself.\n Mere love and sympathy are maudlin, and powerless to move, unless\n there is a background of righteousness. Spear: \u201cAn appeal to man,\n without anything back of it to emphasize and enforce the appeal,\n will never touch the heart. The mere _appearance_ of an atonement\n has no moral influence.\u201d Crawford, Atonement, 358-367\u2014\u201cInstead of\n delivering us from penalty, in order to deliver us from sin, this\n theory made Christ to deliver us from sin, in order that he may\n deliver us from penalty. But this reverses the order of Scripture.\n And Dr. Bushnell concedes, in the end, that the moral view of the\n atonement is morally powerless; and that the Objective view he\n condemns is, after all, indispensable to the salvation of\n sinners.\u201d\n\n Some men are quite ready to forgive those whom they have offended.\n The Ritschlian school sees no guilt to be atoned for, and no\n propitiation to be necessary. Only man needs to be reconciled.\n Ritschlians are quite ready to forgive God. The only atonement is\n an atonement, made by repentance, to the human conscience. Shedd\n says well: \u201cAll that is requisite in order to satisfaction and\n peace of conscience in the sinful soul is also requisite in order\n to the satisfaction of God himself.\u201d Walter Besant: \u201cIt is not\n enough to be forgiven,\u2014one has also to forgive one\u2019s self.\u201d The\n converse proposition is yet more true: It is not enough to forgive\n one\u2019s self,\u2014one has also to be forgiven; indeed, one cannot\n rightly forgive one\u2019s self, unless one has been first forgiven; _1\n John 3:20_\u2014\u201c_if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our\n heart, and knoweth all things._\u201d A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the\n Spirit, 201\u2014\u201cAs the high priest carried the blood into the Holy of\n Holies under the old dispensation, so does the Spirit take the\n blood of Christ into the inner sanctuary of our spirit in the new\n dispensation, in order that he may \u2018_cleanse your conscience from\n dead works to serve the living God_\u2019 (_Heb. 9:14_).\u201d\n\n\n(_e_) It can be maintained, only by wresting from their obvious meaning\nthose passages of Scripture which speak of Christ as suffering for our\nsins; which represent his blood as accomplishing something for us in\nheaven, when presented there by our intercessor; which declare forgiveness\nto be a remitting of past offences upon the ground of Christ\u2019s death; and\nwhich describe justification as a pronouncing, not a making, just.\n\n\n We have seen that the forms in which the Scriptures describe\n Christ\u2019s death are mainly drawn from sacrifice. Notice Bushnell\u2019s\n acknowledgment that these \u201caltar-forms\u201d are the most vivid and\n effective methods of presenting Christ\u2019s work, and that the\n preacher cannot dispense with them. Why he should not dispense\n with them, if the meaning has gone out of them, is not so clear.\n\n In his later work, entitled Forgiveness and Law, Bushnell appears\n to recognize this inconsistency, and represents God as affected by\n the atonement, after all; in other words, the atonement has an\n objective as well as a subjective influence. God can forgive, only\n by \u201cmaking cost to himself.\u201d He \u201cworks down his resentment, by\n suffering for us.\u201d This verges toward the true view, but it does\n not recognize the demand of divine holiness for satisfaction; and\n it attributes passion, weakness, and imperfection to God. Dorner,\n Glaubenslehre, 2:591 (Syst. Doct., 4:59, 69), objects to this\n modified Moral Influence theory, that the love that can do good to\n an enemy is _already forgiving_ love; so that the benefit to the\n enemy cannot be, as Bushnell supposes, a _condition of the\n forgiveness_.\n\n To Campbell\u2019s view, that Christ is the great Penitent, and that\n his atonement consists essentially in his confessing the sins of\n the world, we reply, that no confession or penitence is possible\n without responsibility. If Christ had no substitutionary office,\n the ordering of his sufferings on the part of God was manifest\n injustice. Such sufferings, moreover, are impossible upon grounds\n of mere sympathy. The Scripture explains them by declaring that he\n bore our curse, and became a ransom in our place. There was more\n therefore in the sufferings of Christ than \u201ca perfect Amen in\n humanity to the judgment of God on the sin of man.\u201d Not Phinehas\u2019s\n zeal for God, but his execution of judgment, made an atonement\n (_Ps. 106:30_\u2014\u201c_executed judgment_\u201d\u2014LXX.: \u1f10\u03be\u03b9\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf, \u201c_made\n propitiation_\u201d) and turned away the wrath of God. Observe here the\n contrast between the _priestly_ atonement of Aaron, who stood\n between the living and the dead, and the _judicial_ atonement of\n Phinehas, who executed righteous judgment, and so turned away\n wrath. In neither case did mere _confession_ suffice to take away\n sin. On Campbell\u2019s view see further, on page 760.\n\n Moberly, Atonement and Personality, 98, has the great merit of\n pointing out that Christ shares our sufferings in virtue of the\n fact that our personality has its ground in him; but that this\n sharing of our penalty was necessitated by God\u2019s righteousness he\n has failed to indicate. He tells us that \u201cChrist sanctified the\n present and cancels the past. He offers to God a living holiness\n in human conditions and character; he makes the awful sacrifice in\n humanity of a perfect contrition. The one is the offering of\n obedience, the other the offering of atonement; the one the\n offering of the life, the other the offering of the death.\u201d This\n modification of Campbell\u2019s view can be rationally maintained only\n by connecting with it a prior declaration that the fundamental\n attribute of God is holiness; that holiness is self-affirming\n righteousness; that this righteousness necessarily expresses\n itself in the punishment of sin; that Christ\u2019s relation to the\n race as its upholder and life made him the bearer of its guilt and\n justly responsible for its sin. Scripture declares the ultimate\n aim of the atonement to be that God \u201c_might himself be just_\u201d\n (_Rom. 3:26_), and no theory of the atonement will meet the\n demands of either reason or conscience that does not ground its\n necessity in God\u2019s righteousness, rather than in his love.\n\n E. Y. Mullins: \u201cIf Christ\u2019s union with humanity made it possible\n for him to be \u2018the representative Penitent,\u2019 and to be the Amen of\n humanity to God\u2019s just condemnation of sin, his union with God\n made it also possible for him to be the representative of the\n Judge, and to be the Amen of the divine nature to suffering, as\n the expression of condemnation.\u201d Denney, Studies in Theology, 102,\n 103\u2014\u201cThe serious element in sin is not man\u2019s dislike, suspicion,\n alienation from God, nor the debilitating, corrupting effects of\n vice in human nature, but rather God\u2019s condemnation of man. This\n Christ endured, and died that the condemnation might be removed.\n \u2018Bearing shame and scoffing rude, In my place condemned he stood;\n Sealed my pardon with his blood; Hallelujah!\u2019 \u201d\n\n Bushnell regards _Mat. 8:17_\u2014\u201c_Himself took our infirmities, and\n bare our diseases_\u201d\u2014as indicating the nature of Christ\u2019s atoning\n work. The meaning then would be, that he sympathized so fully with\n all human ills that he made them his own. Hovey, however, has\n given a more complete and correct explanation. The words mean\n rather: \u201cHis deep sympathy with these effects of sin so moved him,\n that it typified his final bearing of the sins themselves, or\n constituted a preliminary and partial endurance of the suffering\n which was to expiate the sins of men.\u201d His sighing when he cured\n the deaf man (_Mark 7:34_) and his weeping at the grave of Lazarus\n (_John 11:35_) were caused by the anticipatory realization that he\n was one with the humanity which was under the curse, and that he\n too had \u201c_become a curse for us_\u201d (_Gal. 3:13_). The great error\n of Bushnell is his denial of the objective necessity and effect of\n Jesus\u2019 death, and all Scripture which points to an influence of\n the atonement outside of us is a refutation of his theory.\n\n\n(_f_) This theory confounds God\u2019s method of saving men with men\u2019s\nexperience of being saved. It makes the atonement itself consist of its\neffects in the believer\u2019s union with Christ and the purifying influence of\nthat union upon the character and life.\n\n\n Stevens, in his Doctrine of Salvation, makes this mistake. He\n says: \u201cThe old forms of the doctrine of the atonement\u2014that the\n suffering of Christ was necessary to appease the wrath of God and\n induce him to forgive; or to satisfy the law of God and enable him\n to forgive; or to move upon man\u2019s heart to induce him to accept\n forgiveness; have all proved inadequate. Yet to reject the passion\n of Christ is to reject the chief element of power in\n Christianity.... To me the words \u2018eternal atonement\u2019 denote the\n dateless passion of God on account of sin; they mean that God is,\n by his very nature, a sin-bearer\u2014that sin grieves and wounds his\n heart, and that he sorrows and suffers in consequence of it. It\n results from the divine love\u2014alike from its holiness and from its\n sympathy\u2014that \u2018in our affliction he is afflicted.\u2019 Atonement on\n its \u2018Godward side\u2019 is a name for the grief and pain inflicted by\n sin upon the paternal heart of God. Of this divine sorrow for sin,\n the afflictions of Christ are a revelation. In the bitter grief\n and anguish which he experienced on account of sin we see\n reflected the pain and sorrow which sin brings to the divine\n love.\u201d\n\n All this is well said, with the exception that holiness is\n regarded as a form of love, and the primary offence of sin is\n regarded as the grieving of the Father\u2019s heart. Dr. Stevens fails\n to consider that if love were supreme there would be nothing to\n prevent unholy tolerance of sin. Because holiness is supreme, love\n is conditioned thereby. It is holiness and not love that connects\n suffering with sin, and requires that the Redeemer should suffer.\n Dr. Stevens asserts that the theories hitherto current in\n Protestant churches and the theory for which he pleads are\n \u201cforever irreconcilable\u201d; they are \u201cbased on radically different\n conceptions of God.\u201d The British Weekly, Nov. 16, 1905\u2014\u201cThe\n doctrine of the atonement is not the doctrine that salvation is\n deliverance from sin, and that this deliverance is the work of\n God, a work the motive of which is God\u2019s love for men; these are\n truths which every one who writes on the Atonement assumes. The\n doctrine of the Atonement has for its task to explain _how_ this\n work is done.... Dr. Stevens makes no contribution whatever to its\n fulfilment. He grants that we have in Paul \u2018the theory of a\n substitutionary expiation.\u2019 But he finds something else in Paul\n which he thinks a more adequate rendering of the apostle\u2019s\n Christian experience\u2014the idea, namely, of dying with Christ and\n rising with him; and on the strength of accepting this last he\n feels at liberty to drop the substitutionary expiation overboard\n as something to be explained from Paul\u2019s controversial position,\n or from his Pharisaic inheritance, something at all events which\n has no permanent value for the Christian mind.... The experience\n is dependent on the method. Paul did not die with Christ as an\n alternative to having Christ die with him; he died with Christ\n wholly and solely because Christ died for him. It was the meaning\n carried by the last two words\u2014the meaning unfolded in the theory\n of substitutionary expiation\u2014which had the moral motive in it to\n draw Paul into union with his Lord in life and death.... On Dr.\n Stevens\u2019 own showing, Paul held the two ideas side by side; for\n him the mystical union with Christ was only possible through the\n acceptance of truths with which Dr. Stevens does not know what to\n do.\u201d\n\n\n(_g_) This theory would confine the influence of the atonement to those\nwho have heard of it,\u2014thus excluding patriarchs and heathen. But the\nScriptures represent Christ as being the Savior of all men, in the sense\nof securing them grace, which, but for his atoning work, could never have\nbeen bestowed consistently with the divine holiness.\n\n\n Hovey: \u201cThe manward influence of the atonement is far more\n extensive than the moral influence of it.\u201d Christ is Advocate, not\n with the sinner, but with the Father. While the Spirit\u2019s work has\n moral influence over the hearts of men, the Son secures, through\n the presentation of his blood, in heaven, the pardon which can\n come only from God (_1 John 2:1_\u2014\u201c_we have an advocate with the\n Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for\n our sins_\u201d). Hence _1:9_\u2014\u201c_If we confess our sins, he_ [God] _is\n faithful and righteous [faithful to his promise and righteous to\n Christ] to forgive us our sins._\u201d Hence the publican does not\n first pray for change of heart, but for mercy upon the ground of\n sacrifice (_Luke 18:13,_\u2014\u201c_God, be thou merciful to me a sinner,_\u201d\n but literally: \u201c_God be propitiated toward me the sinner_\u201d). See\n Balfour, in Brit. and For. Ev. Rev., Apr. 1884:230-254; Martin,\n Atonement, 216-237; Theol. Eclectic, 4:364-409.\n\n Gravitation kept the universe stable, long before it was\n discovered by man. So the atonement of Christ was inuring to the\n salvation of men, long before they suspected its existence. The\n \u201c_Light of the world_\u201d (_John 8:12_) has many \u201cX rays,\u201d beyond the\n visible spectrum, but able to impress the image of Christ upon\n patriarchs or heathen. This light has been shining through all the\n ages, but \u201c_the darkness apprehended it not_\u201d (_John 1:5_). Its\n rays register themselves only where there is a sensitive heart to\n receive them. Let them shine through a man, and how much unknown\n sin, and unknown possibilities of good, they reveal! The Moral\n Influence theory does not take account of the pre\u00ebxistent Christ\n and of his atoning work before his manifestation in the flesh. It\n therefore leads logically to belief in a second probation for the\n many imbeciles, outcasts, and heathen who in this world do not\n hear of Christ\u2019s atonement. The doctrine of Bushnell in this way\n undermines the doctrine of future retribution.\n\n To Lyman Abbott, the atonement is the self-propitiation of God\u2019s\n love, and its influence is exerted through education. In his\n Theology of an Evolutionist, 118, 190, he maintains that the\n atonement is \u201ca true reconciliation between God and man, making\n them at one through the incarnation and passion of Jesus Christ,\n who lived and suffered, not to redeem men from future torment, but\n to purify and perfect them in God\u2019s likeness by uniting them to\n God.... Sacrifice is not a penalty borne by an innocent sufferer\n for guilty men,\u2014a doctrine for which there is no authority either\n in Scripture or in life (_1 Peter 3:18?_)\u2014but a laying down of\n one\u2019s life in love, that another may receive life.... Redemption\n is not restoration to a lost state of innocence, impossible to be\n restored, but a culmination of the long process when man shall be\n presented before his Father \u2018_not having spot or wrinkle or any\n such thing_\u2019 (_Eph. 5:27_).... We believe not in the propitiation\n of an angry God by another suffering to appease the Father\u2019s\n wrath, but in the perpetual self-propitiation of the Father, whose\n mercy, going forth to redeem from sin, satisfies as nothing else\n could the divine indignation against sin, by abolishing it....\n Mercy is hate pitying; it is the pity of wrath. The pity conquers\n the hate only by lifting the sinner up from his degradation and\n restoring him to purity.\u201d And yet in all this there is no mention\n of the divine righteousness as the source of the indignation and\n the object of the propitiation!\n\n It is interesting to note that some of the greatest advocates of\n the Moral Influence theory have reverted to the older faith when\n they came to die. In his dying moments, as L. W. Munhall tells us,\n Horace Bushnell said: \u201cI fear what I have written and said upon\n the moral idea of the atonement is misleading and will do great\n harm;\u201d and, as he thought of it further, he cried: \u201cOh Lord Jesus,\n I trust for mercy only in the shed blood that thou didst offer on\n Calvary!\u201d Schleiermacher, on his deathbed, assembled his family\n and a few friends, and himself administered the Lord\u2019s Supper.\n After praying and blessing the bread, and after pronouncing the\n words: \u201c_This is my body, broken for you_,\u201d he added: \u201cThis is our\n foundation!\u201d As he started to bless the cup, he cried: \u201cQuick,\n quick, bring the cup! I am so happy!\u201d Then he sank quietly back,\n and was no more; see life of Rothe, by Nippold, 2:53, 54. Ritschl,\n in his History of Pietism, 2:65, had severely criticized Paul\n Gerhardt\u2019s hymn: \u201cO Haupt voll Blut und Wunden,\u201d as describing\n physical suffering; but he begged his son to repeat the two last\n verses of that hymn: \u201cO sacred head now wounded!\u201d when he came to\n die. And in general, the convicted sinner finds peace most quickly\n and surely when he is pointed to the Redeemer who died on the\n Cross and endured the penalty of sin in his stead.\n\n\n3d. The Grotian, or Governmental Theory of the Atonement.\n\n\nThis theory holds that the atonement is a satisfaction, not to any\ninternal principle of the divine nature, but to the necessities of\ngovernment. God\u2019s government of the universe cannot be maintained, nor can\nthe divine law preserve its authority over its subjects, unless the pardon\nof offenders is accompanied by some exhibition of the high estimate which\nGod sets upon his law, and the heinous guilt of violating it. Such an\nexhibition of divine regard for the law is furnished in the sufferings and\ndeath of Christ. Christ does not suffer the precise penalty of the law,\nbut God graciously accepts his suffering as a substitute for the penalty.\nThis bearing of substituted suffering on the part of Christ gives the\ndivine law such hold upon the consciences and hearts of men, that God can\npardon the guilty upon their repentance, without detriment to the\ninterests of his government. The author of this theory was Hugo Grotius,\nthe Dutch jurist and theologian (1583-1645). The theory is characteristic\nof the New England theology, and is generally held by those who accept the\nNew School view of sin.\n\n\n Grotius was a precocious genius. He wrote good Latin verses at\n nine years of age; was ripe for the University at twelve: edited\n the encyclop\u00e6dic work of Marcianus Capella at fifteen. Even thus\n early he went with an embassy to the court of France, where he\n spent a year. Returning home, he took the degree of doctor of\n laws. In literature he edited the remains of Aratus, and wrote\n three dramas in Latin. At twenty he was appointed historiographer\n of the United Provinces; then advocate-general of the fisc for\n Holland and Zealand. He wrote on international law; was appointed\n deputy to England; was imprisoned for his theological opinions;\n escaped to Paris; became ambassador of Sweden to France. He wrote\n commentaries on Scripture, also history, theology, and poetry. He\n was indifferent to dogma, a lover of peace, a compromiser, an\n unpartisan believer, dealing with doctrine more as a statesman\n than as a theologian. Of Grotius, Dr. E. G. Robinson used to say:\n \u201cIt is ordained of almighty God that the man who dips into\n everything never gets to the bottom of anything.\u201d\n\n Grotius, the jurist, conceived of law as a mere matter of\n political expediency\u2014a device to procure practical governmental\n results. The text most frequently quoted in support of his theory,\n is _Is. 42:21_\u2014\u201c_It pleased Jehovah, for his righteousness\u2019 sake,\n to magnify the law, and make it honorable._\u201d Strangely enough, the\n explanation is added: \u201ceven when its demands are unfulfilled.\u201d\n Park: \u201cChrist satisfied the law, by making it desirable and\n consistent for God not to come up to the demands of the law.\n Christ suffers a divine chastisement in consequence of our sins.\n Christ was cursed for Adam\u2019s sin, just as the heavens and the\n earth were cursed for Adam\u2019s sin,\u2014that is, he bore pains and\n sufferings on account of it.\u201d\n\n Grotius used the word _acceptilatio_, by which he meant God\u2019s\n sovereign provision of a suffering which was not itself penalty,\n but which he had determined to accept as a substitute for penalty.\n Here we have a virtual denial that there is anything in God\u2019s\n nature that requires Christ to suffer; for if penalty may be\n remitted in part, it may be remitted in whole, and the reason why\n Christ suffers at all is to be found, not in any demand of God\u2019s\n holiness, but solely in the beneficial influence of these\n sufferings upon man; so that in principle this theory is allied to\n the Example theory and the Moral Influence theory, already\n mentioned.\n\n Notice the difference between holding to a _substitute for\n penalty_, as Grotius did, and holding to an _equivalent\n substituted penalty_, as the Scriptures do. Grotius\u2019s own\n statement of his view may be found in his Defensio Fidei Catholic\u00e6\n de Satisfactione (Works, 4:297-338). More modern statements of it\n are those of Wardlaw, in his Systematic Theology, 2:358-395, and\n of Albert Barnes, on the Atonement. The history of New England\n thought upon the subject is given in Discourses and Treatises on\n the Atonement, edited by Prof. Park, of Andover. President\n Woolsey: \u201cChrist\u2019s suffering was due to a deep and awful sense of\n responsibility, a conception of the supreme importance to man of\n his standing firm at this crisis. He bore, not the wrath of God,\n but suffering, as the only way of redemption so far as men\u2019s own\n feeling of sin was concerned, and so far as the government of God\n was concerned.\u201d This unites the Governmental and the Moral\n Influence theories.\n\n Foster, Christian Life and Theology, 226, 227\u2014\u201cGrotius emphasized\n the idea of law rather than that of justice, and made the\n sufferings of Christ a legal example and the occasion of the\n relaxation of the law, and not the strict penalty demanded by\n justice. But this view, however it may have been considered and\n have served in the clarification of the thinking of the times, met\n with no general reception, and left little trace of itself among\n those theologians who maintained the line of evangelical\n theological descent.\u201d\n\n\nTo this theory we urge the following objections:\n\n(_a_) While it contains a valuable element of truth, namely, that the\nsufferings and death of Christ secure the interests of God\u2019s government,\nit is false by defect, in substituting for the chief aim of the atonement\none which is only subordinate and incidental.\n\n\n In our discussion of Penalty (pages 655, 656), we have seen that\n the object of punishment is not primarily the security of\n government. It is not right to punish a man for the beneficial\n effect on society. Ill-desert must go before punishment, or the\n punishment can have no beneficial effect on society. No punishment\n can work good to society, that is not just and right in itself.\n\n\n(_b_) It rests upon false philosophical principles,\u2014as, that utility is\nthe ground of moral obligation; that law is an expression of the will,\nrather than of the nature, of God; that the aim of penalty is to deter\nfrom the commission of offences; and that righteousness is resolvable into\nbenevolence.\n\n\n Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:573-581; 3:188, 189\u2014\u201cFor God to take that\n as satisfaction which is not really such, is to say that there is\n no truth in anything. God may take a part for the whole, error for\n truth, wrong for right. The theory really denies the necessity for\n the work of Christ. If every created thing offered to God is worth\n just so much as God accepts it for, then the blood of bulls and\n goats might take away sins, and Christ is dead in vain.\u201d Dorner,\n Glaubenslehre, 2:570, 571 (Syst. Doct., 4:38-40)\u2014\u201c_Acceptilatio_\n implies that nothing is good and right in itself. God is\n indifferent to good or evil. Man is bound by authority and force\n alone. There is no necessity of punishment or atonement. The\n doctrine of indulgences and of supererogation logically follows.\u201d\n\n\n(_c_) It ignores and virtually denies that immanent holiness of God of\nwhich the law with its threatened penalties, and the human conscience with\nits demand for punishment, are only finite reflections. There is something\nback of government; if the atonement satisfies government, it must be by\nsatisfying that justice of God of which government is an expression.\n\n\n No deeply convicted sinner feels that his controversy is with\n government. Undone and polluted, he feels himself in antagonism to\n the purity of a personal God. Government is not greater than God,\n but less. What satisfies God must satisfy government. Hence the\n sinner prays: \u201c_Against thee, thee only, have I sinned_\u201d (_Ps.\n 51:4_); \u201c_God be propitiated toward me the sinner_\u201d (literal\n translation of _Luke 18:13_),\u2014propitiated through God\u2019s own\n appointed sacrifice whose smoke is ascending in his behalf even\n while he prays.\n\n In the divine government this theory recognizes no constitution,\n but only legislative enactment; even this legislative enactment is\n grounded in no necessity of God\u2019s nature, but only in expediency\n or in God\u2019s arbitrary will; law may be abrogated for merely\n economic reasons, if any incidental good may be gained thereby. J.\n M. Campbell, Atonement, 81, 144\u2014\u201cNo awakened sinner, into whose\n spirit the terrors of the law have entered, ever thinks of\n rectoral justice, but of absolute justice, and of absolute justice\n only.... Rectoral justice so presupposes absolute justice, and so\n throws the mind back on that absolute justice, that the idea of an\n atonement that will satisfy the one, though it might not the\n other, is a delusion.\u201d\n\n N. W. Taylor\u2019s Theology was entitled: \u201cMoral Government,\u201d and C.\n G. Finney\u2019s Systematic Theology was a treatise on Moral\n Government, although it called itself by another name. But because\n New England ideas of government were not sufficiently grounded in\n God\u2019s holiness, but were rather based upon utility, expediency, or\n happiness, the very idea of government has dropped out of the New\n School theology, and its advocates with well-nigh one accord have\n gone over to the Moral Influence theory of the atonement, which is\n only a modified Socinianism. Both the Andover atonement and that\n of Oberlin have become purely subjective. For this reason the\n Grotian or Governmental theory has lost its hold upon the\n theological world and needs to have no large amount of space\n devoted to it.\n\n\n(_d_) It makes that to be an exhibition of justice which is not an\nexercise of justice; the atonement being, according to this theory, not an\nexecution of law, but an exhibition of regard for law, which will make it\nsafe to pardon the violators of law. Such a merely scenic representation\ncan inspire respect for law, only so long as the essential unreality of it\nis unsuspected.\n\n\n To teach that sin will be punished, there must be punishment.\n Potwin: \u201cHow the exhibition of what sin deserves, but does not\n get, can satisfy justice, is hard to see.\u201d The Socinian view of\n Christ as an example of virtue is more intelligible than the\n Grotian view of Christ as an example of chastisement. Lyman\n Abbott: \u201cIf I thought that Jesus suffered and died to produce a\n moral impression on me, it would not produce a moral impression on\n me.\u201d William Ashmore: \u201cA stage tragedian commits a mock murder in\n order to move people to tears. If Christ was in no sense a\n substitute, or if he was not co-responsible with the sinner he\n represents, then God and Christ are participants in a real tragedy\n the most awful that ever darkened human history, simply for the\n sake of its effect on men to move their callous sensibilities\u2014a\n stage-trick for the same effect.\u201d\n\n The mother pretends to cry in order to induce her child to obey.\n But the child will obey only while it thinks the mother\u2019s grief a\n reality, and the last state of that child is worse than the first.\n Christ\u2019s atonement is no passion-play. Hell cannot be cured by\n hom\u0153opathy. The sacrifice of Calvary is no dramatic exhibition of\n suffering for the purpose of producing a moral impression on\n awe-stricken spectators. It is an object-lesson, only because it\n is a reality. All God\u2019s justice and all God\u2019s love are focused in\n the Cross, so that it teaches more of God and his truth than all\n space and time beside.\n\n John Milton, Paradise Lost, book 5, speaks of \u201cmist, the common\n gloss of theologians.\u201d Such mist is the legal fiction by which\n Christ\u2019s suffering is taken in place of legal penalty, while yet\n it is not the legal penalty itself. B. G. Robinson: \u201cAtonement is\n not an arbitrary contrivance, so that if one person will endure a\n certain amount of suffering, a certain number of others may go\n scot-free.\u201d Mercy never cheats justice. Yet the New School theory\n of atonement admits that Christ cheated justice by a trick. It\n substituted the penalty of Christ for the penalty of the redeemed,\n and then substituted something else for the penalty of Christ.\n\n\n(_e_) The intensity of Christ\u2019s sufferings in the garden and on the cross\nis inexplicable upon the theory that the atonement was a histrionic\nexhibition of God\u2019s regard for his government, and can be explained only\nupon the view that Christ actually endured the wrath of God against human\nsin.\n\n\n Christ refused the \u201c_wine mingled with myrrh_\u201d (_Mark 15:23_),\n that he might to the last have full possession of his powers and\n speak no words but words of truth and soberness. His cry of agony:\n \u201c_My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?_\u201d (_Mat. 27:46_), was\n not an ejaculation of thoughtless or delirious suffering. It\n expressed the deepest meaning of the crucifixion. The darkening of\n the heavens was only the outward symbol of the hiding of the\n countenance of God from him who was \u201c_made to be sin on our\n behalf_\u201d (_2 Cor. 5:21_). In the case of Christ, above that of all\n others, _finis coronat_, and dying words are undying words. \u201cThe\n tongues of dying men Enforce attention like deep harmony; When\n words are scarce they\u2019re seldom spent in vain, For they breathe\n truth that breathe their words in pain.\u201d _Versus_ Park,\n Discourses, 328-355.\n\n A pure woman needs to meet an infamous proposition with something\n more than a mild refusal. She must flame up and be angry. _Ps.\n 97:10_\u2014\u201c_O ye that love Jehovah, hate evil_\u201d; _Eph. 4:26_\u2014\u201c_Be ye\n angry, and sin not._\u201d So it belongs to the holiness of God not to\n let sin go unchallenged. God not only _shows_ anger, but he _is_\n angry. It is the wrath of God which sin must meet, and which\n Christ must meet when he is numbered with the transgressors. Death\n was the cup of which he was to drink (_Mat. 20:22_; _John 18:11_),\n and which he drained to the dregs. Mason, Faith of the Gospel,\n 196\u2014\u201cJesus alone of all men truly \u2018_tasted death_\u2019 (_Heb. 2:9_).\n Some men are too stolid and unimaginative to taste it. To\n Christians the bitterness of death is gone, just because Christ\n died and rose again. But to Jesus its terrors were as yet\n undiminished. He resolutely set all his faculties to sound to the\n depths the dreadfulness of dying.\u201d\n\n We therefore cannot agree with either Wendt or Johnson in the\n following quotations. Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 2:249, 250\u2014\u201cThe\n forsaking of the Father was not an absolute one, since Jesus still\n called him \u2018_My God_\u2019 (_Mat. 27:46_). Jesus felt the failing of\n that energy of spirit which had hitherto upheld him, and he\n expresses simply his ardent desire and prayer that God would once\n more grant him his power and assistance.\u201d E. H. Johnson, The Holy\n Spirit, 143, 144\u2014\u201cIt is not even necessary to believe that God hid\n his face from Christ at the last moment. It is necessary only to\n admit that Christ no longer saw the Father\u2019s face.... He felt that\n it was so; but it was not so.\u201d These explanations make Christ\u2019s\n sufferings and Christ\u2019s words unreal, and to our mind they are\n inconsistent with both his deity and his atonement.\n\n\n(_f_) The actual power of the atonement over the human conscience and\nheart is due, not to its exhibiting God\u2019s regard for law, but to its\nexhibiting an actual execution of law, and an actual satisfaction of\nviolated holiness made by Christ in the sinner\u2019s stead.\n\n\n Whiton, Gloria Patri, 143, 144, claims that Christ is the\n propitiation for our sins only by bringing peace to the conscience\n and satisfying the divine demand that is felt therein. Whiton\n regards the atonement not as a governmental work outside of us,\n but as an educational work within. Aside from the objection that\n this view merges God\u2019s transcendence in his immanence, we urge the\n words of Matthew Henry: \u201cNothing can satisfy an offended\n conscience but that which satisfied an offended God.\u201d C. J.\n Baldwin: \u201cThe lake spread out has no moving power; it turns the\n mill-wheel only when contracted into the narrow stream and pouring\n over the fall. So the wide love of God moves men, only when it is\n concentrated into the sacrifice of the cross.\u201d\n\n\n(_g_) The theory contradicts all those passages of Scripture which\nrepresent the atonement as necessary; as propitiating God himself; as\nbeing a revelation of God\u2019s righteousness; as being an execution of the\npenalty of the law; as making salvation a matter of debt to the believer,\non the ground of what Christ has done; as actually purging our sins,\ninstead of making that purging possible; as not simply assuring the sinner\nthat God may now pardon him on account of what Christ has done, but that\nChrist has actually wrought out a complete salvation, and will bestow it\nupon all who come to him.\n\n\n John Bunyan, Pilgrim\u2019s Progress, chapter vi\u2014\u201cUpon that place stood\n a Cross, and a little below, in the bottom, a Sepulchre. So I saw\n in my dream, that just as Christian came up with the Cross, his\n burden loosed from off his shoulders, and fell from off his back,\n and began to tumble, and so continued to do, till it came to the\n mouth of the Sepulchre, where it fell in, and I saw it no more.\n Then was Christian glad and lightsome, and said with a merry\n heart, He hath given me rest by his sorrow, and life by his death.\n Then he stood still awhile to look and wonder; for it was very\n surprising to him that the sight of the Cross should thus ease him\n of his burden.\u201d\n\n John Bunyan\u2019s story is truer to Christian experience than is the\n Governmental theory. The sinner finds peace, not by coming to God\n with a distant respect to Christ, but by coming directly to the\n \u201c_Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world_\u201d (_John\n 1:29_). Christ\u2019s words to every conscious sinner are simply:\n \u201c_Come unto me_\u201d (_Mat. 11:28_). Upon the ground of what Christ\n has done, salvation is a matter of debt to the believer. _1 John\n 1:9_\u2014\u201c_If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to\n forgive us our sins_\u201d\u2014faithful to his promise, and righteous to\n Christ. The Governmental theory, on the other hand, tends to\n discourage the sinner\u2019s direct access to Christ, and to render the\n way to conscious acceptance with God more circuitous and less\n certain.\n\n When The Outlook says: \u201cNot even to the Son of God must we come\n instead of coming to God,\u201d we can see only plain denial of the\n validity of Christ\u2019s demands and promises, for he demands\n immediate submission when he bids the sinner follow him, and he\n promises immediate salvation when he assures all who come to him\n that he will not cast them out. The theory of Grotius is legal and\n speculative, but it is not Scriptural, nor does it answer the\n needs of human nature. For criticism of Albert Barnes\u2019s doctrine,\n see Watts, New Apologetic, 210-300. For criticism of the Grotian\n theory in general, see Shedd, Hist. Doctrine, 2:347-369; Crawford,\n Atonement, 367; Cunningham, Hist. Theology, 2:355; Princeton\n Essays, 1:259-292; Essay on Atonement, by Abp. Thomson, in Aids to\n Faith; McIlvaine, Wisdom of Holy Scripture, 194-196; S. H. Tyng,\n Christian Pastor; Charles Hodge, Essays, 129-184; Lidgett, Spir.\n Prin. of Atonement, 151-154.\n\n\n4th. The Irvingian Theory, or Theory of Gradually Extirpated Depravity.\n\n\nThis holds that, in his incarnation, Christ took human nature as it was in\nAdam, not before the Fall, but after the Fall,\u2014human nature, therefore,\nwith its inborn corruption and predisposition to moral evil; that,\nnotwithstanding the possession of this tainted and depraved nature,\nChrist, through the power of the Holy Spirit, or of his divine nature, not\nonly kept his human nature from manifesting itself in any actual or\npersonal sin, but gradually purified it, through struggle and suffering,\nuntil in his death he completely extirpated its original depravity, and\nreunited it to God. This subjective purification of human nature in the\nperson of Jesus Christ constitutes his atonement, and men are saved, not\nby any objective propitiation, but only by becoming through faith\npartakers of Christ\u2019s new humanity. This theory was elaborated by Edward\nIrving, of London (1792-1834), and it has been held, in substance, by\nMenken and Dippel in Germany.\n\n\n Irving was in this preceded by Felix of Urgella, in Spain (\u2020 818),\n whom Alcuin opposed. Felix said that the Logos united with human\n nature, without sanctifying it beforehand. Edward Irving, in his\n early life colleague of Dr. Chalmers, at Glasgow, was in his later\n years a preacher, in London, of the National Church of Scotland.\n For his own statement of his view of the Atonement, see his\n Collected Works, 5:9-398. See also Life of Irving, by Mrs.\n Oliphant; Menken, Schriften, 3:279-404; 6:351 _sq._; Guericke, in\n Studien und Kritiken, 1843: Heft 2; David Brown, in Expositor,\n Oct. 1887:264 _sq._, and letter of Irving to Marcus Dods, in\n British Weekly, Mch. 25, 1887. For other references, see\n Hagenbach, Hist. Doct., 2:496-498.\n\n Irving\u2019s followers differ in their representation of his views.\n Says Miller, Hist. and Doct. of Irvingism, 1:85\u2014\u201cIf indeed we made\n Christ a sinner, then indeed all creeds are at an end and we are\n worthy to die the death of blasphemers.... The miraculous\n conception depriveth him of human personality, and it also\n depriveth him of original sin and guilt needing to be atoned for\n by another, but it doth not deprive him of the substance of sinful\n flesh and blood,\u2014that is, flesh and blood the same with the flesh\n and blood of his brethren.\u201d 2:14\u2014Freer says: \u201cSo that, despite it\n was fallen flesh he had assumed, he was, through the Eternal\n Spirit, born into the world \u2018the Holy Thing\u2019.\u201d 11-15,\n 282-305\u2014\u201cUnfallen humanity needed not redemption, therefore, Jesus\n did not take it. He took fallen humanity, but purged it in the act\n of taking it. The nature of which he took part was sinful in the\n lump, but in his person most holy.\u201d\n\n So, says an Irvingian tract, \u201cBeing part of the very nature that\n had incurred the penalty of sin, though in his person never having\n committed or even thought it, part of the common humanity could\n suffer that penalty, and did so suffer, to make atonement for that\n nature, though he who took it knew no sin.\u201d Dr. Curry, quoted in\n McClintock and Strong, Encyclop\u00e6dia, 4:663, 664\u2014\u201cThe Godhead came\n into vital union with humanity fallen and under the law. The last\n thought carried, to Irving\u2019s realistic mode of thinking, the\n notion of Christ\u2019s participation in the fallen character of\n humanity, which he designated by terms that implied a real\n sinfulness in Christ. He attempted to get rid of the odiousness of\n that idea, by saying that this was overborne, and at length wholly\n expelled, by the indwelling Godhead.\u201d\n\n We must regard the later expounders of Irvingian doctrine as\n having softened down, if they have not wholly expunged, its most\n characteristic feature, as the following notation from Irving\u2019s\n own words will show: Works, 5:115\u2014\u201cThat Christ took our fallen\n nature, is most manifest, because there was no other in existence\n to take.\u201d 123\u2014\u201cThe human nature is thoroughly fallen; the mere\n apprehension of it by the Son doth not make it holy.\u201d 128\u2014\u201cHis\n soul did mourn and grieve and pray to God continually, that it\n might be delivered from the mortality, corruption, and temptation\n which it felt in its fleshly tabernacle.\u201d 152\u2014\u201cThese sufferings\n came not by imputation merely, but by actual participation of the\n sinful and cursed thing.\u201d Irving frequently quoted _Heb.\n 2:10_\u2014\u201c_make the author of their salvation perfect through\n sufferings._\u201d\n\n Irving\u2019s followers deny Christ\u2019s sinfulness, only by assuming that\n inborn infirmity and congenital tendencies to evil are not sin,\u2014in\n other words, that not native depravity, but only actual\n transgression, is to be denominated sin. Irving, in our judgment,\n was rightly charged with asserting the sinfulness of Christ\u2019s\n human nature, and it was upon this charge that he was deposed from\n the ministry by the Presbytery in Scotland.\n\n Irving was of commanding stature, powerful voice, natural and\n graceful oratory. He loved the antique and the grand. For a time\n in London he was the great popular sensation. But shortly after\n the opening of his new church in Regent\u2019s Square in 1827, he found\n that fashion had taken its departure and that his church was no\n longer crowded. He concluded that the world was under the reign of\n Satan; he became a fanatical millennarian; he gave himself wholly\n to the study of prophecy. In 1830 he thought the apostolic gifts\n were revived, and he held to the hope of a restoration of the\n primitive church, although he himself was relegated to a\n comparatively subordinate position. He exhausted his energies, and\n died at the age of forty-two. \u201cIf I had married Irving,\u201d said Mrs.\n Thomas Carlyle, \u201cthere would have been no tongues.\u201d\n\n\nTo this theory we offer the following objections:\n\n(_a_) While it embraces an important element of truth, namely, the fact of\na new humanity in Christ of which all believers become partakers, it is\nchargeable with serious error in denying the objective atonement which\nmakes the subjective application possible.\n\n\n Bruce, in his Humiliation of Christ, calls this a theory of\n \u201credemption by sample.\u201d It is a purely subjective atonement which\n Irving has in mind. Deliverance from sin, in order to deliverance\n from penalty, is an exact reversal of the Scripture order. Yet\n this deliverance from sin, to Irving\u2019s view, was to be secured in\n an external and mechanical way. He held that it was the Old\n Testament economy which should abide, while the New Testament\n economy should pass away. This is Sacramentarianism, or dependence\n upon the external rite, rather than upon the internal grace, as\n essential to salvation. The followers of Irving are\n Sacramentarians. The crucifix and candles, incense and gorgeous\n vestments, a highly complicated and symbolic ritual, they regard\n as a necessary accompaniment of religion. They feel the need of\n external authority, visible and permanent, but one that rests upon\n inspiration and continual supernatural help. They do not find this\n authority, as the Romanists do, in the Pope,\u2014they find it in their\n new Apostles and Prophets. The church can never be renewed, as\n they think, except by the restoration of all the ministering\n orders mentioned in _Eph. 4:11_\u2014\u201c_apostles ... prophets ...\n evangelists ... pastors ... teachers._\u201d But the N. T. mark of an\n apostle is that Christ has appeared to him. Irving\u2019s apostles\n cannot stand this test. See Luthardt, Erinnerungen aus vergangenen\n Tagen, 237.\n\n\n(_b_) It rests upon false fundamental principles,\u2014as, that law is\nidentical with the natural order of the universe, and as such, is an\nexhaustive expression of the will and nature of God; that sin is merely a\npower of moral evil within the soul, instead of also involving an\nobjective guilt and desert of punishment; that penalty is the mere\nreaction of law against the transgressor, instead of being also the\nrevelation of a personal wrath against sin; that the evil taint of human\nnature can be extirpated by suffering its natural consequences,\u2014penalty in\nthis way reforming the transgressor.\n\n\n Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:463 (Syst. Doct., 3:361, 362)\u2014\u201cOn\n Irving\u2019s theory, evil inclinations are not sinful. Sinfulness\n belongs only to evil acts. The loose connection between the Logos\n and humanity savors of Nestorianism. It is the work of the\n _person_ to rid itself of something in the humanity which does not\n render it really sinful. If Jesus\u2019 sinfulness of nature did not\n render his person sinful, this must be true of us,\u2014which is a\n Pelagian element, revealed also in the denial that for our\n redemption we need Christ as an atoning sacrifice. It is not\n necessary to a complete incarnation for Christ to take a _sinful_\n nature, unless sin is _essential_ to human nature. In Irving\u2019s\n view, the death of Christ\u2019s body works the regeneration of his\n sinful nature. But this is to make sin a merely physical thing,\n and the body the only part of man needing redemption.\u201d Penalty\n would thus become a reformer, and death a Savior.\n\n Irving held that there are two kinds of sin: 1. guiltless sin; 2.\n guilty sin. Passive depravity is not guilty; it is a part of man\u2019s\n sensual nature; without it we would not be human. But the moment\n this fallen nature expresses itself in action, it becomes guilty.\n Irving near the close of his life claimed a sort of sinless\n perfection; for so long as he could keep this sinful nature\n inactive, and be guided by the Holy Spirit, he was free from sin\n and guilt. Christ took this passive sin, that he might be like\n unto his brethren, and that he might be able to suffer.\n\n\n(_c_) It contradicts the express and implicit representations of\nScripture, with regard to Christ\u2019s freedom from all taint of hereditary\ndepravity; misrepresents his life as a growing consciousness of the\nunderlying corruption of his human nature, which culminated at Gethsemane\nand Calvary; and denies the truth of his own statements, when it declares\nthat he must have died on account of his own depravity, even though none\nwere to be saved thereby.\n\n\n \u201cI shall maintain until death,\u201d said Irving, \u201cthat the flesh of\n Christ was as rebellious as ours, as fallen as ours.... Human\n nature was corrupt to the core and black as hell, and this is the\n human nature the Son of God took upon himself and was clothed\n with.\u201d The Rescuer must stand as deep in the mire as the one he\n rescues. There was no substitution. Christ waged war with the sin\n of his own flesh and he expelled it. His glory was not in saving\n others, but in saving himself, and so demonstrating the power of\n man through the Holy Spirit to cast out sin from his heart and\n life. Irving held that his theory was the only one taught in\n Scripture and held from the first by the church.\n\n Nicoll, Life of Christ, 183\u2014\u201cAll others, as they grow in holiness,\n grow in their sense of sin. But when Christ is forsaken of the\n Father, he asks \u2018Why?\u2019 well knowing that the reason is not in his\n sin. He never makes confession of sin. In his longest prayer, the\n preface is an assertion of righteousness: \u2018_I glorified thee_\u2019\n (_John 17:4_). His last utterance from the cross is a quotation\n from _Ps. 31:5_\u2014\u2018_Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit_\u2019\n (_Luke 23:46_), but he does not add, as the Psalm does, \u2018_thou\n hast redeemed me, O Lord God of truth_,\u2019 for he needed no\n redemption, being himself the Redeemer.\u201d\n\n\n(_d_) It makes the active obedience of Christ, and the subjective\npurification of his human nature, to be the chief features of his work,\nwhile the Scriptures make his death and passive bearing of penalty the\ncentre of all, and ever regard him as one who is personally pure and who\nvicariously bears the punishment of the guilty.\n\n\n In Irving\u2019s theory there is no imputation, or representation, or\n substitution. His only idea of sacrifice is that sin itself shall\n be sacrificed, or annihilated. The many subjective theories of the\n atonement show that the offence of the cross has not ceased (_Gal.\n 5:11_\u2014\u201c_then hath the stumbling-block of the cross been done\n away_\u201d). Christ crucified is still a stumbling-block to modern\n speculation. Yet it is, as of old, \u201c_the power of God unto\n salvation_\u201d (_Rom. 1:16_; _cf._ _1 Cor. 1:23, 24_\u2014\u201c_we preach\n Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumbling-block and unto Gentiles\n foolishness; but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks,\n Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God_\u201d).\n\n As the ocean receives the impurities of the rivers and purges\n them, so Irving represented Christ as receiving into himself the\n impurities of humanity and purging the race from its sin. Here is\n the sense of defilement, but no sense of guilt; subjective\n pollution, but no objective condemnation. We take precisely\n opposite ground from that of Irving, namely, that Christ had, not\n hereditary depravity, but hereditary guilt; that he was under\n obligation to suffer for the sins of the race to which he had\n historically united himself, and of which he was the creator, the\n upholder, and the life. He was \u201c_made to be sin on our behalf_\u201d\n (_2 Cor. 5:21_), not in the sense of one defiled, as Irving\n thought, but in the sense of one condemned to bear our iniquities\n and to suffer their penal consequences. The test of a theory of\n the atonement, as the test of a religion, is its power to \u201ccleanse\n that red right hand\u201d of Lady Macbeth; in other words, its power to\n satisfy the divine justice of which our condemning conscience is\n only the reflection. The theory of Irving has no such power. Dr.\n E. G. Robinson verged toward Irving\u2019s view, when he claimed that\n \u201cChrist took human nature as he found it.\u201d\n\n\n(_e_) It necessitates the surrender of the doctrine of justification as a\nmerely declaratory act of God; and requires such a view of the divine\nholiness, expressed only through the order of nature, as can be maintained\nonly upon principles of pantheism.\n\n\n Thomas Aquinas inquired whether Christ was slain by himself, or by\n another. The question suggests a larger one\u2014whether God has\n constituted other forces than his own, personal and impersonal, in\n the universe, over against which he stands in his transcendence;\n or whether all his activity is merged in, and identical with, the\n activity of the creature. The theory of a merely subjective\n atonement is more consistent with the latter view than the former.\n For criticism of Irvingian doctrine, see Studien und Kritiken.\n 1845:319; 1877:354-374; Princeton Rev., April 1863:207; Christian\n Rev., 28:234 sq.; Ullmann, Sinlessness of Jesus, 219-232.\n\n\n5th. The Anselmic, or Commercial Theory of the Atonement.\n\n\nThis theory holds that sin is a violation of the divine honor or majesty,\nand, as committed against an infinite being, deserves an infinite\npunishment; that the majesty of God requires him to execute punishment,\nwhile the love of God pleads for the sparing of the guilty; that this\nconflict of divine attributes is eternally reconciled by the voluntary\nsacrifice of the God-man, who bears in virtue of the dignity of his person\nthe intensively infinite punishment of sin, which must otherwise have been\nsuffered extensively and eternally by sinners; that this suffering of the\nGod-man presents to the divine majesty an exact equivalent for the\ndeserved sufferings of the elect; and that, as the result of this\nsatisfaction of the divine claims, the elect sinners are pardoned and\nregenerated. This view was first broached by Anselm of Canterbury\n(1033-1109) as a substitute for the earlier patristic view that Christ\u2019s\ndeath was a ransom paid to Satan, to deliver sinners from his power. It is\nheld by many Scotch theologians, and, in this country, by the Princeton\nSchool.\n\n\n The old patristic theory, which the Anselmic view superseded, has\n been called the Military theory of the Atonement. Satan, as a\n captor in war, had a right to his captives, which could be bought\n off only by ransom. It was Justin Martyr who first propounded this\n view that Christ paid a ransom to Satan. Gregory of Nyssa added\n that Christ\u2019s humanity was the bait with which Satan was attracted\n to the hidden hook of Christ\u2019s deity, and so was caught by\n artifice. Peter Lombard, Sent., 3:19\u2014\u201cWhat did the Redeemer to our\n captor? He held out to him his cross as a mouse-trap; in it he\n set, as a bait, his blood.\u201d Even Luther compares Satan to the\n crocodile which swallows the ichneumon, only to find that the\n little animal eats its insides out.\n\n These metaphors show this, at least, that no age of the church has\n believed in a merely subjective atonement. Nor was this relation\n to Satan the only aspect in which the atonement was regarded even\n by the early church. So early as the fourth century, we find a\n great church Father maintaining that the death of Christ was\n required by the truth and goodness of God. See Crippen, History of\n Christian Doctrine, 129\u2014\u201cAthanasius (325-373) held that the death\n of Christ was the payment of a debt due to God. His argument is\n briefly this: God, having threatened death as the punishment of\n sin, would be untrue if he did not fulfil his threatening. But it\n would be equally unworthy of the divine goodness to permit\n rational beings, to whom he had imparted his own Spirit, to incur\n this death in consequence of an imposition practiced on them by\n the devil. Seeing then that nothing but death could solve this\n dilemma, the Word, who could not die, assumed a mortal body, and,\n offering his human nature a sacrifice for all, fulfilled the law\n by his death.\u201d Gregory Nazianzen (390) \u201cretained the figure of a\n ransom, but, clearly perceiving that the analogy was incomplete,\n he explained the death of Christ as an expedient to reconcile the\n divine attributes.\u201d\n\n But, although many theologians had recognized a relation of\n atonement to God, none before Anselm had given any clear account\n of the nature of this relation. Anselm\u2019s acute, brief, and\n beautiful treatise entitled \u201cCur Deus Homo\u201d constitutes the\n greatest single contribution to the discussion of this doctrine.\n He shows that \u201cwhatever man owes, he owes to God, not to the\n devil.... He who does not yield due honor to God, withholds from\n him what is his, and dishonors him; and this is sin.... It is\n necessary that either the stolen honor be restored, or that\n punishment follow.\u201d Man, because of original sin, cannot make\n satisfaction for the dishonor done to God,\u2014\u201ca sinner cannot\n justify a sinner.\u201d Neither could an angel make this satisfaction.\n None can make it but God. \u201cIf then none can make it but God, and\n none owes it but man, it must needs be wrought out by God, made\n man.\u201d The God-man, to make satisfaction for the sins of all\n mankind, must \u201cgive to God, of his own, something that is more\n valuable than all that is under God.\u201d Such a gift of infinite\n value was his death. The reward of his sacrifice turns to the\n advantage of man, and thus the justice and love of God are\n reconciled.\n\n The foregoing synopsis is mainly taken from Crippen, Hist. Christ.\n Doct., 134, 135. The Cur Deus Homo of Anselm is translated in Bib.\n Sac., 11:729; 12:52. A synopsis of it is given in Lichtenberger\u2019s\n Encyclop\u00e9die des Sciences Religieuses, vol. 1, art.: Anselm. The\n treatises on the Atonement by Symington, Candlish, Martin,\n Smeaton, in Great Britain, advocate for substance the view of\n Anselm, as indeed it was held by Calvin before them. In America,\n the theory is represented by Nathanael Emmons, A. Alexander, and\n Charles Hodge (Syst. Theol., 2:470-540).\n\n\nTo this theory we make the following objections:\n\n(_a_) While it contains a valuable element of truth, in its representation\nof the atonement as satisfying a principle of the divine nature, it\nconceives of this principle in too formal and external a manner,\u2014making\nthe idea of the divine honor or majesty more prominent than that of the\ndivine holiness, in which the divine honor and majesty are grounded.\n\n\n The theory has been called the \u201cCriminal theory\u201d of the Atonement,\n as the old patristic theory of a ransom paid to Satan has been\n called the \u201cMilitary theory.\u201d It had its origin in a time when\n exaggerated ideas prevailed respecting the authority of popes and\n emperors, and when dishonor done to their majesty (_crimen l\u00e6s\u00e6\n majestatis_) was the highest offence known to law. See article by\n Cramer, in Studien und Kritiken, 1880:7, on Wurzeln des\n Anselm\u2019schen Satisfactionsbegriffes.\n\n Allen, Jonathan Edwards, 88, 89\u2014\u201cFrom the point of view of\n Sovereignty, there could be no necessity for atonement. In\n Mohammedanism, where sovereignty is the supreme and sole\n theological principle, no need is felt for satisfying the divine\n justice. God may pardon whom he will, on whatever grounds his\n sovereign will may dictate. It therefore constituted a great\n advance in Latin theology, as also an evidence of its immeasurable\n superiority to Mohammedanism, when Anselm for the first time, in a\n clear and emphatic manner, had asserted an inward necessity in the\n being of God that his justice should receive satisfaction for the\n affront which had been offered to it by human sinfulness.\u201d\n\n Henry George, Progress and Poverty, 481\u2014\u201cIn the days of feudalism,\n men thought of heaven as organized on a feudal basis, and ranked\n the first and second Persons of the Trinity as Suzerain and\n Tenant-in-Chief.\u201d William James, Varieties of Religious\n Experience, 329, 830\u2014\u201cThe monarchical type of sovereignty was, for\n example, so ineradicably planted in the mind of our forefathers,\n that a dose of cruelty and arbitrariness in their Deity seems\n positively to have been required by their imagination. They called\n the cruelty \u2018retributive justice,\u2019 and a God without it would\n certainly not have struck them as sovereign enough. But to-day we\n abhor the very notion of eternal suffering inflicted; and that\n arbitrary dealing out of salvation and damnation to selected\n individuals, of which Jonathan Edwards could persuade himself that\n he had not only a conviction, but a \u2018delightful conviction,\u2019 as of\n a doctrine \u2018exceeding pleasant, bright, and sweet,\u2019 appears to us,\n if sovereignly anything, sovereignly irrational and mean.\u201d\n\n\n(_b_) In its eagerness to maintain the atoning efficacy of Christ\u2019s\npassive obedience, the active obedience, quite as clearly expressed in\nScripture, is insufficiently emphasized and well nigh lost sight of.\n\n\n Neither Christ\u2019s active obedience alone, nor Christ\u2019s obedient\n passion alone, can save us. As we shall see hereafter, in our\n examination of the doctrine of Justification, the latter was\n needed as the ground upon which our penalty could be remitted; the\n former as the ground upon which we might be admitted to the divine\n favor. Calvin has reflected the passive element in Anselm\u2019s view,\n in the following passages of his Institutes: II, 17:3\u2014\u201cGod, to\n whom we were hateful through sin, was appeased by the death of his\n Son, and was made propitious to us.\u201d... II, 16:7\u2014\u201cIt is necessary\n to consider how he substituted himself in order to pay the price\n of our redemption. Death held us under its yoke, but he, in our\n place, delivered himself into its power, that he might exempt us\n from it.\u201d... II, 16:2\u2014\u201cChrist interposed and bore what, by the\n just judgment of God, was impending over sinners; with his own\n blood expiated the sin which rendered them hateful to God; by this\n expiation satisfied and duly propitiated the Father; by this\n intercession appeased his anger; on this basis founded peace\n between God and men; and by this tie secured the divine\n benevolence toward them.\u201d\n\n It has been said that Anselm regarded Christ\u2019s death not as a\n vicarious punishment, but as a voluntary sacrifice in compensation\n for which the guilty were released and justified. So Neander,\n Hist. Christ. Dogmas (Bohn), 2:517, understands Anselm to teach\n \u201cthe necessity of a satisfactio vicaria activa,\u201d and says: \u201cWe do\n not find in his writings the doctrine of a satisfactio passiva: he\n nowhere says that Christ had endured the punishment of men.\u201d\n Shedd, Hist. Christ. Doctrine, 2:282, thinks this a\n misunderstanding of Anselm. The Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica takes the\n view of Shedd, when it speaks of Christ\u2019s sufferings as penalty:\n \u201cThe justice of man demands satisfaction; and as an insult to\n infinite honor is itself infinite, the satisfaction must be\n infinite, _i. e._, it must outweigh all that is not God. Such a\n penalty can only be paid by God himself, and, as a penalty for\n man, must be paid under the form of man. Satisfaction is only\n possible through the God-man. Now this God-man, as sinless, is\n exempt from the punishment of sin; his passion is therefore\n voluntary, not given as due. The merit of it is therefore\n infinite; God\u2019s justice is thus appeased, and his mercy may extend\n to man.\u201d The truth then appears to be that Anselm held Christ\u2019s\n obedience to be passive, in that he satisfied God\u2019s justice by\n enduring punishment which the sinner deserved; but that he held\n this same obedience of Christ to be active, in that he endured\n this penalty voluntarily, when there was no obligation upon him so\n to do.\n\n Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2:431, 461, 462\u2014\u201cChrist not only\n suffered the penalty, but obeyed the precept, of the law. In this\n case law and justice get their whole dues. But when lost man only\n suffers the penalty, but does not obey the precept, the law is\n defrauded of a part of its dues. No law is completely obeyed, if\n only its penalty is endured.... Consequently, a sinner can never\n completely and exhaustively satisfy the divine law, however much\n or long he may suffer, because he cannot at one and the same time\n endure the penalty and obey the precept. He owes \u2018_ten thousand\n talents_\u2019 and has \u2018_not wherewith to pay_\u2019 (_Mat. 18:24, 25_), But\n Christ did both, and therefore he \u2018_magnified the law and made it\n honorable_\u2019 (_Is. 42:21_), in an infinitely higher degree than the\n whole human family would have done, had they all personally\n suffered for their sins.\u201d _Cf._ Edwards, Works, 1:406.\n\n\n(_c_) It allows disproportionate weight to those passages of Scripture\nwhich represent the atonement under commercial analogies, as the payment\nof a debt or ransom, to the exclusion of those which describe it as an\nethical fact, whose value is to be estimated not quantitatively, but\nqualitatively.\n\n\n Milton, Paradise Lost, 3:209-212\u2014\u201cDie he, or justice must, unless\n for him Some other, able and as willing, pay The rigid\n satisfaction, death for death.\u201d The main text relied upon by the\n advocates of the Commercial theory is _Mat. 20:28_\u2014\u201c_give his life\n a ransom for many._\u201d Pfleiderer, Philosophy of Religion,\n 1:257\u2014\u201cThe work of Christ, as Anselm construed it, was in fact\n nothing else than the prototype of the meritorious performances\n and satisfactions of the ecclesiastical saints, and was therefore,\n from the point of view of the medi\u00e6val church, thought out quite\n logically. All the more remarkable is it that the churches of the\n Reformation could be satisfied with this theory, notwithstanding\n that it stood in complete contradiction to their deeper moral\n consciousness. If, according to Protestant principles generally,\n there are no supererogatory meritorious works, then one would\n suppose that such cannot be accepted even in the case of Jesus.\u201d\n\n E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 258\u2014\u201cThe Anselmic theory was\n rejected by Abelard for grounding the atonement in justice instead\n of benevolence, and for taking insufficient account of the power\n of Christ\u2019s sufferings and death in procuring a subjective change\n in man.\u201d Encyc. Brit., 2:93 (art.: Anselm)\u2014\u201cThis theory has\n exercised immense influence on the form of church doctrine. It is\n certainly an advance on the older patristic theory, in so far as\n it substitutes for a contest between God and Satan, a contest\n between the goodness and justice of God; but it puts the whole\n relation on a merely legal footing, gives it no ethical bearing,\n and neglects altogether the consciousness of the individual to be\n redeemed. In this respect it contrasts unfavorably with the later\n theory of Abelard.\u201d\n\n\n(_d_) It represents the atonement as having reference only to the elect,\nand ignores the Scripture declarations that Christ died for all.\n\n\n Anselm, like Augustine, limited the atonement to the elect. Yet\n Leo the Great, in 461, had affirmed that \u201cso precious is the\n shedding of Christ\u2019s blood for the unjust, that if the whole\n universe of captives would believe in the Redeemer, no chain of\n the devil could hold them\u201d (Crippen, 132). Bishop Gailor, of the\n Episcopal Church, heard General Booth at Memphis say in 1903:\n \u201cFriends, Jesus shed his blood to pay the price, and he bought\n from God enough salvation to go round.\u201d The Bishop says: \u201cI felt\n that his view of salvation was different from mine. Yet such\n teaching, partial as it is, lifts men by the thousand from the\n mire and vice of sin into the power and purity of a new life in\n Jesus Christ.\u201d\n\n Foster, Christian Life and Theology, 221\u2014\u201cAnselm does not clearly\n connect the death of Christ with the punishment of sin, since he\n makes it a supererogatory work voluntarily done, in consequence of\n which it is \u2018fitting\u2019 that forgiveness should be bestowed on\n sinners.... Yet his theory served to hand down to later\n theologians the great idea of the objective atonement.\u201d\n\n\n(_e_) It is defective in holding to a merely external transfer of the\nmerit of Christ\u2019s work, while it does not clearly state the internal\nground of that transfer, in the union of the believer with Christ.\n\n\n This needed supplement, namely, the doctrine of the Union of the\n Believer with Christ, was furnished by Thomas Aquinas, Summa, pars\n 3, qu\u00e6s. 8. The Anselmic theory is Romanist in its tendency, as\n the theory next to be mentioned is Protestant in its tendency. P.\n S. Moxom asserts that salvation is not by substitution, but by\n incorporation. We prefer to say that salvation is by substitution,\n but that the substitution is by incorporation. Incorporation\n involves substitution, and another\u2019s pain inures to my account.\n Christ being incorporate with humanity, all the exposures and\n liabilities of humanity fell upon him. Simon, Reconciliation by\n Incarnation, is an attempt to unite the two elements of the\n doctrine.\n\n Lidgett, Spir. Prin. of Atonement, 182-189\u2014\u201cAs Anselm represents\n it, Christ\u2019s death is not ours in any such sense that we can enter\n into it. Bushnell justly charges that it leaves no moral dynamic\n in the Cross.\u201d For criticism of Anselm, see John Caird, Fund.\n Ideas of Christianity, 2:172-193: Thomasius, Christi Person und\n Werk, III, 2:230-241; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, IV, 2:70 sq.; Baur,\n Dogmengeschichte, 2:416 _sq._; Shedd, Hist. Doct., 2:273-286;\n Dale, Atonement, 279-292; McIlvaine, Wisdom of Holy Scripture,\n 196-199; Kreibig, Vers\u00f6hnungslehre, 176-178.\n\n\n6th. The Ethical Theory of the Atonement.\n\n\nIn propounding what we conceive to be the true theory of the atonement, it\nseems desirable to divide our treatment into two parts. No theory can be\nsatisfactory which does not furnish a solution of the two problems: 1.\nWhat did the atonement accomplish? or, in other words, what was the object\nof Christ\u2019s death? The answer to this question must be a description of\nthe atonement in its relation to holiness in God. 2. What were the means\nused? or, in other words, how could Christ justly die? The answer to this\nquestion must be a description of the atonement as arising from Christ\u2019s\nrelation to humanity. We take up these two parts of the subject in order.\n\n\n Edwards, Works, 1:609, says that two things make Christ\u2019s\n sufferings a satisfaction for human guilt: (1) their equality or\n equivalence to the punishment that the sinner deserves; (2) the\n union between him and them, or the propriety of his being\n accepted, in suffering, as the representative of the sinner.\n Christ bore God\u2019s wrath: (1) by the sight of sin and punishment;\n (2) by enduring the effects of wrath ordered by God. See also\n Edwards, Sermon on the Satisfaction of Christ. These statements of\n Edwards suggest the two points of view from which we regard the\n atonement; but they come short of the Scriptural declarations, in\n that they do not distinctly assert Christ\u2019s endurance of penalty\n itself. Thus they leave the way open for the New School theories\n of the atonement, propounded by the successors of Edwards.\n\n Adolphe Monod said well: \u201cSave first the holy law of my God,\u2014after\n that you shall save me.\u201d Edwards felt the first of these needs,\n for he says, in his Mysteries of Scripture, Works, 3:542\u2014\u201cThe\n necessity of Christ\u2019s satisfaction to divine justice is, as it\n were, the centre and hinge of all doctrines of pure revelation.\n Other doctrines are comparatively of little importance, except as\n they have respect to this.\u201d And in his Work of Redemption, Works,\n 1:412\u2014\u201cChrist was born to the end that he might die; and therefore\n he did, as it were, begin to die as soon as he was born.\u201d See\n _John 12:32_\u2014\u201c_And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw\n all men unto myself. But this he said, signifying by what manner\n of death he should die._\u201d Christ was \u201c_lifted up_\u201d: 1. as a\n propitiation to the holiness of God, which makes suffering to\n follow sin, so affording the only ground for pardon without and\n peace within; 2. as a power to purify the hearts and lives of men,\n Jesus being as \u201c_the serpent lifted up in the wilderness_\u201d (_John\n 3:14_), and we overcoming \u201c_because of the blood of the Lamb_\u201d\n (_Rev. 12:11_).\n\n\n_First_,\u2014the Atonement as related to Holiness in God.\n\nThe Ethical theory holds that the necessity of the atonement is grounded\nin the holiness of God, of which conscience in man is a finite reflection.\nThere is an ethical principle in the divine nature, which demands that sin\nshall be punished. Aside from its results, sin is essentially\nill-deserving. As we who are made in God\u2019s image mark our growth in purity\nby the increasing quickness with which we detect impurity, and the\nincreasing hatred which we feel toward it, so infinite purity is a\nconsuming fire to all iniquity. As there is an ethical demand in our\nnatures that not only others\u2019 wickedness, but our own wickedness, be\nvisited with punishment, and a keen conscience cannot rest till it has\nmade satisfaction to justice for its misdeeds, so there is an ethical\ndemand of God\u2019s nature that penalty follow sin.\n\n\n The holiness of God has conscience and penalty for its correlates\n and consequences. Gordon, Christ of To-day, 216\u2014\u201cIn old Athens,\n the rock on whose top sat the Court of the Areopagus, representing\n the highest reason and the best character of the Athenian state,\n had underneath it the Cave of the Furies.\u201d Shakespeare knew human\n nature and he bears witness to its need of atonement. In his last\n Will and Testament he writes: \u201cFirst, I commend my soul into the\n hands of God, my Creator, hoping and assuredly believing, through\n the only merits of Jesus Christ my Savior, to be made partaker of\n life everlasting.\u201d Richard III, 1:4\u2014\u201cI charge you, as you hope to\n have redemption By Christ\u2019s dear blood shed for our grievous sins,\n That you depart and lay no hands on me.\u201d Richard II, 4:1\u2014\u201cThe\n world\u2019s Ransom, blessed Mary\u2019s Son.\u201d Henry VI, 2d part, 3:2\u2014\u201cThat\n dread King took our state upon him, To free us from his Father\u2019s\n wrathful curse.\u201d Henry IV, 1st part, 1:1\u2014\u201cThose holy fields, Over\n whose acres walked those blessed feet, Which fourteen hundred\n years ago were nailed For our advantage on the bitter Cross.\u201d\n Measure for Measure, 2:2\u2014\u201cWhy, all the souls that are were forfeit\n once; And he that might the vantage best have took Found out the\n remedy.\u201d Henry VI, 2d part, 1:1\u2014\u201cNow, by the death of him that\n died for all!\u201d All\u2019s Well that Ends Well, 3:4\u2014\u201cWhat angel shall\n Bless this unworthy husband? He cannot thrive Unless her prayers,\n whom heaven delights to hear And loves to grant, reprieve him from\n the wrath Of greatest justice.\u201d See a good statement of the\n Ethical theory of the Atonement in its relation to God\u2019s holiness,\n in Denney, Studies in Theology, 100-124.\n\n\nPunishment is the constitutional reaction of God\u2019s being against moral\nevil\u2014the self-assertion of infinite holiness against its antagonist and\nwould-be destroyer. In God this demand is devoid of all passion, and is\nconsistent with infinite benevolence. It is a demand that cannot be\nevaded, since the holiness from which it springs is unchanging. The\natonement is therefore a satisfaction of the ethical demand of the divine\nnature, by the substitution of Christ\u2019s penal sufferings for the\npunishment of the guilty.\n\n\n John Wessel, a Reformer before the Reformation (1419-1489): \u201cIpse\n deus, ipse sacerdos, ipse hostia, pro se, de se, sibi\n satisfecit\u201d\u2014\u201cHimself being at the same time God, priest, and\n sacrificial victim, he made satisfaction to himself, for himself\n [_i. e._, for the sins of men to whom he had united himself], and\n by himself [by his own sinless sufferings].\u201d Quarles\u2019s Emblems: \u201cO\n groundless deeps! O love beyond degree! The Offended dies, to set\n the offender free!\u201d\n\n Spurgeon, Autobiography, 1:98\u2014\u201cWhen I was in the hand of the Holy\n Spirit, under conviction of sin, I had a clear and sharp sense of\n the justice of God. Sin, whatever it might be to other people,\n became to me an intolerable burden. It was not so much that I\n feared hell, as that I feared sin; and all the while I had upon my\n mind a deep concern for the honor of God\u2019s name and the integrity\n of his moral government. I felt that it would not satisfy my\n conscience if I could be forgiven unjustly. But then there came\n the question: \u2018How could God be just, and yet justify me who had\n been so guilty?\u2019... The doctrine of the atonement is to my mind\n one of the surest proofs of the inspiration of Holy Scripture. Who\n would or could have thought of the just Ruler dying for the unjust\n rebel?\u201d\n\n\nThis substitution is unknown to mere law, and above and beyond the powers\nof law. It is an operation of grace. Grace, however, does not violate or\nsuspend law, but takes it up into itself and fulfils it. The righteousness\nof law is maintained, in that the source of all law, the judge and\npunisher, himself voluntarily submits to bear the penalty, and bears it in\nthe human nature that has sinned.\n\n\n Matheson, Moments on the Mount, 221\u2014\u201cIn conscience, man condemns\n and is condemned. Christ was God in the flesh, both priest and\n sacrificial victim (_Heb. 9:12_). He is \u2018_full of\n grace_\u2019\u2014forgiving grace\u2014but he is \u2018_full of truth_\u2019 also, and so\n \u2018_the only-begotten from the Father_\u2019 (_John 1:14_). Not\n forgiveness that ignores sin, not justice that has no mercy. He\n forgave the sinner, because he bore the sin.\u201d Kaftan, referring to\n some modern theologians who have returned to the old doctrine but\n who have said that the basis of the atonement is, not the\n juridical idea of punishment, but the ethical idea of\n propitiation, affirms as follows: \u201cOn the contrary the highest\n ethical idea of propitiation is just that of punishment. Take this\n away, and propitiation becomes nothing but the inferior and\n unworthy idea of appeasing the wrath of an incensed deity.\n Precisely the idea of the vicarious suffering of punishment is the\n idea which must in some way be brought to a full expression for\n the sake of the ethical consciousness.\n\n \u201cThe conscience awakened by God can accept no forgiveness which is\n not experienced as at the same time a condemnation of sin....\n Jesus, though he was without sin and deserved no punishment, took\n upon himself all the evils which have come into the world as the\n consequence and punishment of sin, even to the shameful death on\n the Cross at the hand of sinners.... Consequently for the good of\n man he bore all that which man had deserved, and thereby has man\n escaped the final eternal punishment and has become a child of\n God.... This is not merely a subjective conclusion upon the\n related facts, but it is as objective and real as anything which\n faith recognizes and knows.\u201d\n\n\nThus the atonement answers the ethical demand of the divine nature that\nsin be punished if the offender is to go free. The interests of the divine\ngovernment are secured as a first subordinate result of this satisfaction\nto God himself, of whose nature the government is an expression; while, as\na second subordinate result, provision is made for the needs of human\nnature,\u2014on the one hand the need of an objective satisfaction to its\nethical demand of punishment for sin, and on the other the need of a\nmanifestation of divine love and mercy that will affect the heart and move\nit to repentance.\n\n\n The great classical passage with reference to the atonement is\n _Rom. 3:25, 26_\u2014\u201c_whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through\n faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the\n passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of\n God; for the showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present\n season: that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him\n that hath faith is Jesus._\u201d Or, somewhat more freely translated,\n the passage would read:\u2014\u201c_whom God hath set forth in his blood as\n a propitiatory sacrifice, through faith, to show forth his\n righteousness on account of the pretermission of past offenses in\n the forbearance of God; to declare his righteousness in the time\n now present, so that he may be just and yet may justify him who\n believeth in Jesus_.\u201d\n\n EXPOSITION OF ROM. 3:25, 26.\u2014These verses are an expanded\n statement of the subject of the epistle\u2014the revelation of the\n \u201c_righteousness of God_\u201d (= the righteousness which God provides\n and which God accepts)\u2014which had been mentioned in _1:17_, but\n which now has new light thrown upon it by the demonstration, in\n _1:18-3:20_, that both Gentiles and Jews are under condemnation,\n and are alike shut up for salvation to some other method than that\n of works. We subjoin the substance of Meyer\u2019s comments upon this\n passage.\n\n \u201c_Verse 25._ \u2018_God has set forth Christ as an effectual\n propitiatory offering, through faith, by means of his blood_,\u2019 _i.\n e._, in that he caused him to shed his blood. \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\n belongs to \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf, not to \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. The purpose of this setting\n forth in his blood is \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03be\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u2018_for\n the display of his_ [judicial and punitive] _righteousness_,\u2019\n which received its satisfaction in the death of Christ as a\n propitiatory offering, and was thereby practically demonstrated\n and exhibited. \u2018_On account of the passing-by of sins that had\n previously taken place_,\u2019 _i. e._, because he had allowed the\n pre-Christian sins to go without punishment, whereby his\n righteousness had been lost sight of and obscured, and had come to\n need an \u1f14\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03be\u03b9\u03c2, or exhibition to men. Omittance is not\n acquittance. \u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, passing-by, is intermediate between pardon\n and punishment. \u2018_In virtue of the forbearance of God_\u2019 expresses\n the motive of the \u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. Before Christ\u2019s sacrifice, God\u2019s\n administration was a scandal,\u2014it needed vindication. The atonement\n is God\u2019s answer to the charge of freeing the guilty.\n\n \u201c_Verse 26._ \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 is not epexegetical of \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03be\u03b9\u03bd, but\n presents the teleology of the \u1f31\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, the final aim of the\n whole affirmation from \u1f42\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf to \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1ff7\u2014namely, first, God\u2019s\n _being just_, and secondly, his _appearing just_ in consequence of\n this. _Justus et justificans_, instead of _justus et condemnans_,\n this is the _summum paradoxon evangelicum_. Of this revelation of\n righteousness, not through condemnation, but through atonement,\n grace is the determining ground.\u201d\n\n We repeat what was said on pages 719, 720, with regard to the\n teaching of the passage, namely, that it shows: (1) that Christ\u2019s\n death is a propitiatory sacrifice; (2) that its first and main\n effect is upon God; (3) that the particular attribute in God which\n demands the atonement in his justice, or holiness; (4) that the\n satisfaction of this holiness is the necessary condition of God\u2019s\n justifying the believer. It is only incidentally and subordinately\n that the atonement is a necessity to man; Paul speaks of it here\n mainly as a necessity to God. Christ suffers, indeed, that God may\n _appear_ righteous; but behind the appearance lies the reality;\n the main object of Christ\u2019s suffering is that God may _be_\n righteous, while he pardons the believing sinner; in other words,\n the ground of the atonement is something internal to God himself.\n See _Heb. 2:10_\u2014it \u201c_became_\u201d God = it was morally fitting in God,\n to make Christ suffer; _cf._ _Zech. 6:8_\u2014\u201c_they that go toward the\n north country have quieted my spirit in the north country_\u201d\u2014the\n judgments inflicted on Babylon have satisfied my justice.\n\n Charnock: \u201cHe who once \u2018_quenched the violence of fire_\u2019 for those\n Hebrew children, has also quenched the fires of God\u2019s anger\n against the sinner, hotter than furnace heated seven times.\u201d The\n same God who is a God of holiness, and who in virtue of his\n holiness must punish human sin, is also a God of mercy, and in\n virtue of his mercy himself bears the punishment of human sin.\n Dorner, Gesch. prot. Theologie, 98\u2014\u201cChrist is not only mediator\n between God and man, but between the just God and the merciful\n God\u201d\u2014_cf._ _Ps. 85:10_\u2014\u201c_Mercy and truth are met together;\n righteousness and peace have kissed each other,_\u201d \u201cConscience\n demands vicariousness, for conscience declares that a gratuitous\n pardon would not be just\u201d; see Knight, Colloquia Peripatetica, 88.\n\n Lidgett, Spir. Principle of the Atonement, 219, 304\u2014\u201cThe Atonement\n 1. has Godward significance; 2. consists in our Lord\u2019s endurance\n of death on our behalf; 3. the spirit in which he endured death is\n of vital importance to the efficacy of his sacrifice, namely,\n obedience.... God gives repentance, yet requires it; he gives\n atonement, yet requires it. \u2018_Thanks be to God for his unspeakable\n gift_\u2019 (_2 Cor. 9:15_).\u201d Simon, in Expositor, 6:321-334 (for\n substance)\u2014\u201cAs in prayer we ask God to energize us and enable us\n to obey his law, and he answers by entering our hearts and obeying\n in us and for us: as we pray for strength in affliction, and find\n him helping us by putting his Spirit into us, and suffering in us\n and for us; so in atonement, Christ, the manifested God, obeys and\n suffers in our stead. Even the moral theory implies substitution\n also. God in us obeys his own law and bears the sorrows that sin\n has caused. Why can he not, in human nature, also endure the\n penalty of sin? The possibility of this cannot be consistently\n denied by any who believe in divine help granted in answer to\n prayer. The doctrine of the atonement and the doctrine of prayer\n stand or fall together.\u201d\n\n See on the whole subject, Shedd, Discourses and Essays, 272-324,\n Philosophy of History, 65-69, and Dogmatic Theology, 2:401-463;\n Magee, Atonement and Sacrifice, 27, 53, 258; Edwards\u2019s Works,\n 4:140 sq.; Weber, Vom Zorne Gottes, 214-334; Owen, on Divine\n Justice, in Works, 10:500-512; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, IV,\n 2:27-114; Hopkins, Works, 1:319-368; Sch\u00f6berlein, in Studien und\n Kritiken, 1845:267-318, and 1847:7-70, also in Herzog,\n Encyclop\u00e4die, art.: Vers\u00f6hnung; Jahrbuch f. d. Theol., 3:713, and\n 8:213; Macdonnell, Atonement, 115-214; Luthardt, Saving Truths,\n 114-138; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 605-637; Lawrence, in Bib. Sac.,\n 20:332-339; Kreibig, Vers\u00f6hnungslehre; Waffle, in Bap. Rev.,\n 1882:263-286; Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:641-662 (Syst. Doct.,\n 4:107-124); Remensnyder, The Atonement and Modern Thought.\n\n\n_Secondly_,\u2014the Atonement as related to Humanity in Christ.\n\nThe Ethical theory of the atonement holds that Christ stands in such\nrelation to humanity, that what God\u2019s holiness demands Christ is under\nobligation to pay, longs to pay, inevitably does pay, and pays so fully,\nin virtue of his two-fold nature, that every claim of justice is\nsatisfied, and the sinner who accepts what Christ has done in his behalf\nis saved.\n\n\n Dr. R. W. Dale, in his work on The Atonement, states the question\n before us: \u201cWhat must be Christ\u2019s relation to men, in order to\n make it possible that he should die for them?\u201d We would change the\n form of the question, so that it should read: \u201cWhat must be\n Christ\u2019s relation to men, in order to make it not only possible,\n but just and necessary, that he should die for them?\u201d Dale\n replies, for substance, that Christ must have had an original and\n central relation to the human race and to every member of it; see\n Denney, Death of Christ, 318. In our treatment of Ethical Monism,\n of the Trinity, and of the Person of Christ, we have shown that\n Christ, as Logos, as the immanent God, is the Life of humanity,\n laden with responsibility for human sin, while yet he personally\n knows no sin. Of this race-responsibility and race-guilt which\n Christ assumed, and for which he suffered so soon as man had\n sinned, Christ\u2019s obedience and suffering in the flesh were the\n visible reflection and revelation. Only in Christ\u2019s organic union\n with the race can we find the vital relation which will make his\n vicarious sufferings either possible or just. Only when we regard\n Calvary as revealing eternal principles of the divine nature, can\n we see how the sufferings of those few hours upon the Cross could\n suffice to save the millions of mankind.\n\n Dr. E. Y. Mullins has set forth the doctrine of the Atonement in\n five propositions: \u201c1. In order to atonement Christ became vitally\n united to the human race. It was only by assuming the nature of\n those he would redeem that he could break the power of their\n captor.... The human race may be likened to many sparrows who had\n been caught in the snare of the fowler, and were hopelessly\n struggling against their fate. A great eagle swoops down from the\n sky, becomes entangled with the sparrows in the net, and then\n spreading his mighty wings he soars upward bearing the snare and\n captives and breaking its meshes he delivers himself and them....\n Christ the fountain head of life imparting his own vitality to the\n redeemed, and causing them to share in the experiences of\n Gethsemane and Calvary, breaking thus for them the power of sin\n and death\u2014this is the atonement, by virtue of which sin is put\n away and man is united to God.\u201d\n\n Dr. Mullins properly regards this view of atonement as too narrow,\n inasmuch as it disregards the differences between Christ and men\n arising from his sinlessness and his deity. He adds therefore that\n \u201c2. Christ became the substitute for sinners; 3. became the\n representative of men before God; 4. gained power over human\n hearts to win them from sin and reconcile them to God; and 5.\n became a propitiation and satisfaction, rendering the remission of\n sins consistent with the divine holiness.\u201d If Christ\u2019s union with\n the race be one which begins with creation and antedates the Fall,\n all of the later points in the above scheme are only natural\n correlates and consequences of the first,\u2014substitution,\n representation, reconciliation, propitiation, satisfaction, are\n only different aspects of the work which Christ does for us, by\n virtue of the fact that he is the immanent God, the Life of\n humanity, priest and victim, condemning and condemned, atoning and\n atoned.\n\n\nWe have seen how God can justly demand satisfaction; we now show how\nChrist can justly make it; or, in other words, how the innocent can justly\nsuffer for the guilty. The solution of the problem lies in Christ\u2019s union\nwith humanity. The first result of that union is obligation to suffer for\nmen; since, being one with the race, Christ had a share in the\nresponsibility of the race to the law and the justice of God. In him\nhumanity was created; at every stage of its existence humanity was upheld\nby his power; as the immanent God he was the life of the race and of every\nmember of it. Christ\u2019s sharing of man\u2019s life justly and inevitably\nsubjected him to man\u2019s exposures and liabilities, and especially to God\u2019s\ncondemnation on account of sin.\n\n\n In the seventh chapter of Elsie Venner, Oliver Wendell Holmes\n makes the Reverend Mr. Honeywood lay aside an old sermon on Human\n Nature, and write one on The Obligations of an infinite Creator to\n a finite Creature. A. J. F. Behrends grounded our Lord\u2019s\n representative relation not in his human nature but in his divine\n nature. \u201cHe is our representative not because he was in the loins\n of Adam, but because we, Adam included, were in his loins.\n Personal created existence is grounded in the Logos, so that God\n must deal with him as well as with every individual sinner, and\n sin and guilt and punishment must smite the Logos as well as the\n sinner, and that, whether the sinner is saved or not. This is not,\n as is often charged, a denial of grace or of freedom in grace, for\n it is no denial of freedom or grace to show that they are\n eternally rational and conformable to eternal law. In the ideal\n sphere, necessity and freedom, law and grace, coalesce.\u201d J. C. C.\n Clarke, Man and his Divine Father, 387\u2014\u201cVicarious atonement does\n not consist in any single act.... No one act embraces it all, and\n no one definition can compass it.\u201d In this sense we may adopt the\n words of Forsyth: \u201cIn the atonement the Holy Father dealt with a\n world\u2019s sin on (not _in_) a world-soul.\u201d\n\n G. B. Foster, on _Mat. 26:53, 54_\u2014\u201c_Thinkest thou that I cannot\n beseech my Father, and he shall even now send me more than twelve\n legions of angels? How then should the Scriptures be fulfilled,\n that thus it must be?_\u201d \u201cOn this \u2018_must be_\u2019 the Scripture is\n based, not this \u2018_must be_\u2019 on the Scripture. The \u2018_must be_\u2019 was\n the ethical demand of his connection with the race. It would have\n been immoral for him to break away from the organism. The law of\n the organism is: From each according to ability; to each according\n to need. David in song, Aristotle in logic, Darwin in science, are\n under obligation to contribute to the organism the talent they\n have. Shall they be under obligation, and Jesus go scot-free? But\n Jesus can contribute atonement, and because he can, he must.\n Moreover, he is a member, not only of the whole, but of each\n part,\u2014_Rom. 12:5_\u2014\u2018_members one of another._\u2019 As membership of the\n whole makes him liable for the sin of the whole, so his being a\n member of the part makes him liable for the sin of that part.\u201d\n\n Fairbairn, Place of Christ in Modern Theology, 483, 484\u2014\u201cThere is\n a sense in which the Patripassian theory is right; the Father did\n suffer; though it was not as the Son that he suffered, but in\n modes distinct and different.... Through his pity the misery of\n man became his sorrow.... There is a disclosure of his suffering\n in the surrender of the Son. This surrender represented the\n sacrifice and passion of the whole Godhead. Here degree and\n proportion are out of place; were it not, we might say that the\n Father suffered more in giving than the Son in being given. He who\n gave to duty had not the reward of him who rejoiced to do it....\n One member of the Trinity could not suffer without all\n suffering.... The visible sacrifice was that of the Son; the\n invisible sacrifice was that of the Father.\u201d The Andover Theory,\n represented in Progressive Orthodoxy, 43-53, affirms not only the\n Moral Influence of the Atonement, but also that the whole race of\n mankind is naturally in Christ and was therefore punished in and\n by his suffering and death; quoted in Hovey, Manual of Christian\n Theology, 269; see Hovey\u2019s own view, 270-276, though he does not\n seem to recognize the atonement as existing before the\n incarnation.\n\n\nChrist\u2019s share in the responsibility of the race to the law and justice of\nGod was not destroyed by his incarnation, nor by his purification in the\nwomb of the virgin. In virtue of the organic unity of the race, each\nmember of the race since Adam has been born into the same state into which\nAdam fell. The consequences of Adam\u2019s sin, both to himself and to his\nposterity, are: (1) depravity, or the corruption of human nature; (2)\nguilt, or obligation to make satisfaction for sin to the divine holiness;\n(3) penalty, or actual endurance of loss or suffering visited by that\nholiness upon the guilty.\n\n\n Moberly, Atonement and Personality, 117\u2014\u201cChrist had taken upon\n him, as the living expression of himself, a nature which was\n weighed down, not merely by present incapacities, but by present\n incapacities as part of the judicial necessary result of accepted\n and inherent sinfulness. Human nature was not only disabled but\n guilty, and the disabilities were themselves a consequence and\n aspect of the guilt\u201d; see review of Moberly by Rashdall, in Jour.\n Theol. Studies, 3:198-211. Lidgett, Spir. Princ. of Atonement,\n 166-168, criticizes Dr. Dale for neglecting the fatherly purpose\n of the Atonement to serve the moral training of the\n child\u2014punishment marking ill-desert in order to bring this\n ill-desert to the consciousness of the offender,\u2014and for\n neglecting also the positive assertion in the atonement that the\n law is holy and just and good\u2014something more than the negative\n expression of sin\u2019s ill-desert. See especially Lidgett\u2019s chapter\n on the relation of our Lord to the human race, 351-378, in which\n he grounds the atonement in the solidarity of mankind, its organic\n union with the Son of God, and Christ\u2019s immanence in humanity.\n\n Bowne, The Atonement, 101\u2014\u201cSomething like this work of grace was a\n moral necessity with God. It was an awful responsibility that was\n taken when our human race was launched with its fearful\n possibilities of good and evil. God thereby put himself under\n infinite obligation to care for his human family; and reflections\n upon his position as Creator and Ruler, instead of removing only\n make more manifest this obligation. So long as we conceive of God\n as sitting apart in supreme ease and self-satisfaction, he is not\n love at all, but only a reflex of our selfishness and vulgarity.\n So long as we conceive him as bestowing upon us out of his\n infinite fulness but at no real cost to himself, he sinks before\n the moral heroes of the race. There is ever a higher thought\n possible, until we see God taking the world upon his heart,\n entering into the fellowship of our sorrow, and becoming the\n supreme burdenbearer and leader in all self-sacrifice. Then only\n are the possibilities of grace and love and moral heroism and\n condescension filled up, so that nothing higher remains. And the\n work of Christ himself, so far as it was an historical event, must\n be viewed, not merely as a piece of history, but also as a\n manifestation of that Cross which was hidden in the divine love\n from the foundation of the world, and which is involved in the\n existence of the human world at all.\u201d\n\n John Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 2:90, 91\u2014\u201cConceive of the\n ideal of moral perfection incarnate in a human personality, and at\n the same time one who loves us with a love so absolute that he\n identifies himself with us and makes our good and evil his\n own\u2014bring together these elements in a living, conscious human\n spirit, and you have in it a capacity of shame and anguish, a\n possibility of bearing the burden of human guilt and wretchedness,\n which lost and guilty humanity can never bear for itself.\u201d\n\n\nIf Christ had been born into the world by ordinary generation, he too\nwould have had depravity, guilt, penalty. But he was not so born. In the\nwomb of the Virgin, the human nature which he took was purged from its\ndepravity. But this purging away of depravity did not take away guilt, or\npenalty. There was still left the just exposure to the penalty of violated\nlaw. Although Christ\u2019s nature was purified, his obligation to suffer yet\nremained. He might have declined to join himself to humanity, and then he\nneed not have suffered. He might have sundered his connection with the\nrace, and then he need not have suffered. But once born of the Virgin,\nonce possessed of the human nature that was under the curse, he was bound\nto suffer. The whole mass and weight of God\u2019s displeasure against the race\nfell on him, when once he became a member of the race.\n\n\n Because Christ is essential humanity, the universal man, the life\n of the race, he is the central brain to which and through which\n all ideas must pass. He is the central heart to which and through\n which all pains must be communicated. You cannot telephone to your\n friend across the town without first ringing up the central\n office. You cannot injure your neighbor without first injuring\n Christ. Each one of us can say of him: \u201c_Against thee, thee only,\n have I sinned_\u201d (_Ps. 51:4_). Because of his central and\n all-inclusive humanity, he must bear in his own person all the\n burdens of humanity, and must be \u201c_the Lamb of God, that_\u201d taketh,\n and so \u201c_taketh away, the sin of the world_\u201d (_John 1:29_). Simms\n Reeves, the great English tenor, said that the passion-music was\n too much for him; he was found completely overcome after singing\n the prophet\u2019s words in _Lam. 1:12_\u2014\u201c_Is it nothing to you, all ye\n that pass by? Behold, and see if there be any sorrow like unto my\n sorrow, which is brought upon me, Wherewith Jehovah hath afflicted\n me in the day of his fierce anger._\u201d\n\n Father Damien gave his life in ministry to the lepers\u2019 colony of\n the Hawaiian Islands. Though free from the disease when he\n entered, he was at last himself stricken with the leprosy, and\n then wrote: \u201cI must now stay with my own people.\u201d Once a leper,\n there was no release. When Christ once joined himself to humanity,\n all the exposures and liabilities of humanity fell upon him.\n Through himself personally without sin, he was made sin for us.\n Christ inherited guilt and penalty. _Heb. 2:14, 15_\u2014\u201c_Since then\n the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself in\n like manner partook of the same; that through death he might bring\n to naught him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and\n might deliver all them who through fear of death were all their\n life-time subject to bondage._\u201d\n\n Only God can forgive sin, because only God can feel it in its true\n heinousness and rate it at its true worth. Christ could forgive\n sin because he added to the divine feeling with regard to sin the\n anguish of a pure humanity on account of it. Shelley, Julian and\n Maddolo: \u201cMe, whose heart a stranger\u2019s tear might wear, As\n water-drops the sandy fountain-stone; Me, who am as a nerve o\u2019er\n which do creep The Else unfelt oppressions of the earth.\u201d S. W.\n Culver: \u201cWe cannot be saved, as we are taught geometry, by lecture\n and diagram. No person ever yet saved another from drowning by\n standing coolly by and telling him the importance of rising to the\n surface and the necessity of respiration. No, he must plunge into\n the destructive element, and take upon himself the very condition\n of the drowning man, and by the exertion of his own strength, by\n the vigor of his own life, save him from the impending death. When\n your child is encompassed by the flames that consume your\n dwelling, you will not save him by calling to him from without.\n You must make your way through the devouring flame, till you come\n personally into the very conditions of his peril and danger, and,\n thence returning, bear him forth to freedom and safety.\u201d\n\n\nNotice, however, that this guilt which Christ took upon himself by his\nunion with humanity was: (1) not the guilt of personal sin\u2014such guilt as\nbelongs to every adult member of the race; (2) not even the guilt of\ninherited depravity\u2014such guilt as belongs to infants, and to those who\nhave not come to moral consciousness; but (3) solely the guilt of Adam\u2019s\nsin, which belongs, prior to personal transgression, and apart from\ninherited depravity, to every member of the race who has derived his life\nfrom Adam. This original sin and inherited guilt, but without the\ndepravity that ordinarily accompanies them, Christ takes, and so takes\naway. He can justly bear penalty, because he inherits guilt. And since\nthis guilt is not his personal guilt, but the guilt of that one sin in\nwhich \u201call sinned\u201d\u2014the guilt of the common transgression of the race in\nAdam, the guilt of the root-sin from which all other sins have sprung\u2014he\nwho is personally pure can vicariously bear the penalty due to the sin of\nall.\n\n\n Christ was conscious of innocence in his personal relations, but\n not in his race relations. He gathered into himself all the\n penalties of humanity, as Winkelried gathered into his own bosom\n at Sempach the pikes of the Austrians and so made a way for the\n victorious Swiss. Christ took to himself the shame of humanity, as\n the mother takes upon her the daughter\u2019s shame, repenting of it\n and suffering on account of it. But this could not be in the case\n of Christ unless there had been a tie uniting him to men far more\n vital, organic, and profound than that which unites mother and\n daughter. Christ is naturally the life of all men, before he\n becomes spiritually the life of true believers. Matheson, Spir.\n Devel. of St. Paul, 197-215, 244, speaks of Christ\u2019s secular\n priesthood, of an outer as well as an inner membership in the body\n of Christ. He is sacrificial head of the world as well as\n sacrificial head of the church. In Paul\u2019s latest letters, he\n declares of Christ that he is \u201c_the Savior of all men, specially\n of them that believe_\u201d (_1 Tim. 4:10_). There is a grace that\n \u201c_hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men_\u201d (_Tit. 2:11_). He\n \u201c_gave gifts unto men_\u201d (_Eph. 4:8_), \u201c_Yea, among the rebellious\n also, that Jehovah God might dwell with them_\u201d (_Ps. 68:18_).\n \u201c_Every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected_\u201d\n (_1 Tim. 4:4_).\n\n Royce, World and Individual, 2:408\u2014\u201cOur sorrows are identically\n God\u2019s own sorrows.... I sorrow, but the sorrow is not only mine.\n This same sorrow, just as it is for me, is God\u2019s sorrow.... The\n divine fulfilment can be won only through the sorrows of time....\n Unless God knows sorrow, he knows not the highest good, which\n consists in the overcoming of sorrow.\u201d Godet, in The Atonement,\n 331-351\u2014\u201cJesus condemned sin as God condemned it. When he felt\n forsaken on the Cross, he performed that act by which the offender\n himself condemns his sin, and by that condemnation, so far as it\n depends on himself, makes it to disappear. There is but one\n conscience in all moral beings. This echo in Christ of God\u2019s\n judgment against sin was to re-echo in all other human\n consciences. This has transformed God\u2019s love of compassion into a\n love of satisfaction. Holiness joins suffering to sin. But the\n element of reparation in the Cross was not in the suffering but in\n the submission. The child who revolts against its punishment has\n made no reparation at all. We appropriate Christ\u2019s work when we by\n faith ourselves condemn sin and accept him.\u201d\n\n\nIf it be asked whether this is not simply a suffering for his own sin, or\nrather for his own share of the sin of the race, we reply that his own\nshare in the sin of the race is not the sole reason why he suffers; it\nfurnishes only the subjective reason and ground for the proper laying upon\nhim of the sin of all. Christ\u2019s union with the race in his incarnation is\nonly the outward and visible expression of a prior union with the race\nwhich began when he created the race. As \u201cin him were all things created,\u201d\nand as \u201cin him all things consist,\u201d or hold together (Col. 1:16, 17), it\nfollows that he who is the life of humanity must, though personally pure,\nbe involved in responsibility for all human sin, and \u201cit was necessary\nthat the Christ should suffer\u201d (Acts 17:3). This suffering was an enduring\nof the reaction of the divine holiness against sin and so was a bearing of\npenalty (Is. 53:6; Gal. 3:13), but it was also the voluntary execution of\na plan that antedated creation (Phil. 2:6, 7), and Christ\u2019s sacrifice in\ntime showed what had been in the heart of God from eternity (Heb. 9:14;\nRev. 13:8).\n\n\n Our treatment is intended to meet the chief modern objection to\n the atonement. Greg, Creed of Christendom, 2:222, speaks of \u201cthe\n strangely inconsistent doctrine that God is so _just_ that he\n could not let sin go unpunished, yet so _unjust_ that he could\n punish it in the person of the innocent.... It is for orthodox\n dialectics to explain how the divine justice can be _impugned_ by\n pardoning the guilty, and yet _vindicated_ by punishing the\n innocent\u201d (quoted in Lias, Atonement, 16). In order to meet this\n difficulty, the following accounts of Christ\u2019s identification with\n humanity have been given:\n\n 1. That of Isaac Watts (see Bib. Sac., 1875:421). This holds that\n the humanity of Christ, both in body and soul, pre\u00ebxisted before\n the incarnation, and was manifested to the patriarchs. We reply\n that Christ\u2019s human nature is declared to be derived from the\n Virgin.\n\n 2. That of R. W. Dale (Atonement, 265-440). This holds that Christ\n is responsible for human sin because, as the Upholder and Life of\n all, he is naturally one with all men, and is spiritually one with\n all believers (_Acts 17:28_\u2014\u201c_in him we live, and move, and have\n our being_\u201d; _Col. 1:17_\u2014\u201c_in him all things consist_\u201d; _John\n 14:20_\u2014\u201c_I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you_\u201d). If\n Christ\u2019s bearing our sins, however, is to be explained by the\n union of the believer with Christ, the effect is made to explain\n the cause, and Christ could have died only for the elect (see a\n review of Dale, in Brit. Quar. Rev., Apr., 1876:221-225). The\n union of Christ with the race by creation\u2014a union which recognizes\n Christ\u2019s purity and man\u2019s sin\u2014still remains as a most valuable\n element of truth in the theory of Dr. Dale.\n\n 3. That of Edward Irving. Christ has a corrupted nature, an inborn\n infirmity and depravity, which he gradually overcomes. But the\n Scriptures, on the contrary, assert his holiness and separateness\n from sinners. (See references, on pages 744-747.)\n\n 4. That of John Miller, Theology, 114-128; also in his chapter:\n Was Christ in Adam? in Questions Awakened by the Bible. Christ, as\n to his human nature, although created pure, was yet, as one of\n Adam\u2019s posterity, conceived of as a sinner in Adam. To him\n attached \u201cthe guilt of the act in which all men stood together in\n a federal relation.... He was decreed to be guilty for the sins of\n all mankind.\u201d Although there is a truth contained in this\n statement, it is vitiated by Miller\u2019s federalism and creatianism.\n Arbitrary imputation and legal fiction do not help us here. We\n need such an actual union of Christ with humanity, and such a\n derivation of the substance of his being, by natural generation\n from Adam, as will make him not simply the constructive heir, but\n the natural heir, of the guilt of the race. We come, therefore, to\n what we regard as the true view, namely:\n\n 5. That the humanity of Christ was not a new creation, but was\n derived from Adam, through Mary his mother; so that Christ, so far\n as his humanity was concerned, was in Adam just as we were, and\n had the same race-responsibility with ourselves. As Adam\u2019s\n descendant, he was responsible for Adam\u2019s sin, like every other\n member of the race; the chief difference being, that while we\n inherit from Adam both guilt and depravity, he whom the Holy\n Spirit purified, inherited not the depravity, but only the guilt.\n Christ took to himself, not sin (depravity), but the consequences\n of sin. In him there was abolition of sin, without abolition of\n obligation to suffer for sin; while in the believer, there is\n abolition of obligation to suffer, without abolition of sin\n itself.\n\n The justice of Christ\u2019s sufferings has been imperfectly\n illustrated by the obligation of the silent partner of a business\n firm to pay debts of the firm which he did not personally\n contract; or by the obligation of the husband to pay the debts of\n his wife; or by the obligation of a purchasing country to assume\n the debts of the province which it purchases (Wm. Ashmore). There\n have been men who have spent the strength of a lifetime in\n clearing off the indebtedness of an insolvent father, long since\n deceased. They recognized an organic unity of the family, which\n morally, if not legally, made their father\u2019s liabilities their\n own. So, it is said, Christ recognized the organic unity of the\n race, and saw that, having become one of that sinning race, he had\n involved himself in all its liabilities, even to the suffering of\n death, the great penalty of sin.\n\n The fault of all the analogies just mentioned is that they are\n purely commercial. A transference of pecuniary obligation is\n easier to understand than a transference of criminal liability. I\n cannot justly bear another\u2019s penalty, unless I can in some way\n share his guilt. The theory we advocate shows how such a sharing\n of our guilt on the part of Christ was possible. All believers in\n substitution hold that Christ bore our guilt: \u201cMy soul looks back\n to see The burdens thou didst bear When hanging on the accursed\n tree, And hopes her guilt was there.\u201d But we claim that, by virtue\n of Christ\u2019s union with humanity, that guilt was not only an\n imputed, but also an imparted, guilt.\n\n With Christ\u2019s obligation to suffer, there were connected two\n other, though minor, results of his assumption of humanity: first,\n the longing to suffer; and secondly, the inevitableness of his\n suffering. He felt the longing to suffer which perfect love to God\n must feel, in view of the demands upon the race, of that holiness\n of God which he loved more than he loved the race itself; which\n perfect love to man must feel, in view of the fact that bearing\n the penalty of man\u2019s sin was the only way to save him. Hence we\n see Christ pressing forward to the cross with such majestic\n determination that the disciples were amazed and afraid (_Mark\n 10:32_). Hence we hear him saying: \u201c_With desire have I desired to\n eat this passover_\u201d (_Luke 23:15_); \u201c_I have a baptism to be\n baptised with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!_\u201d\n (_Luke 12:50_).\n\n Here is the truth in Campbell\u2019s theory of the atonement. Christ is\n the great Penitent before God, making confession of the sin of the\n race, which others of that race could neither see nor feel. But\n the view we present is a larger and completer one than that of\n Campbell, in that it makes this confession and reparation\n obligatory upon Christ, as Campbell\u2019s view does not, and\n recognizes the penal nature of Christ\u2019s sufferings, which\n Campbell\u2019s view denies. Lias, Atonement, 79\u2014\u201cThe head of a clan,\n himself intensely loyal to his king, finds that his clan have been\n involved in rebellion. The more intense and perfect his loyalty,\n the more thorough his nobleness of heart and affection for his\n people, the more inexcusable and flagrant the rebellion of those\n for whom he pleads,\u2014the more acute would be his agony, as their\n representative and head. Nothing would be more true to human\n nature, in the best sense of those words, than that the conflict\n between loyalty to his king and affection for his vassals should\n induce him to offer his life for theirs, to ask that the\n punishment they deserved should be inflicted on him.\u201d\n\n The second minor consequence of Christ\u2019s assumption of humanity\n was, that, being such as he was, he could not help suffering; in\n other words, the obligatory and the desired were also the\n inevitable. Since he was a being of perfect purity, contact with\n the sin of the race, of which he was a member, necessarily\n involved an actual suffering, of an intenser kind than we can\n conceive. Sin is self-isolating, but love and righteousness have\n in them the instinct of human unity. In Christ all the nerves and\n sensibilities of humanity met. He was the only healthy member of\n the race. When life returns to a frozen limb, there is pain. So\n Christ, as the only sensitive member of a benumbed and stupefied\n humanity, felt all the pangs of shame and suffering which\n rightfully belonged to sinners; but which they could not feel,\n simply because of the depth of their depravity. Because Christ was\n pure, yet had united himself to a sinful and guilty race,\n therefore \u201c_it must needs be that Christ should suffer_\u201d (A. V.)\n or, \u201c_it behooved the Christ to suffer_\u201d (Rev. Vers., _Acts\n 17:3_); see also _John 3:14_\u2014\u201c_so must the Son of man be lifted\n up_\u201d\u2014\u201cThe Incarnation, under the actual circumstances of humanity,\n carried with it the necessity of the Passion\u201d (Westcott, in Bib.\n Com., _in loco_).\n\n Compare John Woolman\u2019s Journal, 4, 5\u2014\u201cO Lord, my God, the amazing\n horrors of darkness were gathered about me, and covered me all\n over, and I saw no way to go forth; I felt the depth and extent of\n the misery of my fellow creatures, separated from the divine\n harmony, and it was greater than I could bear, and I was crushed\n down under it; I lifted up my head, I stretched out my arm, but\n there was none to help me; I looked round about, and was amazed.\n In the depths of misery, I remembered that thou art omnipotent and\n that I had called thee Father.\u201d He had vision of a \u201cdull, gloomy\n mass,\u201d darkening half the heavens, and he was told that it was\n \u201chuman beings, in as great misery as they could be and live; and\n he was mixed with them, and henceforth he might not consider\n himself a distinct and separate being.\u201d\n\n This suffering in and with the sins of men, which Dr. Bushnell\n emphasized so strongly, though it is not, as he thought, the\n principal element, is notwithstanding an indispensable element in\n the atonement of Christ. Suffering in and with the sinner is one\n way, though not the only way, in which Christ is enabled to bear\n the wrath of God which constitutes the real penalty of sin.\n\n EXPOSITION OF 2 COR. 5:21.\u2014It remains for us to adduce the\n Scriptural proof of this natural assumption of human guilt by\n Christ. We find it in _2 Cor. 5:21_\u2014\u201c_Him who knew no sin he made\n to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of\n God in him._\u201d \u201c_Righteousness_\u201d here cannot mean subjective\n purity, for then \u201c_made to be sin_\u201d would mean that God made\n Christ to be subjectively depraved. As Christ was not made\n _unholy_, the meaning cannot be that we are made _holy_ persons in\n him. Meyer calls attention to this parallel between\n \u201c_righteousness_\u201d and \u201c_sin_\u201d:\u2014\u201c_That we might become the\n righteousness of God in him_\u201d = that we might become justified\n persons. Correspondingly, \u201c_made to be sin on our behalf_\u201d must =\n made to be a condemned person. \u201c_Him who knew no sin_\u201d = Christ\n had no experience of sin\u2014this was the necessary postulate of his\n work of atonement. \u201c_Made sin for us_,\u201d therefore, is the abstract\n for the concrete, and = made a sinner, in the sense that the\n penalty of sin fell upon him. So Meyer, for substance.\n\n We must, however, regard this interpretation of Meyer\u2019s as coming\n short of the full meaning of the apostle. As justification is not\n simply remission of _actual_ punishment, but is also deliverance\n from the _obligation_ to suffer punishment,\u2014in other words, as\n \u201c_righteousness_\u201d in the text = persons delivered from the _guilt_\n as well as from the _penalty_ of sin,\u2014so the contrasted term\n \u201c_sin_,\u201d in the text,\u2014a person not only _actually_ punished, but\n also under _obligation_ to suffer punishment;\u2014in other words,\n Christ is \u201c_made sin_,\u201d not only in the sense of being put under\n _penalty_, but also in the sense of being put under _guilt_.\n (_Cf._ Symington, Atonement, 17.)\n\n In a note to the last edition of Meyer, this is substantially\n granted. \u201cIt is to be noted,\u201d he says, \u201cthat \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, like \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\n in _Gal. 3:13_, necessarily includes in itself the notion of\n guilt.\u201d Meyer adds, however: \u201cThe guilt of which Christ appears as\n bearer was not his own (\u03bc\u1f74 \u03b3\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd); hence the guilt of\n men was transferred to him; consequently the justification of men\n is imputative.\u201d Here the implication that the guilt which Christ\n bears is his simply by imputation seems to us contrary to the\n analogy of faith. As Adam\u2019s sin is ours only because we are\n actually one with Adam, and as Christ\u2019s righteousness is imputed\n to us only as we are actually united to Christ, so our sins are\n imputed to Christ only as Christ is actually one with the race. He\n was \u201c_made sin_\u201d by being made one with the sinners; he took our\n guilt by taking our nature. He who \u201c_knew no sin_\u201d came to be\n \u201c_sin for us_\u201d by being born of a sinful stock; by inheritance the\n common guilt of the race became his. Guilt was not simply\n _imputed_ to Christ; it was _imparted_ also.\n\n This exposition may be made more clear by putting the two\n contrasted thoughts in parallel columns, as follows:\n\n Made righteousness in him = Made sin for us =\n righteous persons; a sinful person;\n justified persons; a condemned person;\n freed from guilt, or put under guilt, or obligation\n obligation to suffer; to suffer;\n by spiritual union with by natural union with the\n Christ. race.\n\n For a good exposition of _2 Cor. 5:21_, _Gal. 3:13_, and _Rom.\n 3:25, 26_, see Denney, Studies in Theology, 109-124.\n\n\nThe Atonement, then, on the part of God, has its ground (1) in the\nholiness of God, which must visit sin with condemnation, even though this\ncondemnation brings death to his Son; and (2) in the love of God, which\nitself provides the sacrifice, by suffering in and with his Son for the\nsins of men, but through that suffering opening a way and means of\nsalvation.\n\nThe Atonement, on the part of man, is accomplished through (1) the\nsolidarity of the race; of which (2) Christ is the life, and so its\nrepresentative and surety; (3) justly yet voluntarily bearing its guilt\nand shame and condemnation as his own.\n\n\n Melanchthon: \u201cChrist was made sin for us, not only in respect to\n punishment, but primarily by being chargeable with guilt also\n (_culp\u00e6 et reatus_)\u201d\u2014quoted by Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk,\n 3:95, 102, 103, 107; also 1:307, 314 _sq._ Thomasius says that\n \u201cChrist bore the guilt of the race by imputation; but as in the\n case of the imputation of Adam\u2019s sin to us, imputation of our sins\n to Christ presupposes a real relationship. Christ appropriated our\n sin. He sank himself into our guilt.\u201d Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:442\n (Syst. Doct., 3:350, 351), agrees with Thomasius, that \u201cChrist\n entered into our natural mortality, which for us is a penal\n condition, and into the state of collective guilt, so far as it is\n an evil, a burden to be borne; not that he had personal guilt, but\n rather that he entered into our guilt-laden common life, not as a\n stranger, but as one actually belonging to it\u2014put under its law,\n according to the will of the Father and of his own love.\u201d\n\n When, and how, did Christ take this guilt and this penalty upon\n him? With regard to penalty, we have no difficulty in answering\n that, as his whole life of suffering was propitiatory, so penalty\n rested upon him from the very beginning of his life. This penalty\n was inherited, and was the consequence of Christ\u2019s taking human\n nature (_Gal. 4:4, 5_\u2014\u201c_born of a woman, born under the law_\u201d).\n But penalty and guilt are correlates; if Christ inherited penalty,\n it must have been because he inherited guilt. This subjection to\n the common guilt of the race was intimated in Jesus\u2019 circumcision\n (_Luke 2:21_); in his ritual purification (_Luke 2:22_\u2014\u201c_their\n purification_\u201d\u2014_i. e._, the purification of Mary and the babe; see\n Lange, Life of Christ; Commentaries of Alford, Webster and\n Wilkinson; and An. Par. Bible); in his legal redemption (_Luke\n 2:23, 24_; _cf._ _Ex. 13:2, 13_); and in his baptism (_Mat.\n 3:15_\u2014\u201c_thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness_\u201d). The\n baptized person went down into the water, as one laden with sin\n and guilt, in order that this sin and guilt might be buried\n forever, and that he might rise from the typical grave to a new\n and holy life. (Ebrard: \u201cBaptism = death.\u201d) So Christ\u2019s submission\n to John\u2019s baptism of repentance was not only a consecration to\n death, but also a recognition and confession of his implication in\n that guilt of the race for which death was the appointed and\n inevitable penalty (_cf._ _Mat. 10:38_; _Luke 12:50_; _Mat.\n 26:39_); and, as his baptism was a prefiguration of his death, we\n may learn from his baptism something with regard to the meaning of\n his death. See further, under The Symbolism of Baptism.\n\n As one who had had guilt, Christ was \u201c_justified in the spirit_\u201d\n (_1 Tim. 3:16_); and this justification appears to have taken\n place after he \u201c_was manifested in the flesh_\u201d (_1 Tim. 3:16_),\n and when \u201c_he was raised for our justification_\u201d (_Rom. 4:25_).\n Compare _Rom. 1:4_\u2014\u201c_declared to be the Son of God with power,\n according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the\n dead_\u201d; _6:7-10_\u2014\u201c_he that hath died is justified from sin. But if\n we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him;\n knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more;\n death no more hath dominion over him. For the death that he died,\n he died unto sin once; but the life that he liveth, he liveth unto\n God_\u201d\u2014here all Christians are conceived of as ideally justified in\n the justification of Christ, when Christ died for our sins and\n rose again. _8:3_\u2014\u201c_God, sending his own Son in the likeness of\n sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh_\u201d\u2014here Meyer\n says: \u201cThe sending does not precede the condemnation; but the\n condemnation is effected in and with the sending.\u201d _John\n 16:10_\u2014\u201c_of righteousness, because I go to the Father_\u201d;\n _19:30_\u2014\u201c_It is finished._\u201d On _1 Tim. 3:16_, see the Commentary\n of Bengel.\n\n If it be asked whether Jesus, then, before his death, was an\n unjustified person, we answer that, while personally pure and\n well-pleasing to God (_Mat. 3:17_), he himself was conscious of a\n race-responsibility and a race-guilt which must be atoned for\n (_John 12:27_\u2014\u201c_Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say?\n Father, save me from this hour. But for this cause came I unto\n this hour_\u201d); and that guilty human nature in him endured at the\n last the separation from God which constitutes the essence of\n death, sin\u2019s penalty (_Mat. 27:46_\u2014\u201c_My God, my God, why hast thou\n forsaken me?_\u201d). We must remember that, as even the believer must\n \u201c_be judged according to man in the flesh_\u201d (_1 Pet. 4:6_), that\n is, must suffer the death which to unbelievers is the penalty of\n sin, although he \u201c_live according to God in the Spirit_,\u201d so\n Christ, in order that we might be delivered from both guilt and\n penalty, was \u201c_put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the\n spirit_\u201d (_3:18_);\u2014in other words, as Christ was man, the penalty\n due to human guilt belonged to him to bear; but, as he was God, he\n could exhaust that penalty, and could be a proper substitute for\n others.\n\n If it be asked whether he, who from the moment of the conception\n \u201c_sanctified himself_\u201d (_John 17:19_), did not from that moment\n also justify himself, we reply that although, through the\n retroactive efficacy of his atonement and upon the ground of it,\n human nature in him was purged of its depravity from the moment\n that he took that nature; and although, upon the ground of that\n atonement, believers before his advent were both sanctified and\n justified; yet his own justification could not have proceeded upon\n the ground of his atonement, and also his atonement have proceeded\n upon the ground of his justification. This would be a vicious\n circle; somewhere we must have a beginning. That beginning was in\n the cross, where guilt was first purged (_Heb. 1:3_\u2014\u201c_when he had\n made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the\n Majesty on high_\u201d; _Mat. 27:42_\u2014\u201c_He saved others; himself he\n cannot save_\u201d; _cf._ _Rev. 13:8_\u2014\u201c_the Lamb that hath been slain\n from the foundation of the world_\u201d).\n\n If it be said that guilt and depravity are practically\n inseparable, and that, if Christ had guilt, he must have had\n depravity also, we reply that in civil law we distinguish between\n them,\u2014the conversion of a murderer would not remove his obligation\n to suffer upon the gallows; and we reply further, that in\n justification we distinguish between them,\u2014depravity still\n remaining, though guilt is removed. So we may say that Christ\n takes guilt without depravity, in order that we may have depravity\n without guilt. See page 645; also B\u00f6hl, Incarnation des g\u00f6ttlichen\n Wortes; Pope, Higher Catechism, 118; A. H. Strong, on the\n Necessity of the Atonement, in Philosophy and Religion, 213-219.\n _Per contra_, see Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:59 note, 82.\n\n\nChrist therefore, as incarnate, rather revealed the atonement than made\nit. The historical work of atonement was finished upon the Cross, but that\nhistorical work only revealed to men the atonement made both before and\nsince by the extra-mundane Logos. The eternal Love of God suffering the\nnecessary reaction of his own Holiness against the sin of his creatures\nand with a view to their salvation\u2014this is the essence of the Atonement.\n\n\n Nash, Ethics and Revelation, 252, 253\u2014\u201cChrist, as God\u2019s atonement,\n is the revelation and discovery of the fact that sacrifice is as\n deep in God as his being. He is a holy Creator.... He must take\n upon himself the shame and pain of sin.\u201d The earthly tabernacle\n and its sacrifices were only the shadow of those in the heavens,\n and Moses was bidden to make the earthly after the pattern which\n he saw in the mount. So the historical atonement was but the\n shadowing forth to dull and finite minds of an infinite demand of\n the divine holiness and an infinite satisfaction rendered by the\n divine love. Godet, S. S. Times, Oct. 16, 1886\u2014\u201cChrist so\n identified himself with the race he came to save, by sharing its\n life or its very blood, that when the race itself was redeemed\n from the curse of sin, his resurrection followed as the first\n fruits of that redemption\u201d; _Rom. 4:25_\u2014\u201c_delivered up for our\n trespasses ... raised for our justification._\u201d\n\n Simon, Redemption of Man, 322\u2014\u201cIf the Logos is generally the\n Mediator of the divine immanence in Creation, especially in man;\n if men are differentiations of the effluent divine energy; and if\n the Logos is the immanent controlling principle of all\n differentiation, _i. e._, the principle of all _form_\u2014must not the\n self-perversion of these human differentiations necessarily react\n on him who is their constitutive principle? 339\u2014Remember that men\n have not first to engraft themselves into Christ, the living\n whole.... They subsist naturally in him, and they have to separate\n themselves, cut themselves off from him, if they are to be\n separate. This is the mistake made in the \u2018Life in Christ\u2019 theory.\n Men are treated as in some sense out of Christ, and as having to\n get into connection with Christ.... It is not that we have to\n create the relation,\u2014we have simply to accept, to recognize, to\n ratify it. Rejecting Christ is not so much refusal to _become_ one\n with Christ, as it is refusal to _remain_ one with him, refusal to\n let him be our life.\u201d\n\n A. H. Strong, Christ in Creation, 33, 172\u2014\u201cWhen God breathed into\n man\u2019s nostrils the breath of life, he communicated freedom, and\n made possible the creature\u2019s self-chosen alienation from himself,\n the giver of that life. While man could never break the natural\n bond which united him to God, he could break the spiritual bond,\n and could introduce even into the life of God a principle of\n discord and evil. Tie a cord tightly about your finger; you\n partially isolate the finger, diminish its nutrition, bring about\n atrophy and disease. Yet the life of the whole system rouses\n itself to put away the evil, to untie the cord, to free the\n diseased and suffering member. The illustration is far from\n adequate; but it helps at a single point. There has been given to\n each intelligent and moral agent the power, spiritually, to\n isolate himself from God, while yet he is naturally joined to God,\n and is wholly dependent upon God for the removal of the sin which\n has so separated him from his Maker. Sin is the act of the\n creature, but salvation is the act of the Creator.\n\n \u201cIf you could imagine a finger endowed with free will and trying\n to sunder its connection with the body by tying a string around\n itself, you would have a picture of man trying to sunder his\n connection with Christ. What is the result of such an attempt?\n Why, pain, decay; possible, nay, incipient death, to the finger.\n By what law? By the law of the organism, which is so constituted\n as to maintain itself against its own disruption by the revolt of\n the members. The pain and death of the finger is the reaction of\n the whole against the treason of the part. The finger suffers\n pain. But are there no results of pain to the body? Does not the\n body feel pain also? How plain it is that no such pain can be\n confined to the single part! The heart feels, aye, the whole\n organism feels, because all the parts are members one of another.\n It not only suffers, but that suffering tends to remedy the evil\n and to remove its cause. The body summons its forces, pours new\n tides of life into the dying member, strives to rid the finger of\n the ligature that binds it. So through all the course of history,\n Christ, the natural life of the race, has been afflicted in the\n affliction of humanity and has suffered for human sin. This\n suffering has been an atoning suffering, since it has been due to\n righteousness. If God had not been holy, if God had not made all\n nature express the holiness of his being, if God had not made pain\n and loss the necessary consequences of sin, then Christ would not\n have suffered. But since these things are sin\u2019s penalty and Christ\n is the life of the sinful race, it must needs be that Christ\n should suffer. There is nothing arbitrary in laying upon him the\n iniquities of us all. Original grace, like original sin, is only\n the ethical interpretation of biological facts.\u201d See also Ames, on\n Biological Aspects of the Atonement, in Methodist Review, Nov.\n 1905:943-953.\n\n\nIn favor of the Substitutionary or Ethical view of the atonement we may\nurge the following considerations:\n\n(_a_) It rests upon correct philosophical principles with regard to the\nnature of will, law, sin, penalty, righteousness.\n\n\n This theory holds that there are permanent states, as well as\n transient acts, of the will; and that the will is not simply the\n faculty of volitions, but also the fundamental determination of\n the being to an ultimate end. It regards law as having its basis,\n not in arbitrary will or in governmental expediency, but rather in\n the nature of God, and as being a necessary transcript of God\u2019s\n holiness. It considers sin to consist not simply in acts, but in\n permanent evil states of the affections and will. It makes the\n object of penalty to be, not the reformation of the offender, or\n the prevention of evil doing, but the vindication of justice,\n outraged by violation of law. It teaches that righteousness is not\n benevolence or a form of benevolence, but a distinct and separate\n attribute of the divine nature which demands that sin should be\n visited with punishment, apart from any consideration of the\n useful results that will flow therefrom.\n\n\n(_b_) It combines in itself all the valuable elements in the theories\nbefore mentioned, while it avoids their inconsistencies, by showing the\ndeeper principle upon which each of these elements is based.\n\n\n The Ethical theory admits the indispensableness of Christ\u2019s\n example, advocated by the Socinian theory; the moral influence of\n his suffering, urged by the Bushnellian theory; the securing of\n the safety of government, insisted on by the Grotian theory; the\n participation of the believer in Christ\u2019s new humanity, taught by\n the Irvingian theory; the satisfaction to God\u2019s majesty for the\n elect, made so much of by the Anselmic theory. But the Ethical\n theory claims that all these other theories require, as a\n presupposition for their effective working, that ethical\n satisfaction to the holiness of God which is rendered in guilty\n human nature by the Son of God who took that nature to redeem it.\n\n\n(_c_) It most fully meets the requirements of Scripture, by holding that\nthe necessity of the atonement is absolute, since it rests upon the\ndemands of immanent holiness, the fundamental attribute of God.\n\n\n _Acts 17:3_\u2014\u201c_it behooved the Christ to suffer, and to rise again\n from the dead_\u201d\u2014lit.: \u201c_it was necessary for the Christ to\n suffer_\u201d; _Luke 24:26_\u2014\u201c_Behooved it not the Christ to suffer\n these things, and to enter into his glory?_\u201d\u2014lit.: \u201c_Was it not\n necessary that the Christ should suffer these things?_\u201d It is not\n enough to say that Christ must suffer in order that the prophecies\n might be fulfilled. Why was it prophesied that he should suffer?\n Why did God purpose that he should suffer? The ultimate necessity\n is a necessity in the nature of God.\n\n Plato, Republic, 2:361\u2014\u201cThe righteous man who is thought to be\n unrighteous will be scourged, racked, bound; will have his eyes\n put out; and finally, having endured all sorts of evil, will be\n impaled.\u201d This means that, as human society is at present\n constituted, even a righteous person must suffer for the sins of\n the world. \u201cMors mortis Morti mortem nisi morte dedisset, \u00c6tern\u00e6\n vit\u00e6 janua clausa foret\u201d\u2014\u201cHad not the Death-of-death to Death his\n death-blow given, Forever closed were the gate, the gate of life\n and heaven.\u201d\n\n\n(_d_) It shows most satisfactorily how the demands of holiness are met;\nnamely, by the propitiatory offering of one who is personally pure, but\nwho by union with the human race has inherited its guilt and penalty.\n\n\n \u201c_Quo non ascendam?_\u201d\u2014\u201cWhither shall I not rise?\u201d exclaimed the\n greatest minister of modern kings, in a moment of intoxication.\n \u201cWhither shall I not stoop?\u201d says the Lord Jesus. King Humbert,\n during the scourge of cholera in Italy: \u201cIn Castellammare they\n make merry; in Naples they die: I go to Naples.\u201d\n\n Wrightnour: \u201cThe illustration of Powhatan raising his club to slay\n John Smith, while Pocahontas flings herself between the uplifted\n club and the victim, is not a good one. God is not an angry being,\n bound to strike something, no matter what. If Powhatan could have\n taken the blow himself, out of a desire to spare the victim, it\n would be better. The Father and the Son are one. Bronson Alcott,\n in his school at Concord, when punishment was necessary, sometimes\n placed the rod in the hand of the offender and bade him strike his\n (Alcott\u2019s) hand, rather than that the law of the school should be\n broken without punishment following. The result was that very few\n rules were broken. So God in Christ bore the sins of the world,\n and endured the penalty for man\u2019s violation of his law.\u201d\n\n\n(_e_) It furnishes the only proper explanation of the sacrificial language\nof the New Testament, and of the sacrificial rites of the Old, considered\nas prophetic of Christ\u2019s atoning work.\n\n\n Foster, Christian Life and Theology, 207-211\u2014\u201cThe imposition of\n hands on the head of the victim is entirely unexplained, except in\n the account of the great day of Atonement, when by the same\n gesture and by distinct confession the sins of the people were\n \u2018_put upon the head of the goat_\u2019 (_Lev. 16:21_) to be borne away\n into the wilderness. The blood was sacred and was to be poured out\n before the Lord, evidently in place of the forfeited life of the\n sinner which should have been rendered up.\u201d Watts, New\n Apologetics, 205\u2014\u201c \u2018_The Lord will provide_\u2019 was the truth taught\n when Abraham found a ram provided by God which he \u2018_offered up as\n a burnt offering in the stead of his son_\u2019 (_Gen. 22:13, 14_). As\n the ram was not Abraham\u2019s ram, the sacrifice of it could not teach\n that all Abraham had belonged to God, and should, with entire\n faith in his goodness, be devoted to him; but it did teach that\n \u2018_apart from shedding of blood there is no remission_\u2019 (_Heb.\n 9:22_).\u201d _2 Chron. 29:27_\u2014\u201c_when the burnt offering began, the\n song of Jehovah began also._\u201d\n\n\n(_f_) It alone gives proper place to the death of Christ as the central\nfeature of his work,\u2014set forth in the ordinances, and of chief power in\nChristian experience.\n\n\n Martin Luther, when he had realized the truth of the Atonement,\n was found sobbing before a crucifix and moaning: \u201cF\u00fcr mich! f\u00fcr\n mich!\u201d\u2014\u201cFor me! for me!\u201d Elisha Kane, the Arctic explorer, while\n searching for signs of Sir John Franklin and his party, sent out\n eight or ten men to explore the surrounding region. After several\n days three returned, almost crazed with the cold\u2014thermometer fifty\n degrees below zero\u2014and reported that the other men were dying\n miles away. Dr. Kane organized a company of ten, and though\n suffering himself with an old heart-trouble, led them to the\n rescue. Three times he fainted during the eighteen hours of\n marching and suffering; but he found the men. \u201cWe knew you would\n come! we knew you would come, brother!\u201d whispered one of them,\n hardly able to speak. Why was he sure Dr. Kane would come? Because\n he knew the stuff Dr. Kane was made of, and knew that he would\n risk his life for any one of them. It is a parable of Christ\u2019s\n relation to our salvation. He is our elder brother, bone of our\n bone and flesh of our flesh, and he not only risks death, but he\n endures death, in order to save us.\n\n\n(_g_) It gives us the only means of understanding the sufferings of Christ\nin the garden and on the cross, or of reconciling them with the divine\njustice.\n\n\n Kreibig, Vers\u00f6hnungslehre: \u201cMan has a guilt that demands the\n punitive sufferings of a mediator. Christ shows a suffering that\n cannot be justified except by reference to some other guilt than\n his own. Combine these two facts, and you have the problem of the\n atonement solved.\u201d J. G. Whittier: \u201cThrough all the depths of sin\n and loss Drops the plummet of the Cross; Never yet abyss was found\n Deeper than the Cross could sound.\u201d Alcestis purchased life for\n Admetus her husband by dying in his stead; Marcus Curtius saved\n Rome by leaping into the yawning chasm; the Russian servant threw\n himself to the wolves to rescue his master. Berdoe, Robert\n Browning, 47\u2014\u201cTo know God as the theist knows him may suffice for\n pure spirits, for those who have never sinned, suffered, nor felt\n the need of a Savior; but for fallen and sinful men the Christ of\n Christianity is an imperative necessity; and those who have never\n surrendered themselves to him have never known what it is to\n experience the rest he gives to the heavy-laden soul.\u201d\n\n\n(_h_) As no other theory does, this view satisfies the ethical demand of\nhuman nature; pacifies the convicted conscience; assures the sinner that\nhe may find instant salvation in Christ; and so makes possible a new life\nof holiness, while at the same time it furnishes the highest incentives to\nsuch a life.\n\n\n Shedd: \u201cThe offended party (1) permits a substitution; (2)\n provides a substitute; (3) substitutes himself.\u201d George Eliot:\n \u201cJustice is like the kingdom of God; it is not without us, as a\n fact; it is \u2018within us,\u2019 as a great yearning.\u201d But it is both\n without and within, and the inward is only the reflection of the\n outward; the subjective demands of conscience only reflect the\n objective demands of holiness.\n\n And yet, while this view of the atonement exalts the holiness of\n God, it surpasses every other view in its moving exhibition of\n God\u2019s love\u2014a love that is not satisfied with suffering in and with\n the sinner, or with making that suffering a demonstration of God\u2019s\n regard for law; but a love that sinks itself into the sinner\u2019s\n guilt and bears his penalty,\u2014comes down so low as to make itself\n one with him in all but his depravity\u2014makes every sacrifice but\n the sacrifice of God\u2019s holiness\u2014a sacrifice which God could not\n make, without ceasing to be God; see _1 John 4:10_\u2014\u201c_Herein is\n love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his\n Son to be the propitiation for our sins._\u201d The soldier who had\n been thought reprobate was moved to complete reform when he was\n once forgiven. William Huntington, in his Autobiography, says that\n one of his sharpest sensations of pain, after he had been\n quickened by divine grace, was that he felt such pity for God.\n Never was man abused as God has been. _Rom. 2:4_\u2014\u201c_the goodness of\n God leadeth thee to repentance_\u201d; _12:1_\u2014\u201c_the mercies of God_\u201d\n lead you \u201c_to present your bodies a living sacrifice_\u201d; _2 Cor.\n 5:14, 15_\u2014\u201c_the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus\n judge, that one died for all, therefore all died; and he died for\n all, that they that live should no longer live unto themselves,\n but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again._\u201d The effect\n of Christ\u2019s atonement on Christian character and life may be\n illustrated from the proclamation of Garabaldi: \u201cHe that loves\n Italy, let him follow me! I promise him hardship, I promise him\n suffering, I promise him death. But he that loves Italy, let him\n follow me!\u201d\n\n\nD. Objections to the Ethical Theory of the Atonement.\n\n\n On the general subject of these objections, Philippi,\n Glaubenslehre, iv, 2:156-180, remarks: (1) that it rests with God\n alone to say whether he will pardon sin, and in what way he will\n pardon it; (2) that human instincts are a very unsafe standard by\n which to judge the procedure of the Governor of the universe; and\n (3) that one plain declaration of God, with regard to the plan of\n salvation, proves the fallacy and error of all reasonings against\n it. We must correct our watches and clocks by astronomic\n standards.\n\n\n(_a_) That a God who does not pardon sin without atonement must lack\neither omnipotence or love.\u2014We answer, on the one hand, that God\u2019s\nomnipotence is the revelation of his nature, and not a matter of arbitrary\nwill; and, on the other hand, that God\u2019s love is ever exercised\nconsistently with his fundamental attribute of holiness, so that while\nholiness demands the sacrifice, love provides it. Mercy is shown, not by\ntrampling upon the claims of justice, but by vicariously satisfying them.\n\n\n Because man does not need to avenge personal wrongs, it does not\n follow that God must not. In fact, such avenging is forbidden to\n us upon the ground that it belongs to God; _Rom. 12:19_\u2014\u201c_Avenge\n not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto wrath: for it is\n written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the\n Lord._\u201d But there are limits even to our passing over of offences.\n Even the father must sometimes chastise; and although this\n chastisement is not properly punishment, it becomes punishment,\n when the father becomes a teacher or a governor. Then, other than\n personal interests come in. \u201cBecause a father can forgive without\n atonement, it does not follow that the state can do the same\u201d\n (Shedd). But God is more than Father, more than Teacher, more than\n Governor. In him, person and right are identical. For him to let\n sin go unpunished is to approve of it; which is the same as a\n denial of holiness.\n\n Whatever pardon is granted, then, must be pardon through\n punishment. Mere repentance never expiates crime, even under civil\n government. The truly penitent man never feels that his repentance\n constitutes a ground of acceptance; the more he repents, the more\n he recognizes his need of reparation and expiation. Hence God\n meets the demand of man\u2019s conscience, as well as of his own\n holiness, when he provides a substituted punishment. God shows his\n love by meeting the demands of holiness, and by meeting them with\n the sacrifice of himself. See Mozley on Predestination, 390.\n\n The publican prays, not that God may be merciful without\n sacrifice, but: \u201c_God be propitiated toward me, the sinner!_\u201d\n (_Luke 18:13_); in other words, he asks for mercy only through and\n upon the ground of, sacrifice. We cannot atone to others for the\n wrong we have done them, nor can we even atone to our own souls. A\n third party, and an infinite being, must make atonement, as we\n cannot. It is only upon the ground that God himself has made\n provision for satisfying the claims of justice, that we are bidden\n to forgive others. Should Othello then forgive Iago? Yes, if Iago\n repents; _Luke 17:3_\u2014\u201c_If thy brother sin, rebuke him; and if he\n repent, forgive him._\u201d But if he does not repent? Yes, so far as\n Othello\u2019s own disposition is concerned. He must not hate Iago, but\n must wish him well; _Luke 6:27_\u2014\u201c_Love your enemies, do good to\n them that hate you, bless them that curse you, pray for them that\n despitefully use you._\u201d But he cannot receive Iago to his\n fellowship till he repents. On the duty and ground of forgiving\n one another, see Martineau, Seat of Authority, 613, 614; Straffen,\n Hulsean Lectures on the Propitiation for Sin.\n\n\n(_b_) That satisfaction and forgiveness are mutually exclusive.\u2014We answer\nthat, since it is not a third party, but the Judge himself, who makes\nsatisfaction to his own violated holiness, forgiveness is still optional,\nand may be offered upon terms agreeable to himself. Christ\u2019s sacrifice is\nnot a pecuniary, but a penal, satisfaction. The objection is valid against\nthe merely commercial view of the atonement, not against the ethical view\nof it.\n\n\n Forgiveness is something beyond the mere taking away of penalty.\n When a man bears the penalty of his crime, has the community no\n right to be indignant with him? There is a distinction between\n pecuniary and penal satisfaction. Pecuniary satisfaction has\n respect only to the thing due; penal satisfaction has respect also\n to the person of the offender. If pardon is a matter of justice in\n God\u2019s government, it is so only as respects Christ. To the\n recipient it is only mercy. \u201c_Faithful and righteous to forgive us\n our sins_\u201d (_1 John 1:9_)\u2014faithful to his promise, and righteous\n to Christ. Neither the atonement, nor the promise, gives the\n offender any personal claim.\n\n Philemon must forgive Onesimus the pecuniary _debt_, when Paul\n pays it; not so with the personal _injury_ Onesimus has done to\n Philemon; there is no forgiveness of this, until Onesimus repents\n and asks pardon. An amnesty may be offered to all, but upon\n conditions. Instance Amos Lawrence\u2019s offering to the forger the\n forged paper he had bought up, upon condition that he would\n confess himself bankrupt, and put all his affairs into the hands\n of his benefactor. So the fact that Christ has paid our debts does\n not preclude his offering to us the benefit of what he has done,\n upon condition of our repentance and faith. The equivalent is not\n furnished by man, but by God. God may therefore offer the results\n of it upon his own terms. Did then the entire race fairly pay its\n penalty when one suffered, just as all incurred the penalty when\n one sinned? Yes,\u2014all who receive their life from each\u2014Adam on the\n one hand, and Christ on the other. See under Union with Christ\u2014its\n Consequences; see also Shedd, Discourses and Essays, 295 note,\n 321, and Dogm. Theol., 2:383-389; Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:614-615\n (Syst. Doct., 4:82, 83). _Versus_ Current Discussions in Theology,\n 5:281.\n\n Hovey calls Christ\u2019s relation to human sin a vice-penal one. Just\n as vice-regal position carries with it all the responsibility,\n care, and anxiety of regal authority, so does a vice-penal\n relation to sin carry with it all the suffering and loss of the\n original punishment. The person on whom it falls is different, but\n his punishment is the same, at least in penal value. As vice-regal\n authority may be superseded by regal, so vice-penal suffering, if\n despised, may be superseded by the original penalty. Is there a\n waste of vice-penal suffering when any are lost for whom it was\n endured? On the same principle we might object to any suffering on\n the part of Christ for those who refuse to be saved by him. Such\n suffering may benefit others, if not those for whom it was in the\n first instance endured.\n\n If compensation is made, it is said, there is nothing to forgive;\n if forgiveness is granted, no compensation can be required. This\n reminds us of Narvaez, who saw no reason for forgiving his enemies\n until he had shot them all. When the offended party furnishes the\n compensation, he can offer its benefits upon his own terms. Dr.\n Pentecost: \u201cA prisoner in Scotland was brought before the Judge.\n As the culprit entered the box, he looked into the face of the\n Judge to see if he could discover mercy there. The Judge and the\n prisoner exchanged glances, and then there came a mutual\n recognition. The prisoner said to himself: \u2018It is all right this\n time,\u2019 for the Judge had been his classmate in Edinburgh\n University twenty-five years before. When sentence was pronounced,\n it was five pounds sterling, the limit of the law for the\n misdemeanor charged, and the culprit was sorely disappointed as he\n was led away to prison. But the Judge went at once and paid the\n fine, telling the clerk to write the man\u2019s discharge. This the\n Judge delivered in person, explaining that the demands of the law\n must be met, and having been met, the man was free.\u201d\n\n\n(_c_) That there can be no real propitiation, since the judge and the\nsacrifice are one.\u2014We answer that this objection ignores the existence of\npersonal relations within the divine nature, and the fact that the God-man\nis distinguishable from God. The satisfaction is grounded in the\ndistinction of persons in the Godhead; while the love in which it\noriginates belongs to the unity of the divine essence.\n\n\n The satisfaction is not rendered to a _part_ of the Godhead, for\n the whole Godhead is in the Father, in a certain manner; as\n omnipresence = _totus in omni parte_. So the offering is perfect,\n because the whole Godhead is also in Christ (_2 Cor. 5:19_\u2014\u201c_God\n was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself_\u201d). Lyman Abbott\n says that the word \u201cpropitiate\u201d is used in the New Testament only\n in the middle voice, to show that God propitiates himself.\n Lyttelton, in Lux Mundi, 302\u2014\u201cThe Atonement is undoubtedly a\n mystery, but all forgiveness is a mystery. It avails to lift the\n load of guilt that presses upon an offender. A change passes over\n him that can only be described as regenerative, life-giving; and\n thus the assurance of pardon, however conveyed, may be said to\n obliterate in some degree the consequences of the past. 310\u2014Christ\n bore sufferings, not that we might be freed from them, for we have\n deserved them, but that we might be enabled to bear them, as he\n did, victoriously and in unbroken union with God.\u201d\n\n\n(_d_) That the suffering of the innocent for the guilty is not an\nexecution of justice, but an act of manifest injustice.\u2014We answer, that\nthis is true only upon the supposition that the Son bears the penalty of\nour sins, not voluntarily, but compulsorily; or upon the supposition that\none who is personally innocent can in no way become involved in the guilt\nand penalty of others,\u2014both of them hypotheses contrary to Scripture and\nto fact.\n\n\n The mystery of the atonement lies in the fact of unmerited\n sufferings on the part of Christ. Over against this stands the\n corresponding mystery of unmerited pardon to believers. We have\n attempted to show that, while Christ was personally innocent, he\n was so involved with others in the consequences of the Fall, that\n the guilt and penalty of the race belonged to him to bear. When we\n discuss the doctrine of Justification, we shall see that, by a\n similar union of the believer with Christ, Christ\u2019s justification\n becomes ours.\n\n To one who believes in Christ as the immanent God, the life of\n humanity, the Creator and Upholder of mankind, the bearing by\n Christ of the just punishment of human sin seems inevitable. The\n very laws of nature are only the manifestation of his holiness,\n and he who thus reveals God is also subject to God\u2019s law. The\n historical process which culminated on Calvary was the\n manifestation of an age-long suffering endured by Christ on\n account of his connection with the race from the very first moment\n of their sin. A. H. Strong, Christ in Creation, 80-83\u2014\u201cA God of\n love and holiness must be a God of suffering just so certainly as\n there is sin. Paul declares that he fills up \u2018_that which is\n lacking of the afflictions of Christ ... for his body\u2019s sake,\n which is the church_\u2019 (_Col. 1:24_); in other words, Christ still\n suffers in the believers who are his body. The historical\n suffering indeed is ended; the agony of Golgotha is finished; the\n days when joy was swallowed up in sorrow are past; death has no\n more dominion over our Lord. But sorrow for sin is not ended; it\n still continues and will continue so long as sin exists. But it\n does not now militate against Christ\u2019s blessedness, because the\n sorrow is overbalanced and overborne by the infinite knowledge and\n glory of his divine nature. Bushnell and Beecher were right when\n they maintained that suffering for sin was the natural consequence\n of Christ\u2019s relation to the sinning creation. They were wrong in\n mistaking the nature of that suffering and in not seeing that the\n constitution of things which necessitates it, since it is the\n expression of God\u2019s holiness, gives that suffering a penal\n character and makes Christ a substitutionary offering for the sins\n of the world.\u201d\n\n\n(_e_) That there can be no transfer of punishment or merit, since these\nare personal.\u2014We answer that the idea of representation and suretyship is\ncommon in human society and government; and that such representation and\nsuretyship are inevitable, wherever there is community of life between the\ninnocent and the guilty. When Christ took our nature, he could not do\notherwise than take our responsibilities also.\n\n\n Christ became responsible for the humanity with which he was\n organically one. Both poets and historians have recognized the\n propriety of one member of a house, or a race, answering for\n another. Antigone expiates the crime of her house. Marcus Curtius\n holds himself ready to die for his nation. Louis XVI has been\n called a \u201csacrificial lamb,\u201d offered up for the crimes of his\n race. So Christ\u2019s sacrifice is of benefit to the whole family of\n man, because he is one with that family. But here is the\n limitation also. It does not extend to angels, because he took not\n on him the nature of angels (_Heb. 2:16_\u2014\u201c_For verily not of the\n angels doth he take hold, but he taketh hold of the seed of\n Abraham_\u201d).\n\n \u201cA strange thing happened recently in one of our courts of\n justice. A young man was asked why the extreme penalty should not\n be passed upon him. At that moment, a gray-haired man, his face\n furrowed with sorrow, stepped into the prisoner\u2019s box unhindered,\n placed his hand affectionately upon the culprit\u2019s shoulder, and\n said: \u2018Your honor, we have nothing to say. The verdict which has\n been found against us is just. We have only to ask for mercy.\u2019\n \u2018We!\u2019 There was nothing against this old father. Yet, at that\n moment he lost himself. He identified his very being with that of\n his wayward boy. Do you not pity the criminal son because of your\n pity for his aged and sorrowing father? Because he has so\n suffered, is not your demand that the son suffer somewhat\n mitigated? Will not the judge modify his sentence on that account?\n Nature knows no forgiveness; but human nature does; and it is not\n nature, but human nature, that is made in the image of God\u201d; see\n Prof. A. S. Coats, in The Examiner, Sept. 12, 1889.\n\n\n(_f_) That remorse, as a part of the penalty of sin, could not have been\nsuffered by Christ.\u2014We answer, on the one hand, that it may not be\nessential to the idea of penalty that Christ should have borne the\nidentical pangs which the lost would have endured; and, on the other hand,\nthat we do not know how completely a perfectly holy being, possessed of\nsuper-human knowledge and love, might have felt even the pangs of remorse\nfor the condition of that humanity of which he was the central conscience\nand heart.\n\n\n Instance the lawyer, mourning the fall of a star of his\n profession; the woman, filled with shame by the degradation of one\n of her own sex; the father, anguished by his daughter\u2019s\n waywardness; the Christian, crushed by the sins of the church and\n the world. The self-isolating spirit cannot conceive how perfectly\n love and holiness can make their own the sin of the race of which\n they are a part.\n\n Simon, Reconciliation, 366\u2014\u201cInasmuch as the sin of the human race\n culminated in the crucifixion which crowned Christ\u2019s own\n sufferings, clearly the life of humanity entering him\n subconsciously must have been most completely laden with sin and\n with the fear of death which is its fruit, at the very moment when\n he himself was enduring death in its most terrible form. Of\n necessity therefore he felt as if he were the sinner of sinners,\n and cried out in agony: \u2018_My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken\n me?_\u2019 (_Mat. 27:46_).\u201d\n\n Christ could realize our penal condition. Beings who have a like\n spiritual nature can realize and bear the spiritual sufferings of\n one another. David\u2019s sorrow was not unjust, when he cried: \u201c_Would\n I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son!_\u201d (_2 Sam.\n 18:33_). Moberly, Atonement and Personality, 117\u2014\u201cIs penitence\n possible in the personally sinless? We answer that only one who is\n perfectly sinless can perfectly repent, and this identification of\n the sinless with the sinner is vital to the gospel.\u201d Lucy Larcom:\n \u201cThere be sad women, sick and poor. And those who walk in garments\n soiled; Their shame, their sorrow I endure; By their defeat my\n hope is foiled; The blot they bear is on my name; Who sins, and I\n am not to blame?\u201d\n\n\n(_g_) That the sufferings of Christ, as finite in time, do not constitute\na satisfaction to the infinite demands of the law.\u2014We answer that the\ninfinite dignity of the sufferer constitutes his sufferings a full\nequivalent, in the eye of infinite justice. Substitution excludes identity\nof suffering; it does not exclude equivalence. Since justice aims its\npenalties not so much at the person as at the sin, it may admit equivalent\nsuffering, when this is endured in the very nature that has sinned.\n\n\n The sufferings of a dog, and of a man, have different values.\n Death is the wages of sin; and Christ, in suffering death,\n suffered our penalty. Eternity of suffering is unessential to the\n idea of penalty. A finite being cannot exhaust an infinite curse;\n but an infinite being can exhaust it, in a few brief hours. Shedd,\n Discourses and Essays, 307\u2014\u201cA golden eagle is worth a thousand\n copper cents. The penalty paid by Christ is strictly and literally\n _equivalent_ to that which the sinner would have borne, although\n it is not _identical_. The vicarious bearing of it excludes the\n latter.\u201d Andrew Fuller thought Christ would have had to suffer\n just as much, if only one sinner were to have been saved thereby.\n\n The atonement is a unique fact, only partially illustrated by debt\n and penalty. Yet the terms \u201cpurchase\u201d and \u201cransom\u201d are Scriptural,\n and mean simply that the justice of God punishes sin as it\n deserves; and that, having determined what is deserved, God cannot\n change. See Owen, quoted in Campbell on Atonement, 58, 59.\n Christ\u2019s sacrifice, since it is absolutely infinite, can have\n nothing added to it. If Christ\u2019s sacrifice satisfies the Judge of\n all, it may well satisfy us.\n\n\n(_h_) That if Christ\u2019s passive obedience made satisfaction to the divine\njustice, then his active obedience was superfluous.\u2014We answer that the\nactive obedience and the passive obedience are inseparable. The latter is\nessential to the former; and both are needed to secure for the sinner, on\nthe one hand, pardon, and, on the other hand, that which goes beyond\npardon, namely, restoration to the divine favor. The objection holds only\nagainst a superficial and external view of the atonement.\n\n\n For more full exposition of this point, see our treatment of\n Justification; and also, Owen, in Works, 5:175-204. Both the\n active and the passive obedience of Christ are insisted on by the\n apostle Paul. Opposition to the Pauline theology is opposition to\n the gospel of Christ. Charles Cuthbert Hall, Universal Elements of\n the Christian Religion, 140\u2014\u201cThe effects of this are already\n appearing in the impoverished religious values of the sermons\n produced by the younger generation of preachers, and the\n deplorable decline of spiritual life and knowledge in many\n churches. Results open to observation show that the movement to\n simplify the Christian essence by discarding the theology of St.\n Paul easily carries the teaching of the Christian pulpit to a\n position where, for those who submit to that teaching, the\n characteristic experiences of the Christian life became\n practically impossible. The Christian sense of sin; Christian\n penitence at the foot of the Cross; Christian faith in an atoning\n Savior; Christian peace with God through the mediation of Jesus\n Christ\u2014these and other experiences, which were the very life of\n apostles and apostolic souls, fade from the view of the ministry,\n have no meaning for the younger generation.\u201d\n\n\n(_i_) That the doctrine is immoral in its practical tendencies, since\nChrist\u2019s obedience takes the place of ours, and renders ours\nunnecessary.\u2014We answer that the objection ignores not only the method by\nwhich the benefits of the atonement are appropriated, namely, repentance\nand faith, but also the regenerating and sanctifying power bestowed upon\nall who believe. Faith in the atonement does not induce license, but\n\u201cworks by love\u201d (Gal. 5:6) and \u201ccleanses the heart\u201d (Acts 15:9).\n\n\n Water is of little use to a thirsty man, if he will not drink. The\n faith which accepts Christ ratifies all that Christ has done, and\n takes Christ as a new principle of life. Paul bids Philemon\n receive Onesimus as himself,\u2014not the old Onesimus, but a new\n Onesimus into whom the spirit of Paul has entered (_Philemon 17_).\n So God receives us as new creatures in Christ. Though we cannot\n earn salvation, we must take it; and this taking it involves a\n surrender of heart and life which ensures union with Christ and\n moral progress.\n\n What shall be done to the convicted murderer who tears up the\n pardon which his wife\u2019s prayers and tears have secured from the\n Governor? Nothing remains but to execute the sentence of the law.\n Hon. George F. Danforth, Justice of the New York State Court of\n Appeals, in a private letter says: \u201cAlthough it may be stated in a\n general way that a pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed\n for the offence and the guilt of the offender, so that in the eye\n of the law he is as innocent as if he had never committed the\n offence, the pardon making him as it were a new man with a new\n credit and capacity, yet a delivery of the pardon is essential to\n its validity, and delivery is not complete without acceptance. It\n cannot be forced upon him. In that respect it is like a deed. The\n delivery may be in person to the offender or to his agent, and its\n acceptance may be proved by circumstances like any other fact.\u201d\n\n\n(_j_) That if the atonement requires faith as its complement, then it does\nnot in itself furnish a complete satisfaction to God\u2019s justice.\u2014We answer\nthat faith is not the ground of our acceptance with God, as the atonement\nis, and so is not a work at all; faith is only the medium of\nappropriation. We are saved not by faith, or on account of faith, but only\nthrough faith. It is not faith, but the atonement which faith accepts,\nthat satisfies the justice of God.\n\n\n Illustrate by the amnesty granted to a city, upon conditions to be\n accepted by each inhabitant. The acceptance is not the ground upon\n which the amnesty is granted; it is the medium through which the\n benefits of the amnesty are enjoyed. With regard to the\n difficulties connected with the atonement, we may say, in\n conclusion, with Bishop Butler: \u201cIf the Scripture has, as surely\n it has, left this matter of the satisfaction of Christ mysterious,\n left somewhat in it unrevealed, all conjectures about it must be,\n if not evidently absurd, yet at least uncertain. Nor has any one\n reason to complain for want of further information, unless he can\n show his claim to it.\u201d While we cannot say with President Stearns:\n \u201cChrist\u2019s work removed the hindrances in the eternal justice of\n the universe to the pardon of the sinner, but _how_ we cannot\n tell\u201d\u2014cannot say this, because we believe the main outlines of the\n plan of salvation to be revealed in Scripture\u2014yet we grant that\n many questions remain unsolved. But, as bread nourishes even those\n who know nothing of its chemical constituents, or of the method of\n its digestion and assimilation, so the atonement of Christ saves\n those who accept it, even though they do not know _how_ it saves\n them. Balfour, Foundations of Belief, 264-267\u2014\u201cHeat was once\n thought to be a form of matter; now it is regarded as a mode of\n motion. We can get the good of it, whichever theory we adopt, or\n even if we have no theory. So we may get the good of\n reconciliation with God, even though we differ as to our theory of\n the Atonement.\u201d\u2014\u201cOne of the Roman Emperors commanded his fleet to\n bring from Alexandria sand for the arena, although his people at\n Rome were visited with famine. But a certain shipmaster declared\n that, whatever the emperor commanded, his ship should bring wheat.\n So, whatever sand others may bring to starving human souls, let us\n bring to them the wheat of the gospel\u2014the substitutionary\n atonement of Jesus Christ.\u201d For answers to objections, see\n Philippi, Glaubenslehre, iv, 2:156-180; Crawford, Atonement,\n 384-468; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:526-543; Baird, Elohim Revealed,\n 623 sq.; Wm. Thomson, The Atoning Work of Christ; Hopkins, Works,\n 1:321.\n\n\nE. The Extent of the Atonement.\n\n\nThe Scriptures represent the atonement as having been made for all men,\nand as sufficient for the salvation of all. Not the _atonement_ therefore\nis limited, but the _application_ of the atonement through the work of the\nHoly Spirit.\n\nUpon this principle of a universal atonement, but a special application of\nit to the elect, we must interpret such passages as Eph. 1:4, 7; 2 Tim.\n1:9, 10; John 17:9, 20, 24\u2014asserting a special efficacy of the atonement\nin the case of the elect; and also such passages as 2 Pet. 2:1; 1 John\n2:2; Tim. 2:6; 4:10; Tit. 2:11\u2014asserting that the death of Christ is for\nall.\n\n\n Passages asserting special efficacy of the atonement, in the case\n of the elect, are the following: _Eph. 1:4_\u2014\u201c_chose us in him\n before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and\n without __ blemish before him in love_\u201d; _7_\u2014\u201c_in whom we have our\n redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses,\n according to the riches of his grace_\u201d; _2 Tim. 1:9, 10_\u2014God \u201c_who\n saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our\n works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given\n us in Christ Jesus before times eternal, but hath now been\n manifested by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who\n abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through\n the gospel_\u201d; _John 17:9_\u2014\u201c_I pray for them: I pray not for the\n world, but for those whom thou hast given me_\u201d; _20_\u2014\u201c_Neither for\n these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through\n their word_\u201d; _24_\u2014\u201c_Father, that which thou hast given me, I\n desire that where I am, they also may be with me; that they may\n beheld my glory, which thou hast given me._\u201d\n\n Passages asserting that the death of Christ is for all are the\n following: _2 Pet 2:1_\u2014\u201c_false teachers, who shall privily bring\n in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought\n them_\u201d; _1 John 2:2_\u2014\u201c_and he is the propitiation for our sins;\n and not for ours only, but also for the whole world_\u201d; _1 Tim.\n 2:6_\u2014Christ Jesus \u201c_who gave himself a ransom for all_\u201d;\n _4:10_\u2014\u201c_the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially\n of them that believe_\u201d; _Tit. 2:11_\u2014\u201c_For the grace of God hath\n appeared, bringing salvation to all men._\u201d _Rom. 3:22_ (A.\n V.)\u2014\u201c_unto all and upon all them that believe_\u201d\u2014has sometimes been\n interpreted as meaning \u201cunto all men, and upon all believers\u201d (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n = destination; \u1f10\u03c0\u03af = extent). But the Rev. Vers. omits the words\n \u201c_and upon all_,\u201d and Meyer, who retains the words, remarks that\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 belongs to \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 in both instances.\n\n Unconscious participation in the atonement of Christ, by virtue of\n our common humanity in him, makes us the heirs of much temporal\n blessing. Conscious participation in the atonement of Christ, by\n virtue of our faith in him and his work for us, gives us\n justification and eternal life. Matthew Henry said that the\n Atonement is \u201csufficient for all; effectual for many.\u201d J. M.\n Whiton, in The Outlook, Sept. 25, 1897\u2014\u201cIt was Samuel Hopkins of\n Rhode Island (1721-1803) who first declared that Christ had made\n atonement for all men, not for the elect part alone, as Calvinists\n affirmed.\u201d We should say \u201cas some Calvinists affirmed\u201d; for, as we\n shall see, John Calvin himself declared that \u201cChrist suffered for\n the sins of the whole world.\u201d Alfred Tennyson once asked an old\n Methodist woman what was the news. \u201cWhy, Mr. Tennyson, there\u2019s\n only one piece of news that I know,\u2014that Christ died for all men.\u201d\n And he said to her; \u201cThat is old news, and good news, and new\n news.\u201d\n\n\nIf it be asked in what sense Christ is the Savior of all men, we reply:\n\n(_a_) That the atonement of Christ secures for all men a delay in the\nexecution of the sentence against sin, and a space for repentance,\ntogether with a continuance of the common blessings of life which have\nbeen forfeited by transgression.\n\n\n If strict justice had been executed, the race would have been cut\n off at the first sin. That man lives after sinning, is due wholly\n to the Cross. There is a pretermission, or \u201c_passing over of the\n sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God_\u201d (_Rom. 3:25_),\n the justification of which is found only in the sacrifice of\n Calvary. This \u201c_passing over_,\u201d however, is limited in its\n duration: see _Acts 17:30, 31_\u2014\u201c_The times of ignorance therefore\n God overlooked; but now he commandeth men that they should all\n everywhere repent: inasmuch as he hath appointed a day in which he\n will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath\n ordained._\u201d\n\n One may get the benefit of the law of gravitation without\n understanding much about its nature, and patriarchs and heathen\n have doubtless been saved through Christ\u2019s atonement, although\n they have never heard his name, but have only cast themselves as\n helpless sinners upon the mercy of God. That mercy of God was\n Christ, though they did not know it. Our modern pious Jews will\n experience a strange surprise when they find that not only\n forgiveness of sin but every other blessing of life has come to\n them through the crucified Jesus. _Matt. 8:11_\u2014\u201c_many shall come\n from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and\n Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven._\u201d\n\n Dr. G.W. Northrop held that the work of Christ is universal in\n three respects: 1. It reconciled God to the whole race, apart from\n personal transgression; 2. It secured the bestowment upon all of\n common grace, and the means of common grace; 3. It rendered\n certain the bestowment of eternal life upon all who would so use\n common grace and the means of common grace as to make it morally\n possible for God as a wise and holy Governor to grant his special\n and renewing grace.\n\n\n(_b_) That the atonement of Christ has made objective provision for the\nsalvation of all, by removing from the divine mind every obstacle to the\npardon and restoration of sinners, except their wilful opposition to God\nand refusal to turn to him.\n\n\n Van Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 604\u2014\u201cOn God\u2019s side, all is now taken\n away which could make a separation,\u2014unless any should themselves\n choose to remain separated from him.\u201d The gospel message is not:\n God will forgive if you return; but rather: God _has_ shown mercy;\n only believe, and it is your portion in Christ.\n\n Ashmore, The New Trial of the Sinner, in Christian Review,\n 26:245-264\u2014\u201cThe atonement has come to all men and upon all men.\n Its co\u00ebxtensiveness with the effects of Adam\u2019s sin is seen in that\n all creatures, such as infants and insane persons, incapable of\n refusing it, are saved without their consent, just as they were\n involved in the sin of Adam without their consent. The reason why\n others are not saved is because when the atonement comes to them\n and upon them, instead of consenting to be included in it, they\n reject it. If they are born under the curse, so likewise they are\n born under the atonement which is intended to remove that curse;\n they remain under its shelter till they are old enough to\n repudiate it; they shut out its influences as a man closes his\n window-blind to shut out the beams of the sun; they ward them off\n by direct opposition, as a man builds dykes around his field to\n keep out the streams which would otherwise flow in and fertilize\n the soil.\u201d\n\n\n(_c_) That the atonement of Christ has procured for all men the powerful\nincentives to repentance presented in the Cross, and the combined agency\nof the Christian church and of the Holy Spirit, by which these incentives\nare brought to bear upon them.\n\n\n Just as much sun and rain would be needed, if only one farmer on\n earth were to be benefited. Christ would not need to suffer more,\n if all were to be saved. His sufferings, as we have seen, were not\n the payment of a pecuniary debt. Having endured the penalty of the\n sinner, justice permits the sinner\u2019s discharge, but does not\n require it, except as the fulfilment of a promise to his\n substitute, and then only upon the appointed condition of\n repentance and faith. The _atonement_ is unlimited,\u2014the whole\n human race might be saved through it; the _application_ of the\n atonement is limited,\u2014only those who repent and believe are\n actually saved by it.\n\n Robert G. Farley: \u201cThe prospective mother prepares a complete and\n beautiful outfit for her expected child. But the child is\n still-born. Yet the outfit was prepared just the same as if it had\n lived. And Christ\u2019s work is completed as much for one man as for\n another, as much for the unbeliever as for the believer.\u201d\n\n\nChrist is specially the Savior of those who believe, in that he exerts a\nspecial power of his Spirit to procure their acceptance of his salvation.\nThis is not, however, a part of his work of atonement; it is the\napplication of the atonement, and as such is hereafter to be considered.\n\n\n Among those who hold to a limited atonement is Owen. Campbell\n quotes him as saying: \u201cChrist did not die for all the sins of all\n men; for if this were so, why are not all freed from the\n punishment of all their sins? You will say, \u2018Because of their\n unbelief,\u2014they will not believe.\u2019 But this unbelief is a sin, and\n Christ was punished for it. Why then does this, more than other\n sins, hinder them from partaking of the fruits of his death?\u201d\n\n So also Turretin, loc. 4, qu\u00e6s. 10 and 17; Symington, Atonement,\n 184-234; Candlish on the Atonement; Cunningham, Hist. Theol.,\n 2:323-370; Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:464-489. For the view presented\n in the text, see Andrew Fuller, Works, 2:373, 374; 689-698;\n 706-709; Wardlaw, Syst. Theol., 2:485-549; Jenkyn, Extent of the\n Atonement; E. P. Griffin, Extent of the Atonement; Woods, Works,\n 2:490-521; Richards, Lectures on Theology, 302-327.\n\n\n2. Christ\u2019s Intercessory Work.\n\n\nThe Priesthood of Christ does not cease with his work of atonement, but\ncontinues forever. In the presence of God he fulfils the second office of\nthe priest, namely that of intercession.\n\n\n _Heb. 7:23-25_\u2014\u201c_priests many in number, because that by death\n they are hindered from continuing: but he, because he abideth\n forever, hath his priesthood unchangeable. Wherefore also he is\n able to save to the uttermost them that draw near onto God through\n him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them._\u201d C. H.\n M. on _Ex. 17:12_\u2014\u201cThe hands of our great Intercessor never hang\n down, as Moses\u2019 did, nor does he need any one to hold them up. The\n same rod of God\u2019s power which was used by Moses to smite the rock\n (Atonement) was in Moses\u2019 hand on the hill (Intercession).\u201d\n\n Denney\u2019s Studies in Theology, 166\u2014\u201cIf we see nothing unnatural in\n the fact that Christ prayed for Peter on earth, we need not make\n any difficulty about his praying for us in heaven. The relation is\n the same; the only difference is that Christ is now exalted, and\n prays, not with strong crying and tears, but in the sovereignty\n and prevailing power of one who has achieved eternal redemption\n for his people.\u201d\n\n\nA. Nature of Christ\u2019s Intercession.\u2014This is not to be conceived of either\nas an external and vocal petitioning, nor as a mere figure of speech for\nthe natural and continuous influence of his sacrifice; but rather as a\nspecial activity of Christ in securing, upon the ground of that sacrifice,\nwhatever of blessing comes to men, whether that blessing be temporal or\nspiritual.\n\n\n _1 John 2:1_\u2014\u201c_if any man sin, we have an advocate with the\n Father, Jesus Christ the righteous_\u201d; _Rom. 8:34_\u2014\u201c_It is Jesus\n Christ that died, yea rather, that was raised from the dead, who\n is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for\n us_\u201d\u2014here Meyer seems to favor the meaning of external and vocal\n petitioning, as of the glorified God-man: _Heb. 7:25_\u2014\u201c_ever\n liveth to make intercession for them._\u201d On the ground of this\n effectual intercession he can pronounce the true sacerdotal\n _benediction_; and all the benedictions of his ministers and\n apostles are but fruits and emblems of this (see the Aaronic\n benediction in _Num. 6:24-26_, and the apostolic benedictions in\n _1 Cor. 1:3_ and _2 Cor. 13:14_).\n\n\nB. Objects of Christ\u2019s Intercession.\u2014We may distinguish (_a_) that general\nintercession which secures to all men certain temporal benefits of his\natoning work, and (_b_) that special intercession which secures the divine\nacceptance of the persons of believers and the divine bestowment of all\ngifts needful for their salvation.\n\n\n (_a_) General intercession for all men: _Is. 53:12_\u2014\u201c_he bare the\n sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors_\u201d; _Luke\n 23:34_\u2014\u201c_And Jesus said, Father, forgive them; for they know not\n what they do_\u201d\u2014a beginning of his priestly intercession, even\n while he was being nailed to the cross.\n\n (_b_) Special intercession for his saints: _Mat. 18:19, 20_\u2014\u201c_if\n two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they\n shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in\n heaven. For when two or three are gathered together in my name,\n there am I in the midst of them_\u201d; _Luke 22:31, 32_\u2014\u201c_Simon,\n Simon, behold, Satan asked to have you, that he might sift you as\n wheat: but I made supplication for thee, that thy faith fail\n not_\u201d; _John 14:16_\u2014\u201c_I will pray the Father, and he shall give\n you another Comforter_\u201d; _17:9_\u2014\u201c_I pray for them; I pray not for\n the world, but for those whom thou hast given me_\u201d; _Acts\n 2:33_\u2014\u201c_Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and\n having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he\n hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear_\u201d; _Eph. 1:6_\u2014\u201c_the\n glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the\n Beloved_\u201d; _2:18_\u2014\u201c_through him we both have our access in one\n Spirit unto the Father_\u201d; _3:12_\u2014\u201c_in whom we have boldness and\n access in confidence through our faith in him_\u201d; _Heb. 2:17,\n 18_\u2014\u201c_Wherefore it behooved him in all things to be made like unto\n his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high\n priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the\n sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being\n tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted_\u201d; _4:15,\n 16_\u2014\u201c_For we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with\n the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all\n points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore\n draw near with boldness unto the throne of grace, that we may\n receive mercy, and may find grace to help as in time of need_\u201d; _1\n Pet 2:5_\u2014\u201c_a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices,\n acceptable to God through Jesus Christ_\u201d; _Rev. 5:6_\u2014\u201c_And I saw\n in the midst of the throne ... a Lamb standing, as though it had\n been slain, having seven horns, and seven eyes, which are the\n seven Spirits of God, sent forth into all the earth_\u201d; _7:16,\n 17_\u2014\u201c_They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither\n shall the sun strike upon them, nor any heat: for the lamb that is\n in the midst of the throne shall be their shepherd, and shall\n guide them unto fountains of waters of life: and God shall wipe\n away every tear from their eyes._\u201d\n\n\nC. Relation of Christ\u2019s Intercession to that of the Holy Spirit.\u2014The Holy\nSpirit is an advocate within us, teaching us how to pray as we ought;\nChrist is an advocate in heaven, securing from the Father the answer of\nour prayers. Thus the work of Christ and of the Holy Spirit are\ncomplements to each other, and parts of one whole.\n\n\n _John 14:26_\u2014\u201c_But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the\n Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and\n bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you_\u201d; _Rom.\n 8:26_\u2014\u201c_And in like manner the Spirit __ also helpeth our\n infirmity: for we know not how to pray as we ought; but the Spirit\n himself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be\n uttered_\u201d; _27_\u2014\u201c_and he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is\n the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the\n saints according to the will of God._\u201d\n\n The intercession of the Holy Spirit may be illustrated by the work\n of the mother, who teaches her child to pray by putting words into\n his mouth or by suggesting subjects for prayer. \u201cThe whole Trinity\n is present in the Christian\u2019s closet; the Father hears; the Son\n advocates his cause at the Father\u2019s right hand; the Holy Spirit\n intercedes in the heart of the believer.\u201d Therefore \u201cWhen God\n inclines the heart to pray, He hath an ear to hear.\u201d The impulse\n to prayer, within our hearts, is evidence that Christ is urging\n our claims in heaven.\n\n\nD. Relation of Christ\u2019s Intercession to that of saints.\u2014All true\nintercession is either directly or indirectly the intercession of Christ.\nChristians are organs of Christ\u2019s Spirit. To suppose Christ in us to offer\nprayer to one of his saints, instead of directly to the Father, is to\nblaspheme Christ, and utterly misconceive the nature of prayer.\n\n\n Saints on earth, by their union with Christ, the great high\n priest, are themselves constituted intercessors; and as the high\n priest of old bore upon his bosom the breastplate engraven with\n the names of the tribes of Israel (_Ex. 28:9-12_), so the\n Christian is to bear upon his heart in prayer before God the\n interests of his family, the church, and the world (_1 Tim.\n 3:1_\u2014\u201c_I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications,\n prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings be made for all men_\u201d). See\n Symington on Intercession, in Atonement and Intercession, 256-308;\n Milligan, Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood of our Lord.\n\n Luckock, After Death, finds evidence of belief in the intercession\n of the saints in heaven as early as the second century. Invocation\n of the saints he regards as beginning not earlier than the fourth\n century. He approves the doctrine that the saints pray _for us_,\n but rejects the doctrine that we are to pray _to them_. Prayers\n _for_ the dead he strongly advocates. Bramhall, Works,\n 1:57\u2014Invocation of the saints is \u201cnot necessary, for two reasons:\n _first_, no saint doth love us so well as Christ: no saint hath\n given us such assurance of his love, or done so much for us as\n Christ; no saint is so willing to help us as Christ; and\n _secondly_, we have no command from God to invocate them.\u201d A. B.\n Cave: \u201cThe system of human mediation falls away in the advent to\n our souls of the living Christ. Who wants stars, or even the moon,\n after the sun is up?\u201d\n\n\nIII. The Kingly Office of Christ.\n\n\nThis is to be distinguished from the sovereignty which Christ originally\npossessed in virtue of his divine nature. Christ\u2019s kingship is the\nsovereignty of the divine-human Redeemer, which belonged to him of right\nfrom the moment of his birth, but which was fully exercised only from the\ntime of his entrance upon the state of exaltation. By virtue of this\nkingly office, Christ rules all things in heaven and earth, for the glory\nof God and the execution of God\u2019s purpose of salvation.\n\n(_a_) With respect to the universe at large, Christ\u2019s kingdom is a kingdom\nof power; he upholds, governs, and judges the world.\n\n\n _Ps. 2:6-8_\u2014\u201c_I have set my king.... Thou art my son.... uttermost\n parts of the earth for thy possession_\u201d; _8:6_\u2014\u201c_madest him to\n have dominion over the works of thy hands; Thou hast put all\n things under his feet_\u201d; _cf._ _Heb. 2:8, 9_\u2014\u201c_we see not yet all\n things subjected to him. But we beheld ... Jesus ... crowned with\n glory and honor_\u201d; _Mat. 25:31, 32_\u2014\u201c_when the Son of man shall\n come in his glory ... then shall he sit on the throne of his\n glory: and before him shall be gathered all the nations_\u201d;\n _28:18_\u2014\u201c_All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on\n earth_\u201d; _Heb. 1:3_\u2014\u201c_upholding all things by the word of his\n power_\u201d; _Rev. 19:15, 16_\u2014\u201c_smite the nations ... rule them with a\n rod of iron ... King of Kings, and Lord of Lords._\u201d\n\n Julius M\u00fcller, Proof-texts, 34, says incorrectly, as we think,\n that \u201cthe _regnum natur\u00e6_ of the old theology is\n unsupported,\u2014there are only the _regnum grati\u00e6_ and the _regnum\n glori\u00e6_.\u201d A. J. Gordon: \u201cChrist is now creation\u2019s sceptre-bearer,\n as he was once creation\u2019s burden-bearer.\u201d\n\n\n(_b_) With respect to his militant church, it is a kingdom of grace; he\nfounds, legislates for, administers, defends, and augments his church on\nearth.\n\n\n _Luke 2:11_\u2014\u201c_born to you ... a Savior, who is Christ the lord_\u201d;\n _19:38_\u2014\u201c_Blessed is the King that cometh in the name of the\n Lord_\u201d; _John 18:36, 37_\u2014\u201c_My kingdom is not of this world....\n Thou sayest it, for I am a king.... Every one that is of the truth\n heareth my voice_\u201d; _Eph. 1:22_\u2014\u201c_he put all things in subjection\n under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the\n church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in\n all_\u201d; _Heb. 1:8_\u2014\u201c_of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for\n ever and ever._\u201d\n\n Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:677 (Syst. Doct., 4:142, 143)\u2014\u201cAll great\n men can be said to have an after-influence (_Nachwirkung_) after\n their death, but only of Christ can it be said that he has an\n after-activity (_Fortwirkung_). The sending of the Spirit is part\n of Christ\u2019s work as King.\u201d P. S. Moxom, Bap. Quar. Rev., Jan.\n 1886:25-36\u2014\u201cPre\u00ebminence of Christ, as source of the church\u2019s\n being; ground of the church\u2019s unity; source of the church\u2019s law;\n mould of the church\u2019s life.\u201d A. J. Gordon: \u201cAs the church endures\n hardness and humiliation as united to him who was on the cross, so\n she should exhibit something of supernatural energy as united with\n him who is on the throne.\u201d Luther: \u201cWe tell our Lord God, that if\n he will have his church, he must look after it himself. We cannot\n sustain it, and, if we could, we should become the proudest asses\n under heaven.... If it had been possible for pope, priest or\n minister to destroy the church of Jesus Christ, it would have been\n destroyed long ago.\u201d Luther, watching the proceedings of the Diet\n of Augsburg, made a noteworthy discovery. He saw the stars bestud\n the canopy of the sky, and though there were no pillars to hold\n them up they kept their place and the sky fell not. The business\n of holding up the sky and its stars has been on the minds of men\n in all ages. But we do not need to provide props to hold up the\n sky. God will look after his church and after Christian doctrine.\n For of Christ it has been written in _1 Cor. 15:25_\u2014\u201c_For he must\n reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet._\u201d\n\n \u201cThrice blessed is he to whom is given The instinct that can tell\n That God is in the field when he Is most invisible.\u201d Since Christ\n is King, it is a duty never to despair of church or of the world.\n Dr. E. G. Robinson declared that Christian character was never\n more complete than now, nor more nearly approaching the ideal man.\n We may add that modern education, modern commerce, modern\n invention, modern civilization, are to be regarded as the\n revelations of Christ, the Light of the world, and the Ruler of\n the nations. All progress of knowledge, government, society, is\n progress of his truth, and a prophecy of the complete\n establishment of his kingdom.\n\n\n(_c_) With respect to his church triumphant, it is a kingdom of glory; he\nrewards his redeemed people with the full revelation of himself, upon the\ncompletion of his kingdom in the resurrection and the judgment.\n\n\n _John 17:24_\u2014\u201c_Father, that which thou hast given me, I desire\n that where I am, they also may be with me, that they may behold my\n glory_\u201d; _1 Pet. 3:21, 22_\u2014\u201c_Jesus Christ; who is on the right\n hand of God, having gone into heaven; angels and authorities and\n powers being made subject unto him_\u201d; _2 Pet. 1:11_\u2014\u201c_thus shall\n be richly supplied unto you the entrance into the eternal kingdom\n of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ._\u201d See Andrew Murray, With\n Christ in the School of Prayer, preface, vi\u2014\u201c_Rev. 1:6_\u2014\u2018_made us\n to be a kingdom, to be priests unto his God and Father._\u2019 \u201d Both\n in the king and the priest, the chief thing is power, influence,\n blessing. In the king, it is the power coming downward; in the\n priest, it is the power rising upward, prevailing with God. As in\n Christ, so in us, the kingly power is founded on the priestly:\n _Heb. 7:25_\u2014\u201c_able to save to the uttermost, ... seeing he ever\n liveth to make intercession_\u201d.\n\n Watts, New Apologetic, preface, ix\u2014\u201cWe cannot have Christ as King\n without having him also as Priest. It is as the Lamb that he sits\n upon the throne in the Apocalypse; as the Lamb that he conducts\n his conflict with the kings of the earth; and it is from the\n throne of God on which the Lamb appears that the water of life\n flows forth that carries refreshing throughout the Paradise of\n God.\u201d\n\n Luther: \u201cNow Christ reigns, not in visible, public manner, but\n through the word, just as we see the sun through a cloud. We see\n the light, but not the sun itself. But when the clouds are gone,\n then we see at the same time both light and sun.\u201d We may close our\n consideration of Christ\u2019s Kingship with two practical remarks: 1.\n We never can think too much of the cross, but we may think too\n little of the throne. 2. We can not have Christ as our Prophet or\n our Priest, unless we take him also as our King. On Christ\u2019s\n Kingship, see Philippi, Glaubenslehre, IV, 2:342-351; Van\n Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 586 sq.; Garbett, Christ as Prophet, Priest,\n and King, 2:243-438; J. M. Mason, Sermon on Messiah\u2019s Throne, in\n Works, 3:241-275.","title":"Systematic Theology (Volume 2 of 3)","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":319077}